Abbonarsi

Levels of evidence supporting drug, device, and other recommendations in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines - 16/08/20

Doi : 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.05.003 
Alexander C. Fanaroff, MD, MHS a, , Marat Fudim, MD, MHS b, Robert M. Califf, MD c, Stephan Windecker, MD d, Sidney C. Smith, MD e, Renato D. Lopes, MD, PhD, MHS b
a Penn Cardiovascular Outcomes, Quality and Evaluative Research Center, Leonard Davis Institute, and Cardiovascular Medicine Division, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 
b Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA 
c Verily Life Sciences (Alphabet), South San Francisco, CA, USA 
d Department of Cardiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 
e Division of Cardiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA 

Reprint requests: Alexander Fanaroff, MD, MHS, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104.3400 Civic Center BlvdPhiladelphiaPA19104

Background

Clinical guideline documents reflect the evidence supporting clinical practice, but few recommendations in cardiovascular guidelines are supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the highest level of evidence. Incentives for generating evidence from RCTs differ by topic of guideline recommendation, and it is uncertain whether evidence supporting guideline recommendations differs based on the topic of the recommendation.

Methods

We abstracted recommendation statements from current ACC/AHA guideline documents (2008–2019). Two reviewers independently characterized each statement into categories based on its primary topic: pharmaceutical, device, non-invasive or minimally invasive therapeutic procedure, surgery, diagnostic invasive procedure or non-invasive imaging, laboratory, care strategies, health services or policy, history/physical examination, lifestyle or counseling. We determined the number and proportion of recommendations in each category characterized as level of evidence (LOE) A (supported by multiple RCTs), B (supported by a single RCT or observational data), and C (supported by expert opinion or limited data).

Results

Of 2934 recommendations from 29 clinical guideline documents, 784 (26.7%) were primarily about pharmaceuticals, 503 (17.1%) diagnostic invasive procedure or non-invasive imaging, 366 (12.5%) devices, 349 (11.9%) care strategies, 274 (9.3%) surgery, 216 (7.4%) therapeutic procedures, 162 (5.5%) lifestyle interventions or counseling, 160 (5.5%) health services, care delivery, or policy, 83 (2.8%) laboratory, and 37 (1.3%) elements of the history and physical. Across all recommendations, 257 (8.8%) were characterized as LOE A, with considerable variability by topic. 25.9% of lifestyle/counseling recommendations, 16.9% of lab recommendations, and 14.7% of drug recommendations were classified as LOE A, but <8% of recommendations in all other categories, including 5.5% of device recommendations, 6.0% of therapeutic procedure recommendations, 2.6% of surgery recommendations, and 5.0% of health services or policy recommendations.

Conclusion

Less than 10% of current ACC/AHA guideline recommendations are supported by high quality evidence from RCTs, with substantial variability by topic and multiple areas with very few recommendations supported by high-quality evidence. Development and implementation of inexpensive methods for generating a higher volume of RCT evidence to support clinical practice are needed, especially in areas where there are not strong incentives to conduct RCTs.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Mappa


© 2020  Elsevier Inc. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 226

P. 4-12 - Agosto 2020 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Transcatheter InterAtrial Shunt Device for the treatment of heart failure: Rationale and design of the pivotal randomized trial to REDUCE Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients with Heart Failure II (REDUCE LAP-HF II)
  • Natalia Berry, Laura Mauri, Ted Feldman, Jan Komtebedde, Dirk J. van Veldhuisen, Scott D. Solomon, Joseph M. Massaro, Sanjiv J. Shah
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Outcomes and cost among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure assigned to accountable care organizations
  • Nancy Luo, Bradley G. Hammill, Adam D. DeVore, Haolin Xu, Gregg C. Fonarow, Nancy M. Albert, Roland A. Matsouaka, Adrian F. Hernandez, Clyde Yancy, Robert J. Mentz

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2025 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.