![]() ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary. Table of Contents. Preamble 1. 81. 11. Methodology and Evidence Review 1. Organization of the Writing Committee 1. Document Review and Approval 1. Scope of This Guideline With Reference to Other Relevant Guidelines or Statements 1. Definition of HF 1. HF Classifications 1. Initial and Serial Evaluation of the HF Patient: Recommendations 1. ![]() The Texarkana Gazette is the premier source for local news and sports in Texarkana and the surrounding Arklatex areas. As mentioned many times before, a home prepared diet is a must for your dog if you want him to heal from heart disease. Simply put it is part of the program, if. A low sodium diet is a diet that includes no more than 1,500 to 2,400 mg of sodium per day. The human minimum requirement for sodium in the diet is about 500 mg per. ![]() Clinical Evaluation 1. History and Physical Examination 1. Diagnostic Tests 1. Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging 1. Invasive Evaluation 1. Treatment of Stages A to D: Recommendations 1. Your Health Care Team This chart graphically details the %DV that a serving of Tomatoes provides for each of the nutrients of which it is a good, very good, or excellent source according. The Diamond Level of membership represents the ideal EzineArticles Expert Author and is the highest level of authorship that can be obtained on EzineArticles. If you're looking for new diet to lose weight, beyond diet is not for you! Skeptic user reviews reveal does it work & why diet ALONE is not an option.Nonpharmacological Interventions 1. Pharmacological Treatment for Stage C HFr. EF 1. 82. 16. 3. 3. Pharmacological Treatment for Stage C HFp. EF 1. 82. 46. 3. 4. Device Therapy for Stage C HFr. ![]() EF 1. 82. 66. 4. Water Restriction 1. Inotropic Support 1. Mechanical Circulatory Support 1. Cardiac Transplantation 1. The Hospitalized Patient: Recommendations 1. Precipitating Causes of Decompensated HF 1. Maintenance of GDMT During Hospitalization 1. Diuretics in Hospitalized Patients 1. Renal Replacement Therapy—Ultrafiltration 1. Parenteral Therapy in Hospitalized HF 1. Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients 1. Arginine Vasopressin Antagonists 1. Inpatient and Transitions of Care 1. Important Comorbidities in HF 1. Surgical/Percutaneous/Transcatheter Interventional Treatments of HF: Recommendations 1. Coordinating Care for Patients With Chronic HF: Recommendations 1. Quality Metrics/Performance Measures: Recommendations 1. Evidence Gaps and Future Research Directions. References 1. 83. Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) 1. Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) 1. Preamble. The medical profession should play a central role in evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, and prevention of disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of available data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can improve the quality of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect costs by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. An organized and directed approach to a thorough review of evidence has resulted in the production of clinical practice guidelines that assist clinicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient. Moreover, clinical practice guidelines can provide a foundation for other applications, such as performance measures, appropriate use criteria, and both quality improvement and clinical decision support tools. The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly produced guidelines in the area of cardiovascular disease since 1. The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Task Force), charged with developing, updating, and revising practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases and procedures, directs and oversees this effort. Writing committees are charged with regularly reviewing and evaluating all available evidence to develop balanced, patient- centric recommendations for clinical practice. Experts in the subject under consideration are selected by the ACCF and AHA to examine subject- specific data and write guidelines in partnership with representatives from other medical organizations and specialty groups. Writing committees are asked to perform a literature review; weigh the strength of evidence for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and include estimates of expected outcomes where such data exist. Patient- specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient preference that may influence the choice of tests or therapies are considered. When available, information from studies on cost is considered, but data on efficacy and outcomes constitute the primary basis for the recommendations contained herein. In analyzing the data and developing recommendations and supporting text, the writing committee uses evidence- based methodologies developed by the Task Force. The Class of Recommendation (COR) is an estimate of the size of the treatment effect considering risks versus benefits in addition to evidence and/or agreement that a given treatment or procedure is or is not useful/effective or in some situations may cause harm. The Level of Evidence (LOE) is an estimate of the certainty or precision of the treatment effect. The writing committee reviews and ranks evidence supporting each recommendation with the weight of evidence ranked as LOE A, B, or C according to specific definitions that are included in Table 1. Studies are identified as observational, retrospective, prospective, or randomized where appropriate. For certain conditions for which inadequate data are available, recommendations are based on expert consensus and clinical experience and are ranked as LOE C. When recommendations at LOE C are supported by historical clinical data, appropriate references (including clinical reviews) are cited if available. For issues for which sparse data are available, a survey of current practice among the clinicians on the writing committee is the basis for LOE C recommendations and no references are cited. The schema for COR and LOE are summarized in Table 1, which also provides suggested phrases for writing recommendations within each COR. A new addition to this methodology is separation of the Class III recommendations to delineate whether the recommendation is determined to be of “no benefit” or is associated with “harm” to the patient. In addition, in view of the increasing number of comparative effectiveness studies, comparator verbs and suggested phrases for writing recommendations for the comparative effectiveness of one treatment or strategy versus another have been added for COR I and IIa, LOE A or B only. Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendation and Level of Evidence. In view of the advances in medical therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular diseases, the Task Force has designated the term guideline- directed medical therapy (GDMT) to represent optimal medical therapy as defined by ACCF/AHA guideline. This new term, GDMT, will be used herein and throughout all future guidelines. Because the ACCF/AHA practice guidelines address patient populations (and clinicians) residing in North America, drugs that are not currently available in North America are discussed in the text without a specific COR. For studies performed in large numbers of subjects outside North America, each writing committee reviews the potential influence of different practice patterns and patient populations on the treatment effect and relevance to the ACCF/AHA target population to determine whether the findings should inform a specific recommendation. The ACCF/AHA practice guidelines are intended to assist clinicians in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diagnosis, management, and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. The ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the clinician and patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. As a result, situations may arise for which deviations from these guidelines may be appropriate. Clinical decision making should involve consideration of the quality and availability of expertise in the area where care is provided. When these guidelines are used as the basis for regulatory or payer decisions, the goal should be improvement in quality of care. The Task Force recognizes that situations arise in which additional data are needed to inform patient care more effectively; these areas will be identified within each respective guideline when appropriate. Prescribed courses of treatment in accordance with these recommendations are effective only if followed. Because lack of patient understanding and adherence may adversely affect outcomes, clinicians should make every effort to engage the patient’s active participation in prescribed medical regimens and lifestyles. In addition, patients should be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a particular treatment and be involved in shared decision making whenever feasible, particularly for COR IIa and IIb, for which the benefit- to- risk ratio may be lower. The Task Force makes every effort to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of industry relationships or personal interests among the members of the writing committee. All writing committee members and peer reviewers of the guideline are required to disclose all current healthcare- related relationships, including those existing 1. In December 2. 00. ACCF and AHA implemented a new policy for relationship with industry and other entities (RWI) that requires the writing committee chair plus a minimum of 5. RWI (Appendix 1 includes the ACCF/AHA definition of relevance). These statements are reviewed by the Task Force and all members during each conference call and/or meeting of the writing committee and are updated as changes occur. All guideline recommendations require a confidential vote by the writing committee and must be approved by a consensus of the voting members. Members are not permitted to draft or vote on any text or recommendations pertaining to their RWI. Members who recused themselves from voting are indicated in the list of writing committee members, and specific section recusals are noted in Appendix 1. Authors’ and peer reviewers’ RWI pertinent to this guideline are disclosed in Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. Additionally, to ensure complete transparency, writing committee members’ comprehensive disclosure information—including RWI not pertinent to this document—is available as an online supplement. Comprehensive disclosure information for the Task Force is also available online at http: //www.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |