Search

Periprocedural management of anticoagulation is a common clinical conundrum that involves a multidisciplinary team, cuts across many specialties, and varies greatly between institutions in the way it is practiced. Nowhere is this more evident than in the management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although they have been found to improve patient outcomes, standardized evidence-based protocols are infrequently in place. The frequency of anticoagulant interruption in preparation for a procedure is high, with an estimated 250,000 patients undergoing temporary interruption annually in North America alone. Knowledge about risk of bleeding and short-term thrombotic risk resides in many specialties, further complicating the issue. Our goal in creating this pathway is to help guide clinicians in the complex decision making in this area. In this document, we aim to: 1) validate the appropriateness of the decision to chronically anticoagulate; 2) guide clinicians in the decision of whether to interrupt anticoagulation; 3) provide direction on how to interrupt anticoagulation with specific guidance for vitamin K antagonists and direct-acting oral anticoagulants; 4) evaluate whether to bridge with a parenteral agent periprocedurally; 5) offer advice on how to bridge; and 6) outline the process of restarting anticoagulation post-procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Khan and colleagues' meta-analysis addresses the care of patients with atrial fibrillation following coronary stent placement who require anticoagulation to mitigate stroke risk and antiplatelet therapy to promote stent patency. The editorial discusses the findings and how to best balance the risks of bleeding and thrombosis that such patients face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reviews the early attempts to prevent sudden cardiac death with oral antiarrhythmic drugs and the parallel development and efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). Risk factors for sudden cardiac arrest; Clinical trials of antiarrhythmic drugs; Trials of antiarrhythmics versus ICD devices.

We have evaluated the influence of several factors on the binding of disopyramide to protein in human serum using a new ultrafiltration system and the enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) for disopyramide immuno-assay. From these studies and those of other investigators, we conclude that the most significant in vivo factors influencing disopyramide binding in human serum are total disopyramide concentration, the concentration of α4-acid glycoprotein, and the concentration of mono-N-dealkyldisopyramide. Significant variation in binding occurs in patients whose total disopyramide concentration is within the therapeutic range. The proportion of free disopyramide ranged from 16% to 54% in the sera of SO cardiac patients whose total disopyramide concentration ranged from 0.5 to 5.8 mcg/ml. Since there is so much variation in the proportion of disopyramide that is free, and since it is the unbound form of the drug that is pharmacologically active, it is likely in patients whose arrhythmia responds to disopyramide therapy that unbound drug concentration will be a better indicator of drug efficacy and toxicity than will be total drug concentration. To test this hypothesis, we are investigating the relationship between steady state total and unbound disopyramide plasma levels in patients with supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias, and pharmacologic response as determined by standard intracardiac electrophysiologic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The past decade has witnessed important advances in the understanding of the mechanism underlying ventricular arrhythmias. It has become clear that sustained ventricular arrhythmias can generally be reproduced with programmed ventricular stimulation in the clinical electrophysiology laboratory. False positive results may, however, occur with very vigorous stimulation techniques, particularly in patients without documented arrhythmias. False negative results are not infrequent in victims of cardiac arrest. Ability or inability to initiate ventricular tachycardia during acute and chronic drug testing has predicted clinical failure or success, at least for conventional antiarrhythmics. Patients with sustained ventriculartachycardia and cardiac arrest occurring outside the peri-infarction period are those most likely to benefit from study. Conventional antiarrhythmic agents are successful in about one-third of patients with a high degree of concordance among these drugs. Amiodarone is frequently effective in patients with drug-refractory ventricular arrhythmias. However, its efficacy cannot be predicted by programmed stimulation. This is in striking contrast to Type 1A anti-arrhythmic agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interruption of oral anticoagulation (AC) for surgery or an invasive procedure is a complicated process. Practice guidelines provide only general recommendations, and care of such patients occurs across multiple specialties. The availability of direct oral anticoagulants further complicates decision making and guidance here is limited. To evaluate current practice patterns in the United States for bridging AC, a survey was developed by the American College of Cardiology Anticoagulation Work Group. The goal of the survey was to assess how general and subspecialty cardiologists, internists, gastroenterologists, and orthopedic surgeons currently manage patients who receive AC and undergo surgery or an invasive procedure. The survey was completed by 945 physicians involved in the periprocedural management of AC. The results provide a template for educational and research projects geared toward the development of clinical pathways and point-of-care tools to improve this area of health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation has become more complex due to the introduction of new anticoagulant agents, the number and kinds of patients requiring therapy, and the interactions of those patients in the matrix of care. The management of anticoagulation has become a “team sport” involving multiple specialties in multiple sites of care. The American College of Cardiology, through the College’s Anticoagulation Initiative, convened a roundtable of experts from multiple specialties to discuss topics important to the management of patients requiring anticoagulation and to make expert recommendations on issues such as the initiation and interruption of anticoagulation, quality of anticoagulation care, management of major and minor bleeding, and treatment of special populations. The attendees continued to work toward consensus on these topics, and present the key findings of this roundtable in a state-of- the-art review focusing on the practical aspects of anticoagulation care for the patient with atrial fibrillation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has challenged health-care systems and physicians worldwide to attempt to provide the best care to their patients with an evolving understanding of this unique pathogen. This disease and its worldwide impact have sparked tremendous interest in the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical consequences of COVID-19. This accumulating body of evidence has centered around case series and often empiric therapies as controlled trials are just getting underway. What is clear is that patients appear to be at higher risk for thrombotic disease states including acute coronary syndrome (ACS), venous thromboembolism (VTE) such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or stroke. Patients with underlying cardiovascular disease are also at higher risk for morbidity and mortality if infected. These patients are commonly treated with anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet medications and less commonly thrombolysis during hospitalization, potentially with great benefit but the management of these medications can be difficult in potentially critically ill patients. In an effort to align practice patterns across a large health system (Jefferson Health 2,622 staffed inpatient beds and 319 intensive care unit (ICU) beds across 14 facilities), a task force was assembled to address the utilization of anti-thrombotic and anti-platelet therapy in COVID-19 positive or suspected patients. The task force incorporated experts in Cardiology, Vascular Medicine, Hematology, Vascular Surgery, Pharmacy, and Vascular Neurology. Current guidelines, consensus documents, and policy documents from specialty organizations were used to formulate health system recommendations., Objective: Our goal is to provide guidance to the utilization of antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapies in patients with known or suspected COVID-19.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) collaborated with the American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Pediatric Echocardiography to develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for multimodality imaging during the follow-up care of patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). This is the first AUC to address cardiac imaging in adult and pediatric patients with established CHD. A number of common patient scenarios (also termed "indications") and associated assumptions and definitions were developed using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of CHD. 1 The indications relate primarily to evaluation before and after cardiac surgery or catheter-based intervention, and they address routine surveillance as well as evaluation of new-onset signs or symptoms. The writing group developed 324 clinical indications, which they separated into 19 tables according to the type of cardiac lesion. Noninvasive cardiac imaging modalities that could potentially be used for these indications were incorporated into the tables, resulting in a total of 1,035 unique scenarios. These scenarios were presented to a separate, independent panel for rating, with each being scored on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 to 3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4 to 6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7 to 9 as "Appropriate." Forty-four percent of the scenarios were rated as Appropriate, 39% as May Be Appropriate, and 17% as Rarely Appropriate. This AUC document will provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with established CHD by identifying the reasonable imaging modality options available for evaluation and surveillance of such patients. It will also serve as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of Rarely Appropriate tests in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2020 The American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This document is the second of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The first document (J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1647-1672) addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas this document addresses this topic with regard to structural (nonvalvular) heart disease. While dealing with different subjects, the 2 documents do share a common structure and feature some clinical overlap. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of structural and valvular heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities.Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines.A separate, independent rating panel scored the 102 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario.The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations in which diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

This document is 1 of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. This document addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas the second, companion document addresses this topic with regard to structural heart disease. Although there is clinical overlap, the documents addressing valvular and structural heart disease are published separately, albeit with a common structure. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of valvular and structural heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the 92 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations where diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The American College of Cardiology collaborated with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons to develop and evaluate Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This is the first AUC to address the topic of AS and its treatment options, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A number of common patient scenarios experienced in daily practice were developed along with assumptions and definitions for those scenarios, which were all created using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of AS. The 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines(1) and its 2017 focused update paper (2) were used as the primary guiding references in developing these indications. The writing group identified 95 clinical scenarios based on patient symptoms and clinical presentation, and up to 6 potential treatment options for those patients. A separate, independent rating panel was asked to score each indication from 1 to 9, with 1-3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4-6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7-9 as "Appropriate." After considering factors such as symptom status, left ventricular (LV) function, surgical risk, and the presence of concomitant coronary or other valve disease, the rating panel determined that either SAVR or TAVR is Appropriate in most patients with symptomatic AS at intermediate or high surgical risk; however, situations commonly arise in clinical practice in which the indications for SAVR or TAVR are less clear, including situations in which 1 form of valve replacement would appear reasonable when the other is less so, as do other circumstances in which neither intervention is the suitable treatment option. The purpose of this AUC is to provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with severe AS by identifying the reasonable treatment and intervention options available based on the myriad clinical scenarios with which patients present. This AUC document also serves as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of rarely appropriate interventions in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American College of Cardiology Foundation along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical presentations for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) to consider use of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures. This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging (RNI), stress echocardiography (Echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. A major innovation in this document is the rating of tests side by side for the same indication. The side-by-side rating removes any concerns about differences in indication or interpretation stemming from prior use of separate documents for each test. However, the ratings were explicitly not competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and range of capabilities available in any given local setting. The indications for this review are limited to the detection and risk assessment of SIHD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Eighty clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate rating panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate use following a modified Delphi process following the recently updated AUC development methodology. The use of some modalities of testing in the initial evaluation of patients with symptoms representing ischemic equivalents, newly diagnosed heart failure, arrhythmias, and syncope was generally found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate, except in cases where low pre-test probability or low risk limited the benefit of most testing except exercise electrocardiogram (ECG). Testing for the evaluation of new or worsening symptoms following a prior test or procedure was found to be Appropriate. In addition, testing was found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate for patients within 90 days of an abnormal or uncertain prior result. Pre-operative testing was rated Appropriate or May Be Appropriate only for patients who had poor functional capacity and were undergoing vascular or intermediate risk surgery with 1 or more clinical risk factors or an organ transplant. The exercise ECG was suggested as an Appropriate test for cardiac rehabilitation clearance or for exercise prescription purposes. Testing in asymptomatic patients was generally found to be Rarely Appropriate, except for calcium scoring and exercise testing in intermediate and high-risk individuals and either stress or anatomic imaging in higher-risk individuals, which were all rated as May Be Appropriate. All modalities of follow-up testing after a prior test or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 2 years and within 5 years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the absence of new symptoms were rated Rarely Appropriate. Pre-operative testing for patients with good functional capacity, prior normal testing within 1 year, or prior to low-risk surgery also were found to be Rarely Appropriate. Imaging for an exercise prescription or prior to the initiation of cardiac rehabilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for cardiac rehabilitation clearance for heart failure patients.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical presentations for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) to consider use of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures. This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging (RNI), stress echocardiography (Echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. A major innovation in this document is the rating of tests side by side for the same indication. The side-by-side rating removes any concerns about differences in indication or interpretation stemming from prior use of separate documents for each test. However, the ratings were explicitly not competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and range of capabilities available in any given local setting. The indications for this review are limited to the detection and risk assessment of SIHD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Eighty clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate rating panel on a scale of 1-9, to designate Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate use following a modified Delphi process following the recently updated AUC development methodology. The use of some modalities of testing in the initial evaluation of patients with symptoms representing ischemic equivalents, newly diagnosed heart failure, arrhythmias, and syncope was generally found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate, except in cases where low pre-test probability or low risk limited the benefit of most testing except exercise electrocardiogram (ECG). Testing for the evaluation of new or worsening symptoms following a prior test or procedure was found to be Appropriate. In addition, testing was found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate for patients within 90 days of an abnormal or uncertain prior result. Pre-operative testing was rated Appropriate or May Be Appropriate only for patients who had poor functional capacity and were undergoing vascular or intermediate risk surgery with 1 or more clinical risk factors or an organ transplant. The exercise ECG was suggested as an Appropriate test for cardiac rehabilitation clearance or for exercise prescription purposes. Testing in asymptomatic patients was generally found to be Rarely Appropriate, except for calcium scoring and exercise testing in intermediate and high-risk individuals and either stress or anatomic imaging in higher-risk individuals, which were all rated as May Be Appropriate. All modalities of follow-up testing after a prior test or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 2 years and within 5 years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the absence of new symptoms were rated Rarely Appropriate. Pre-operative testing for patients with good functional capacity, prior normal testing within 1 year, or prior to low-risk surgery also were found to be Rarely Appropriate. Imaging for an exercise prescription or prior to the initiation of cardiac rehabilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for cardiac rehabilitation clearance for heart failure patients.