Search

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Aim This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The “2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain” provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (U.S.) and incurs significant cost to the healthcare system. Management of cholesterol remains central for ASCVD prevention and has been the focus of multiple national guidelines. In this review, we compare the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Cholesterol guidelines. We review the evidence base that was used to generate recommendations focusing on 4 distinct themes: 1) the threshold of absolute 10-year ASCVD risk to start a clinician-patient discussion for the initiation of statin therapy in primary prevention patients; 2) the utility of coronary artery calcium score to guide clinician-patient risk discussion pertaining to the initiation of statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention; 3) the use of moderate versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with established ASCVD; and 4) the utility of ordering lipid panels after initiation or intensification of lipid lowering therapy to document efficacy and monitor adherence to lipid lowering therapy. We discuss why the VA/DoD and AHA/ACC may have reached different conclusions on these key issues.

Ty J. Gluckman, MD, FACC, Chair Niti R. Aggarwal, MD, FACC Nicole M. Bhave, MD, FACC Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, MACC Olivia N. Gilbert, MD, MSc, FACC Chayakrit Krittanawong, MD Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD, SM, FACC Andrea L. Price, CPHQ, RCIS, AACC Javier A. Sala-Mercado, MD, PhD David E.

Aim:This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.Methods:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.Structure:Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The “2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain” provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Background: The prevalence of cardiovascular events is increasing. There are many new lipids lowering therapies available in recent years. Increased evidence through literature and guidelines suggests that the use of lipid lowering therapy (LLT) benefits patients who are at risk for cardiovascular events.Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the current LLT use as well as patterns of treatment modification among adults ≥ 65 years.Methods: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data between January 2016 and May 2018 was conducted. Patients with a LLT refill and continuous enrollment during 1-year prior and 1-year follow-up were identified. The treatment episodes captured were interruption of therapy, intensity changes, dose changes, treatment augmentation, switching, and discontinuation. An analysis of treatment patterns among patients ≥75 years was also performed.Results: The study included 14,360 patients with a LLT of which 99% of patients were on statins as monotherapy or combination. Overall non-statin therapy use either as monotherapy or combination was 2.1%. There were significant differences among new initiators and existing users of therapy. Among prevalent users 57.4% had no changes in the follow-up period, 13.6% interrupted therapy, and 6.6% discontinued. Among new users, 47.9% patients had interrupted therapy, 25% had no changes, and 21.9% discontinued therapy.Conclusion: Most patients were on monotherapy and statins with low non-statin use. The new users among them were more likely to discontinue and interrupt therapy, highlighting the limitations and issues that older patients face that need to increase adherence.

Individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) often have a high burden of comorbidities. Social determinants of health (SDOH) may complicate adherence to treatment in these patients. This study assessed the association of comorbidities and SDOH among individuals with ASCVD. Cross-sectional data from the 2016 to 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a nationally representative US telephone-based survey of adults ages ≥18 years, were used. Cardiovascular comorbidities included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, current cigarette smoking, and chronic kidney disease. Non-cardiovascular comorbidities included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, arthritis, cancer, and depression. SDOH associated with being at or above the 75

Ty J. Gluckman, MD, FACC, Chair Niti R. Aggarwal, MD, FACC Nicole Martin Bhave, MD, FACC Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, MACC Olivia N. Gilbert, MD, MSc, FACC Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD, SM, FACC Andrea L. Price , MS, CPHQ, RCIS, AACC David E. Winchester, MD, FACC Martha Gulati, MD, MD, FACC–Ex

Deprescribing, an integral component of a continuum of good prescribing practices, is the process of medication withdrawal or dose reduction to correct or prevent medication-related complications, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Deprescribing is particularly applicable to the commonly encountered multimorbid older adult with cardiovascular disease and concomitant geriatric conditions such as polypharmacy, frailty, and cognitive dysfunction-a combination rarely addressed in current clinical practice guidelines. Triggers to deprescribe include present or expected adverse drug reactions, unnecessary polypharmacy, and the need to align medications with goals of care when life expectancy is reduced. Using a framework to deprescribe, this review addresses the rationale, evidence, and strategies for deprescribing cardiovascular and some noncardiovascular medications.

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health [(1)][1]. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify

James L. Januzzi, Jr, MD, FACC, Chair Tariq Ahmad, MD, MPH, FACC Brendan Everett, MD, FACC William Hucker, MD, PHD Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD, SM, FACC Joseph E. Marine, MD, FACC Pamela B. Morris, MD, FACC Robert N. Piana, MD, FACC Sunil V. Rao, MD, FACC Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie, MD, PhD

Aspirin’s place in primary prevention for females has not been well delineated and has been under increased scrutiny in light of recent literature and guideline recommendations. The purpose of this review is to discuss current literature reviewing aspirin use for primary prevention in women and to discuss when use is appropriate. The Women’s Health Study found no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in women randomized to aspirin vs. placebo, though a significant reduction was observed in women ≥ 65 years. More recent literature evaluated outcomes for primary prevention use in patients at increased cardiovascular risk, patients with diabetes, and patients who are elderly. These trials found either no benefit in MACE outcomes or a slight benefit accompanied by an increased risk of bleeding. Furthermore, no difference in outcomes were found in subgroup analyses comparing females receiving aspirin vs. placebo or comparing events in males vs. females. With improvements in risk factor reduction, such as blood pressure control, statin use, diabetes management, and smoking cessation, the role of aspirin for primary prevention in women is still uncertain. Aspirin use for primary prevention in females has failed to show a clear benefit except in women ≥ 65 years old, with a potential increase in bleeding events. An effort to better study aspirin in female patients would allow for better identification of women who would or would not benefit from therapy.

for the 2017 Focused Update to the 2016 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway In 2016, the American College of Cardiology published the first expert consensus decision pathway (ECDP) on the role of non-statin therapies for low-density lipoprotein (LDL)–cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Since the publication of that document, additional evidence and perspectives have emerged from randomized clinical trials and other sources, particularly considering the longer-term efficacy and safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in secondary prevention of ASCVD. Most notably, the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) trial and SPIRE-1 and -2 (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events), assessing evolocumab and bococizumab, respectively, have published final results of cardiovascular outcomes trials in patients with clinical ASCVD and in a smaller number of high-risk primary prevention patients. In addition, further evidence on the types of patients most likely to benefit from the use of ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome has been published. Based on results from these important analyses, the ECDP writing committee judged that it would be desirable to provide a focused update to help guide clinicians more clearly on decision making regarding the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities. In the following summary table, changes from the 2016 ECDP to the 2017 ECDP Focused Update are highlighted, and a brief rationale is provided. The content of the full document has been changed accordingly, with more extensive and detailed guidance regarding decision making provided both in the text and in the updated algorithms. Revised recommendations are provided for patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities on statin therapy for secondary prevention. The ECDP writing committee judged that these new data did not warrant changes to the decision pathways and algorithms regarding the use of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in primary prevention patients with LDL-C

Developed in Collaboration With the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society for Vascular Medicine, Society for Vascular Nursing, Society for Vascular Surgery, and Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society

[Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] Throughout my career, I have had the privilege and the pleasure of participating on numerous high-functioning teams that have served to improve quality in my own institution and/or been formed to address quality, safety, and guideline

Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, MACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair [‡‡‡][1] Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA Joshua A. Beckman, MD, MS, FAHA Kim K. Birtcher, PharmD, MS, AACC Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD

A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association

An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

James L. Januzzi, Jr, MD, FACC, Chair Luis C. Afonso, MBBS, FACC Anthony Bavry, MD, FACC Brendan M. Everett, MD, FACC Jonathan Halperin, MD, FACC Adrian Hernandez, MD, FACC Hani Jneid, MD, FACC Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD, SM, FACC Eva M. Lonn, MD, FACC James K. Min, MD, FACC Pamela B. Morris

Two guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and collaborating societies address the risk of aortic dissection in patients with bicuspid aortic valves and severe aortic enlargement: the “2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease” (Circulation. 2010;121:e266–e369) and the “2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease” (Circulation. 2014;129:e521–e643). However, the 2 guidelines differ with regard to the recommended threshold of aortic root or ascending aortic dilatation that would justify surgical intervention in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. The ACC and AHA therefore convened a subcommittee representing members of the 2 guideline writing committees to review the evidence, reach consensus, and draft a statement of clarification for both guidelines. This statement of clarification uses the ACC/AHA revised structure for delineating the Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence to provide recommendations that replace those contained in Section 9.2.2.1 of the thoracic aortic disease guideline and Section 5.1.3 of the valvular heart disease guideline.

The mission of the American College of Cardiology is "to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health." Cardiovascular team-based care is a paradigm for practice that can transform care, improve heart health, and help meet the demands of the future. One strategic goal of the College is to help members successfully transition their clinical practices to the future, with all its complexity, challenges, and opportunities. The ACC's strategic plan is aligned with the triple aim of improved care, improved population health, and lower costs per capita. The traditional understanding of quality, access, and cost is that you cannot improve one component without diminishing the others. With cardiovascular team-based care, it is possible to achieve the triple aim of improving quality, access, and cost simultaneously to also improve cardiovascular health. Striving to serve the best interests of patients is the true north of our guiding principles. Cardiovascular team-based care is a model that can improve care coordination and communication and allow each team member to focus more on the quality of care. In addition, the cardiovascular team-based care model increases access to cardiovascular care and allows expansion of services to populations and geographic areas that are currently underserved. This document will increase awareness of the important components of cardiovascular team-based care and create an opportunity for more discussion about the most creative and effective means of implementing it. We hope that this document will stimulate further discussions and activities within the ACC and beyond about team-based care. We have identified areas that need improvement, specifically in APP education and state regulation. The document encourages the exploration of collaborative care models that should enable team members to optimize their education, training, experience, and talent. Improved team leadership, coordination, collaboration, engagement, and efficiency will enable the delivery of higher-value care to the betterment of our patients and society.

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. (J Am Coll Cardiol

In 2016, the American College of Cardiology published the first expert consensus decision pathway (ECDP) on the role of non-statin therapies for low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Since the publication of that document, additional evidence and perspectives have emerged from randomized clinical trials and other sources, particularly considering the longer-term efficacy and safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in secondary prevention of ASCVD. Most notably, the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) trial and SPIRE-1 and -2 (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events), assessing evolocumab and bococizumab, respectively, have published final results of cardiovascular outcomes trials in patients with clinical ASCVD and in a smaller number of high-risk primary prevention patients. In addition, further evidence on the types of patients most likely to benefit from the use of ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome has been published. Based on results from these important analyses, the ECDP writing committee judged that it would be desirable to provide a focused update to help guide clinicians more clearly on decision making regarding the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities. In the following summary table, changes from the 2016 ECDP to the 2017 ECDP Focused Update are highlighted, and a brief rationale is provided. The content of the full document has been changed accordingly, with more extensive and detailed guidance regarding decision making provided both in the text and in the updated algorithms. Revised recommendations are provided for patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities on statin therapy for secondary prevention. The ECDP writing committee judged that these new data did not warrant changes to the decision pathways and algorithms regarding the use of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in primary prevention patients with LDL-C 190 mg/dL with or without diabetes mellitus or patients without ASCVD and LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL not due to secondary causes. Based on feedback and further deliberation, the ECDP writing committee down-graded recommendations regarding bile acid sequestrant use, recommending bile acid sequestrants only as optional secondary agents for consideration in patients intolerant to ezetimibe. For clarification, the writing committee has also included new information on diagnostic categories of heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, based on clinical criteria with and without genetic testing. Other changes to the original document were kept to a minimum to provide consistent guidance to clinicians, unless there was a compelling reason or new evidence, in which case justification is provided.

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline recommends high-intensity statin therapy in patients 75 or younger and moderate-intensity statins in patients > 75 years with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including those with ischemic cerebrovascular disease (ICVD). Statin prescribing patterns and their facility-level variation in patients with ICVD are unknown. Methods: We examined the frequency and facility-level variation in the use of any and correct intensity statins in patients with ICVD (ischemic stroke or carotid arterial disease) who received primary care in 130 facilities across the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system with or without concomitant ischemic heart disease (IHD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We then calculated median rate ratios (MRR) adjusted for patient demographic factors to assess the magnitude of facility-level variation in statin prescribing patterns for comparable patients. Results: Among 339,771 ICVD patients, 182,231 (53.6%) had ICVD without IHD (with or without PAD) and 163,730 (48.2%) had ICVD without IHD or PAD. Rates of statin use in the entire ICVD group, patients with ICVD without IHD, and ICVD alone were 78.1%, 70.9% and 69.9%, respectively. Median facility-level rates of any statin use were 78.1% (IQR 75.5-80.7), 70.7% (67.9-73.8) and 69.9% (66.9-73.1), respectively. Correct intensity statins were prescribed among 40.2% of the entire ICVD group, 30.5% with ICVD without IHD, and 29.6% with ICVD alone. Median facility-level rate of correct statin use in all ICVD patients was 39.1% (35.8-43.9), 29.9% (26.0-34.6) for patients with ICVD without IHD and 29.0% (25.4-33.7) in those with ICVD alone.Calculated MRRs reflect approximately 22% variation among two facilities treating two identical ICVD patients with statin therapy and a 27-28% variation in identical ICVD patients for correct statin intensity (Table). Conclusions: The use of statin and especially guideline-recommended statin intensity is suboptimal in ICVD patients, especially patients without concomitant IHD or PAD. There is significant facility-level variation in receipt of guideline directed statin therapy in ICVD patients. Interventions are needed to improve guideline directed moderate to high-intensity statin use and reduce variation in care in this high risk group.

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline recommends high-intensity statin therapy in patients 75 years or younger and moderate-intensity statin therapy in patients > 75 years with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including those with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Statin prescribing patterns and their facility-level variation in patients with PAD are unknown. Methods: We examined the frequency and facility-level variation in the use of any and correct intensity of statins in patients with known PAD receiving primary care in 130 facilities across the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system with or without concomitant ischemic heart disease (IHD) or ischemic cerebrovascular disease (ICVD). We calculated the median rate ratios (MRR) adjusted for patient demographic factors to assess the magnitude of facility-level variation in statin prescribing patterns for comparable patients. Results: Among 194,151 patients with PAD, 88,905 (45.8%) had PAD without IHD (with or without ICVD) and 70,404 (36.3%) had PAD without IHD or ICVD. Rates of statin use in the entire PAD cohort, patients with PAD without IHD and PAD alone were 79.0%, 69.1% and 66.3%, respectively. Median facility-level rates of statin use were 78.9% (IQR 75.9-81.5), 69.2% (65.4-72.6) and 66.4% (62.6-70.1), respectively. Correct intensity statins were prescribed among 40.9% for the entire PAD cohort, 28.9% of those with PAD without IHD, and 26.4% of those with PAD alone. Median facility-level rate of correct statin intensity use in all PAD patients was 40.1% (36.4-44.2), 27.8% (24.1-32.4) for patients with PAD without IHD and 25.3% (10.8-29.7) in patients with PAD alone. Calculated MRRs reflected a 20-22% variation among two facilities in treating identical PAD patients with statin therapy and a 24-28% variation in treating identical patients with correct statin intensity (Table). Conclusions: The use of statin and especially correct statin intensity is suboptimal in PAD patients, especially in PAD patients without concomitant IHD or ICVD. There is a significant facility-level variation in the receipt of guideline directed statin therapy in PAD patients. Interventions are needed to improve guideline directed moderate to high-intensity statin use and to reduce variation in care in this high-risk group.

Study Objectives. To determine whether a vaccination program in a pharmacist-managed secondary prevention lipid clinic increased influenza immunization rates in a high-risk population, and whether age or gender disparity existed among those vaccinated. Design. Retrospective chart review. Setting. Large, multispecialty group practice. Patients. A total of 476 and 266 patients seen at clinic visits during the 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 influenza seasons, respectively. Measurements and Main Results. Immunization rates were compared before (2003–2004 influenza season) and after (2004–2005 influenza season) the implementation of the influenza vaccination program; χ2 analysis was used for all statistical inferences. Vaccination rates increased significantly from 39% to 76% (p

For 3 decades, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly developed clinical practice guidelines in an effort to align patient care with scientific evidence.l The “2015 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Management of Patients With Supraventricular Tachycardia”2 introduces the latest recommendation classification system Table 1, which has continued to evolve. The present brief commentary summarizes and explains the changes incorporated in the current scheme. More detailed reviews of the evolution of ACC/AHA guideline methodology have been published.1,3-5 View this table: Table 1. ACC/AHA Recommendation System: Applying Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence to Clinical Strategies, Interventions, Treatments, or Diagnostic Testing in Patient Care* (Updated August 2015) Guideline recommendations are categorized by the Class of Recommendation (COR) and Level of Evidence (LOE). The COR reflects the magnitude of benefit over risk and corresponds to the strength of the recommendation. Class I recommendations are strong and indicate that the treatment, procedure, or intervention is useful and effective and should be performed or administered for most patients under most circumstances. Class II recommendations are weaker, denoting a lower degree of benefit in proportion to risk. Benefit is generally greater for Class Ila (moderate) recommendations and smaller for Class lib (weak) recommendations, for which benefit only marginally exceeds risk. A …

Several expert panels have written guidelines regarding the treatment of dyslipidemias. The recommendations from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP); American Diabetes Association (ADA); American Heart Association (AHA); National Heart, Blood, and Lung Institute (NHBLI); and National Kidney Foundation (NKF) will be reviewed. The guidelines agree on several points: using the fasting lipid panel as the initial screening tool, targeting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) initially, and achieving lower LDL-C goals. Some guidelines are more aggressive than those of the NCEP: the ADA and AHA have defined low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol as

BACKGROUND Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) is suboptimal. Our goal was to determine whether the performance achievement award program for Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease (GWTG-CAD) was associated with global and sustained adherence to evidence-based guidelines for acute myocardial infarction. METHODS Adherence to evidence-based guidelines was assessed in 170,061 hospitalized acute myocardial infarction patients from 418 US hospitals participating in GWTG-CAD from 2000 to 2008. Hospitals that received a performance achievement award by attaining 85% adherence with 6 GWTG performance measures for at least 12 consecutive months were compared with those that had enrolled in the GWTG-CAD and had not attained this level of adherence. The outcome measures were change in adherence for 6 GWTG performance measures, 9 GWTG quality measures, a composite score, and an all-or-none measure. Generalized estimating equations were used to provide valid inference accounting for the within site correlation. RESULTS Hospitals that maintained 85% adherence with GWTG performance measures for at least 12 consecutive months had a higher composite score (94.78 +/- 15.99% vs. 89.72 +/- 21.37, P < 0.0001) and an all-or-none measure (87.17% vs. 75.15%, P < 0.0001) compared with hospitals that had not yet attained this level of adherence. Hospital adherence with performance and quality measures generally improved over time. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the performance achievement award program for GWTG-CAD was associated with global and sustained adherence to evidence-based guidelines. Our data suggest that this tool is a useful component of a quality improvement initiative and should be considered for other similar programs.