An organized and directed approach to a thorough review of evidence has resulted in the production of clinical practice guidelines that assist physicians in selecting the best management strategy for ...an individual patient. ...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. 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.\n Jude Medical The Medicines Company* None None James Bernard Hermiller Content Reviewer--ACCF Interventional Scientific Council Abbott Boston Scientific St. Jude Medical Eli Lilly None None None None Fred M. Kosumoto Content Reviewer None None None None None None Glenn Levine Content Reviewer None None None None None None Roxana Mehran Content Reviewer Abbott Vascular AstraZeneca Ortho-McNeill None None BMS/Sanofi-aventis* The Medicines Company* None None M. Eugene Sherman Content Reviewer--ACCF Board of Governors None Eli Lilly* None None None None Daniel I. Simon Content Reviewer Cordis/Johnson & Johnson Daiichi-Sankyo Eli Lilly Medtronic Sanofi-aventis The Medicines Company None None None None Defendant, DES Intellectual Property Case, 2010 Richard W. Smalling Content Reviewer--ACCF Interventional Scientific Council AGA Medical None None AGA Medical* Cordis* eValve* AGA Medical Cordis eValve None William G. Stevenson Content Reviewer-- ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines None None None None None None William A. Tansey III Content Reviewer None None None None None None David D. Waters Content Reviewer Bristol-Myers Squibb Pfizer None None None Merck/Schering-Plough Sanofi-aventis (DSMB) None Christopher J. White Content Reviewer None None None Boston Scientificdagger St. Jude Medical None None Clyde W. Yancy Content Reviewer-- ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines None None None None None None Yerem Yeghiazarians Content Reviewer None None None None None None * This table represents the relationships of reviewers with industry and other entities that were disclosed at the time of peer review and determined to be relevant. Names are listed in alphabetical order within each category of review.According to the ACCF/AHA, a person has a relevant relationship IF: a) The relationship or interest relates to the same or similar subject matter, intellectual property or asset, topic, or issue addressed in the document; or b) The company/entity (with whom the relationship exists) makes a drug, drug class, or device addressed in the document, or makes a competing drug or device addressed in the document; or c) The person or a member of the person's household has a reasonable potential for financial, professional, or other personal gain or loss as a result of the issues/content addressed in the document.ACCF indicates American College of Cardiology Foundation; ACEP, American College of Emergency Physicians; AHA, American Heart Association; DES, drug-eluting stent; DSMB, data safety monitoring board; and SCAI, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.
In an effort to respond promptly to new evidence, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines has created a "focused update" ...process to revise the existing guideline recommendations that are affected by evolving data or opinion. Specific criteria/considerations for inclusion of new data include the following: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; large randomized, placebo-controlled trial(s); nonrandomized data deemed important on the basis of results that affect current safety and efficacy assumptions; strength/weakness of research methodology and findings; likelihood of additional studies influencing current findings; impact on current performance measure(s) and/or likelihood of need to develop new performance measure(s); requests and requirements for review and update from the practice community, key stakeholders, and other sources free of relationships with industry or other potential bias; number of previous trials showing consistent results; and need for consistency with a new guideline or guideline revision. Death/MI/CVA/revascularization: 15.8 versus 13.7; P=0.44 Appendix 6 Outcomes of PCI Versus CABG for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft surgery; CI, confidence interval; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; HR, hazard ratio; MACE, major adverse cardiac events; MI, myocardial infarction; NS, not significant; OR, odds ratio; RR, relative risk; and PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.When possible, 95% CIs reported were provided for RR, OR, or HR calculations along with probability values.
PDF
