J-Wave syndromes expert consensus conference report: Emerging concepts and gaps in knowledge.
J-Wave syndromes expert consensus conference report: Emerging concepts and gaps in knowledge.
复制标题
J波综合征专家共识会议报告：新兴概念和知识差距
DOI：
10.1016/j.joa.2016.07.002
复制
发表时间：
2016-10
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Wilde AA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Antzelevitch C;Yan GX;Ackerman MJ;Borggrefe M;Corrado D;Guo J;Gussak I;Hasdemir C;Horie M;Huikuri H;Ma C;Morita H;Nam GB;Sacher F;Shimizu W;Viskin S;Wilde AA
J波综合征（JWS），包括Brugada综合征（BrS）和早期复极综合征（ERS），在1992年Pedro和Josep Brugada将BrS确定为一种新的临床实体后，在过去的20年中引起了心脏病学界的兴趣。1 ERS的临床影响直到2008年才得到充分认识。2-4专门针对BrS的共识会议于2000年和2004年举行，5，6，但专门针对ERS的共识会议以前没有召开过，除了处理术语外，最后一次考虑这两种综合征的指南是在2013年。[7]此后出现了大量新的信息。本论坛的组织，以评估新的信息，并强调新出现的概念方面的鉴别诊断，预后，细胞和离子机制，以及治疗方法的JWS。2015年4月，包括心律协会（HRS）、欧洲心律协会（EHRA）和亚太心律协会（APHRS）成员在内的领先专家在中国上海举行会议。工作队负责审查新出现的概念，并评估支持或反对特定诊断程序和治疗的新证据。已尽一切努力避免因外部关系或个人利益而可能产生的任何实际、潜在或感觉到的利益冲突。本共识报告旨在帮助医疗保健提供者进行临床决策。然而，关于特定患者护理的最终判断必须由医疗保健提供者根据患者提供的所有事实和情况做出。这个工作组的成员被选为代表专业人士参与医疗护理的患者与JWS，以及那些参与研究这些综合征的机制。这些选定的该领域专家对文献进行了全面审查。对诊断方法、风险分层、治疗方法和机制见解进行了严格评价，包括风险受益比的评估。对特定管理方案的证据水平和建议的力度进行了权衡和评级。分类名称建议摘自HRS、EHRA、APHRS和/或欧洲心脏病学会（ESC）共识声明或指南。8，9没有类别名称的建议来自作者的一致意见。本文件中的共识建议使用了常用的I、IIa、IIb和III类分类以及相应的语言：对于I类共识建议，“建议”;对于IIa类共识建议，“可能有用”或“合理”;对于IIb类共识建议，“可考虑”;对于III类共识建议，“不建议”。
The J-wave syndromes (JWSs), consisting of the Brugada syndrome (BrS) and early repolarization syndrome (ERS), have captured the interest of the cardiology community over the past 2 decades following the identification of BrS as a new clinical entity by Pedro and Josep Brugada in 1992. 1 The clinical impact of ERS was not fully appreciated until 2008. 2–4 Consensus conferences dedicated to BrS were held in 2000 and 2004, 5, 6 but a consensus conference specifically focused on ERS has not previously been convened other than that dealing with terminology, and guidelines for both syndromes were last considered in 2013. 7 A great deal of new information has emerged since. The present forum was organized to evaluate new information and highlight emerging concepts with respect to differential diagnosis, prognosis, cellular and ionic mechanisms, and approaches to therapy of the JWSs. Leading experts, including members of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the Asian-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), met in Shanghai, China, in April 2015. The Task Force was charged with a review of emerging concepts and assessment of new evidence for or against particular diagnostic procedures and treatments. Every effort was made to avoid any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that might arise as a result of outside relationships or personal interest. This consensus report is intended to assist health care providers in clinical decision-making. The ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient, however, must be made by the health care provider based on all of the facts and circumstances presented by the patient. Members of this Task Force were selected to represent professionals involved with the medical care of patients with the JWSs, as well as those involved in research into the mechanisms underlying these syndromes. These selected experts in the field undertook a comprehensive review of the literature. Critical evaluation of methods of diagnosis, risk stratification, approaches to therapy, and mechanistic insights was performed, including assessment of the risk-to-benefit ratio. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation of particular management options were weighed and graded. Recommendations with class designations are taken from HRS, EHRA, APHRS, and/or European Society of Cardiology (ESC) consensus statements or guidelines. 8, 9 Recommendations without class designations are derived from unanimous consensus of the authors. The consensus recommendations in this document use the commonly used Class I, IIa, IIb, and III classifications and the corresponding language:“is recommended” for a Class I consensus recommendation;“can be useful” or “is reasonable” for a Class IIa consensus recommendation;“may be considered” for a Class IIb consensus recommendation; and “is not recommended” for a Class III consensus recommendation.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Adler, Arnon;Topaz, Guy;Heller, Karin;Zeltser, David;Ohayon, Tami;Rozovski, Uri;Halkin, Amir;Rosso, Raphael;Ben-Shachar, Shay;Antzelevitch, Charles;Viskin, Sami
通讯作者：
Viskin, Sami
影响因子：
6.1
作者：
Antzelevitch, C
通讯作者：
Antzelevitch, C
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Antzelevitch, C
通讯作者：
Antzelevitch, C
影响因子：
6.2
作者：
Andreasen, Charlotte;Refsgaard, Lena;Olesen, Morten S.
通讯作者：
Olesen, Morten S.
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Ansari, E;Cook, JR
通讯作者：
Cook, JR