2007 chronic angina focused update of the ACC/AHA 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines writing group to develop the focused update of the 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina
2007 chronic angina focused update of the ACC/AHA 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines writing group to develop the focused update of the 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina
复制标题
DOI：
10.1161/circulationaha.107.187930
复制
发表时间：
2007-12-04
期刊：
影响因子：
37.8
通讯作者：
Williams, Sankey V.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fraker, Theodore D., Jr.;Fihn, Stephan D.;Williams, Sankey V.
1.1.证据审查在2005年和2006年ACC、AHA和欧洲心脏病学会的年度科学会议上提交的最新临床试验，以及在同一时期发表的选定的其他数据，由常设指南编写委员会与上级工作组沿着和其他专家进行审查，以确定这些试验和其他可能影响指南建议的关键数据。基于上述标准/考虑，在决定是否有足够重要的证据促使对2002年ACC/AHA慢性稳定型心绞痛患者管理指南进行重点更新时，考虑了最近的试验数据和其他临床信息（3-9）。在对标准进行考虑和评估后，2006年AHA冠状动脉和其他动脉粥样硬化血管疾病患者二级预防指南（8）被认为足够重要，足以促使这一重点更新。ACC/AHA 2002年慢性稳定型心绞痛患者管理指南的重点更新突出了2006年AHA/ACC冠状动脉和其他动脉粥样硬化血管疾病患者二级预防指南。只有与慢性心绞痛患者的二级预防相关的建议被修订。2007年9月，ACC/AHA实践指南工作组召集了一个写作委员会，以修订稳定性缺血性心脏病患者管理的完整指南。这个写作委员会将考虑所有最近的证据，包括最近提出的最新临床试验。有关重点更新未涵盖的临床领域的政策，请参阅ACC/AHA 2002年慢性稳定型心绞痛患者管理指南更新的全文或执行摘要（10）。本次重点更新中更新的个别建议将被纳入指南全文的未来修订和/或更新中。委员会的组织和与行业的关系对于这一重点更新，2002年慢性心绞痛写作委员会的所有成员都被邀请参加;那些同意的人（称为2007年重点更新写作小组）被要求披露与正在考虑的数据相关的所有行业关系（2）。与行业没有重大相关关系的重点更新编写小组成员编写了重点更新的初稿;然后由整个编写小组审查和修订该草案。每一项建议都需要编写小组成员在对文件进行外部审查之前进行秘密投票。任何与该建议相关的行业有重大关系（超过10 000美元）的编写委员会成员都被要求回避对该建议的投票。
1.1. Evidence Review Late-breaking clinical trials presented at the 2005 and 2006 annual scientific meetings of the ACC, AHA, and European Society of Cardiology, as well as selected other data published during the same time period, were reviewed by the standing guideline writing committee along with the parent Task Force and other experts to identify those trials and other key data that might impact guideline recommendations. On the basis of the criteria/considerations noted above, recent trial data and other clinical information were considered when deciding whether there was evidence important enough to prompt a focused update of the 2002 ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina (3–9). After consideration and evaluation of the criteria, the 2006 AHA Guidelines for Secondary Prevention for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease (8) were considered important enough to prompt this focused update. This focused update of the ACC/AHA 2002 Guideline Update for the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina spotlights the 2006 AHA/ACC Guidelines for Secondary Prevention for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease. Only recommendations related to secondary prevention in patients with chronic angina have been revised. In September 2007, the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines convened a writing committee to revise the full guideline for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. This writing committee will consider all the recent evidence, including late-breaking clinical trials recently presented. Consult the full-text version or executive summary of the ACC/AHA 2002 Guideline Update for the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina for policy on clinical areas not covered by the focused update (10). Individual recommendations updated in this focused update will be incorporated into future revisions and/or updates of the full-text guidelines.1.2. Organization of Committee and Relationships With Industry For this focused update, all members of the 2002 Chronic Angina Writing Committee were invited to participate; those who agreed (referred to as the 2007 Focused Update Writing Group) were required to disclose all relationships with industry relevant to the data under consideration (2). Focused Update Writing Group members who had no significant relevant relationships with industry authored the first draft of the focused update; the draft was then reviewed and revised by the full writing group. Each recommendation required a confidential vote by the writing group members prior to external review of the document. Any writing committee member with a significant (greater than $10 000) relationship with industry relevant to the recommendation was recused from voting on that recommendation.