ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: Executive summary and recommendations - A report of the American College of Cardiology American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Chronic Stable Angina)
ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: Executive summary and recommendations - A report of the American College of Cardiology American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Chronic Stable Angina)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1161/01.cir.99.21.2829
复制
发表时间：
1999-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
37.8
通讯作者：
Smith, SC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gibbons, RJ;Chatterjee, K;Smith, SC
美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会 (ACC/AHA) 实践指南工作组的成立旨在就已知或疑似心血管疾病患者的诊断和治疗提出建议。缺血性心脏病是美国唯一的主要死亡原因。这种疾病最常见的表现是慢性稳定性心绞痛。认识到管理这一共同实体的重要性以及该领域缺乏国家临床实践指南，工作组成立了慢性稳定型心绞痛患者管理委员会，以制定稳定型心绞痛的管理指南。由于这一问题在内科实践中经常遇到，工作组邀请美国内科医师学会-美国内科医学会（ACP-ASIM）作为合作伙伴，并确定了 3 名普通内科医生担任委员会成员。该指南任意分为4个部分：诊断、风险分层、治疗和患者随访。经验丰富的临床医生很快就会认识到，这些部分之间的区别对于个别患者来说可能是任意的且不切实际的。然而，对于大多数临床决策来说，这些划分是有帮助的，并且有助于现有证据的呈现和分析。只要有可能，就会开发出详细的证据。如果数据来自涉及大量患者的多项随机临床试验，则证据的权重排名最高（A）；如果数据来自涉及少量患者的有限数量的随机试验或对非随机研究或观察登记的仔细分析，则证据的权重为中间（B）。当专家共识是建议的主要基础时，给予低等级（C）。
The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Ischemic heart disease is the single leading cause of death in the United States. The most common manifestation of this disease is chronic stable angina. Recognizing the importance of the management of this common entity and the absence of national clinical practice guidelines in this area, the task force formed the Committee on Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina to develop guidelines for the management of stable angina. Because this problem is frequently encountered in the practice of internal medicine, the task force invited the American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP–ASIM) to serve as a partner in this effort by identifying 3 general internists to serve on the committee. The guidelines are arbitrarily divided into 4 sections: diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment, and patient follow-up. Experienced clinicians will quickly recognize that the distinctions between these sections may be arbitrary and unrealistic for individual patients. However, for most clinical decision making, these divisions are helpful and facilitate the presentation and analysis of the available evidence. Detailed evidence was developed whenever possible. The weight of the evidence was ranked highest (A) if the data were derived from multiple randomized clinical trials involving large numbers of patients and intermediate (B) if the data were derived from a limited number of randomized trials involving small numbers of patients or careful analyses of nonrandomized studies or observational regis-tries. A low rank (C) was given when expert consensus was the primary basis for the recommendation.