Dataset Information

Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guideline recommendations.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Little is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.

Objective

To characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations.

Design, setting, and participants

Textual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013.

Main outcomes and measures

We abstracted all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. We classified recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations as having been downgraded or reversed; we classified recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified as having been omitted. We tested for differences in the durability of recommendations according to guideline topic and underlying level of evidence using bivariable hypothesis tests and conditional logistic regression.

Results

Of 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%) were retained in the subsequent guideline version, 57 (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.0%-11.8%) were downgraded or reversed, and 67 (10.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-13.3%) were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-45.4%) to 94.1% (95% CI, 80.3%-99.3%; P < .001). Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5% (95% CI, 83.2%-95.3%) of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-86.3%) of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7% (95% CI, 65.8%-80.5%) of recommendations supported by opinion (P = .001). After accounting for guideline-level factors, the probability of being downgraded, reversed, or omitted was greater for recommendations based on opinion (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.69-5.85; P < .001) or on 1 trial or observational data (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.41; P = .005) vs recommendations based on multiple trials.

Conclusions and relevance

The durability of class I cardiology guideline recommendations for procedures and treatments promulgated by the ACC/AHA varied across individual guidelines and levels of evidence. Downgrades, reversals, and omissions were most common among recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies.

SUBMITTER: Neuman MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4346183 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Neuman Mark D MD Goldstein Jennifer N JN Cirullo Michael A MA Schwartz J Sanford JS

JAMA 20140501 20

<h4>Importance</h4>Little is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.<h4>Objective</h4>To characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Textual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 200 ...[more]

PMID: 24867012

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline recommends moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy in eligible patients.ObjectiveTo examine adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline in US cardiology practices.Design, setting, and participantsAmong 161 cardiology practices, trends in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were analyzed before (September 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually exclusive risk groups within the ACC Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate for differences in trend in use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use in hierarchical logistic regression models. Participants were a population-based sample of 1 105 356 preguideline patients (2 431 192 patient encounters) and 1 116 472 postguideline patients (2 377 219 patient encounters). Approximately 97% of patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).ExposuresModerate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline.Main outcomes and measuresTime trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT.ResultsIn the study cohort, the mean (SD) age was 69.6 (12.1) years among 1 105 356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1 116 472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline. Although there was a trend toward increasing use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins overall and in the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline. No significant difference in trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins was observed in other groups. The use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy was 62.1% (before publication of the guideline) and 66.6% (after publication of the guideline) in the overall cohort, 62.7% (before publication) and 67.0% (after publication) in the ASCVD cohort, 50.6% (before publication) and 52.3% (after publication) in the cohort with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (ie, ≥190 mg/dL), 52.4% (before publication) and 55.2% (after publication) in the diabetes cohort, and 41.9% (before publication) and 46.9% (after publication) in the remaining group with 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher. In hierarchical logistic regression models, there was a significant increase in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins in the overall cohort (4.8%) and in the ASCVD cohort (4.3%) (P < .01 for slope for both). There was no significant change for other risk cohorts. Nonstatin LLT use remained unchanged in the preguideline and postguideline periods in the hierarchical logistic regression models for all of the risk groups.Conclusions and relevanceAdoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guideline in cardiology practices was modest. Timely interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant practice to reduce the burden of ASCVD.

Project description:IntroductionThe 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure guideline redefined hypertension and lowered the blood pressure treatment target. Empirical data on the guideline's impact are needed.MethodsData were analyzed from Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study participants who attended baseline pre-guideline (2016-2017) and post-guideline (2018-2019) visits with baseline systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mmHg. Participants were grouped according to baseline systolic blood pressure by change in classification under the new guideline as follows: not reclassified (120-129 mmHg), reclassified to Stage 1 hypertension (130-139 mmHg), and reclassified to Stage 2 hypertension (140-159 mmHg). Means and 95% CIs for systolic blood pressure changes between baseline and follow-up, changes in antihypertensive use, and percentages that achieved the post-guideline recommendation (systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg) were calculated. Analyses were performed in 2021-2022.ResultsAmong 2,193 community-dwelling Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities participants aged 71-95 years at baseline, systolic blood pressure changes between baseline and follow-up visits differed among participants not reclassified (+4.1 mmHg, 95% CI=3.0, 5.3 mmHg), reclassified to Stage 1 hypertension (-1.1 mmHg, 95% CI= -2.2, 0.1 mmHg), and reclassified to Stage 2 hypertension (-5.7 mmHg, 95% CI= -6.8, -4.7 mmHg). Antihypertensive use changed from 77.3% to 78.4% (p=0.25) among participants reclassified to Stage 1 hypertension and from 78.3% to 81.4% (p<0.01) among participants reclassified to Stage 2 hypertension. At follow-up, 41.8% of the Stage 1 and 22.4% of the Stage 2 hypertension groups reached the systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg goal.ConclusionsThere were small decreases in systolic blood pressure and increases in antihypertensive therapy among older adults reclassified to Stage 2 hypertension but not among those reclassified to Stage 1 hypertension by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

Project description:ObjectivesThe AHA/ACC-2017 hypertension guideline recommends an age-independent target blood pressure (BP) of less than 130/80 mmHg. In an elderly cohort without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline, we determined the impact of this guideline on the prevalence of hypertension and associated CVD risk.MethodsNineteen thousand, one hundred and fourteen participants aged at least 65 years from the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study were grouped by baseline BP: 'pre-2017 hypertensive' (BP ≥140/90 mmHg and/or on antihypertensive drugs); 'reclassified hypertensive' (normotensive by pre-2017 guidelines; hypertensive by AHA/ACC-2017 guideline), and 'normotensive' (BP <130 and <80 mmHg). For each group, we evaluated CVD risk factors, predicted 10-year CVD risk using the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk equation, and reported observed CVD event rates during a median 4.7-year follow-up.ResultsOverall, 74.4% (14 213/19 114) were 'pre-2017 hypertensive'; an additional 12.3% (2354/19 114) were 'reclassified hypertensive' by the AHA/ACC-2017 guideline. Of those 'reclassified hypertensive', the majority (94.5%) met criteria for antihypertensive treatment although 29% had no other traditional CVD risk factors other than age. Further, a relatively lower mean 10-year predicted CVD risk (18% versus 26%, P < 0.001) and lower CVD rates (8.9 versus 12.1/1000 person-years, P = 0.01) were observed in 'reclassified hypertensive' compared with 'pre-2017 hypertensive'. Compared with 'normotensive', a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for CVD events of 1.60 (1.26-2.02) for 'pre-2017 hypertensive' and 1.26 (0.93-1.71) for 'reclassified hypertensive' was observed.ConclusionApplying current CVD risk calculators in the elderly 'reclassified hypertensive', as a result of shifting the BP threshold lower, increases eligibility for antihypertensive treatment but documented CVD rates remain lower than hypertensive patients defined by pre2017 BP thresholds.

Project description:Background Clinical implications of change in the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline on the diagnosis and management of hypertension, compared with recommendations by 2014 expert panel and Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7), are not known. Methods and Results Using data from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) Registry (January 2013-Decemver 2016), we compared the proportion and clinical characteristics of patients seen in cardiology practices diagnosed with hypertension, recommended antihypertensive treatment, and achieving blood pressure (BP) goals per each guideline document. In addition, we evaluated the proportion of patients at the level of practices meeting BP targets defined by each guideline. Of 6 042 630 patients evaluated, 5 027 961 (83.2%) were diagnosed with hypertension per the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline, compared with 4 521 272 (74.8%) per the 2014 panel and 4 545 976 (75.2%) per JNC7. The largest increase in hypertension prevalence was seen in younger ages, women, and those with lower cardiovascular risk. Antihypertensive medication was recommended to 70.6% of patients per the ACC/AHA guideline compared with 61.8% and 65.9% per the 2014 panel and JNC7, respectively. Among those on antihypertensive agents, 41.2% achieved BP targets per the ACC/AHA guideline, compared with 79.4% per the 2014 panel and 64.3% per JNC7. Lower proportions of women, non-White (Black and "other") races, and those at higher cardiovascular risk achieved BP goals. Median practice-level proportion of patients meeting BP targets per the 2014 panel but not the ACC/AHA guideline was 37.8% (interquartile range, 34.8%-40.7%) and per JNC7 but not the ACC/AHA guideline was 22.9% (interquartile range, 19.8%-25.9%). Conclusions Following publication of the 2017 guideline, significantly more people, particularly younger people and those with lower cardiovascular risk, will be diagnosed with hypertension and need antihypertensive treatment compared with previous recommendations. Significant practice-level variation in BP control also exists. Efforts are needed to improve guideline-concordant hypertension management in an effort to improve outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundOver 10 years, achieving and maintaining 2017 ACC/AHA guideline goals could prevent 3.0 million (UR, 1.1-5.1 million), 0.5 million (UR, 0.2-0.7 million), and 1.4 million (UR, 0.6-2.0 million) cardiovascular disease (CVD) events compared with maintaining current blood pressure (BP) levels, achieving 2003 Seventh Joint National Committee Report goals, and achieving 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee goals, respectively. We estimated the number of cardiovascular disease events prevented and treatment-related serious adverse events incurred over 10 years among US adults with hypertension by achieving 2017 ACC/AHA guideline-recommended BP goals compared with (1) current BP levels, (2) achieving 2003 Seventh Joint National Committee Report BP goals, and (3) achieving 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee panel member report BP goals.MethodsUS adults aged ≥45 years with an indication for BP treatment were grouped according to recommendations for antihypertensive drug therapy in the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline, 2003 Seventh Joint National Committee Report, and 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee. Population sizes were estimated from the 2011 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Rates for fatal and nonfatal CVD events (stroke, coronary heart disease, or heart failure) were estimated from the REGARDS (REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke) study, weighted to the US population. CVD risk reductions with treatment to BP goals and risk for serious adverse events were obtained from meta-analyses of BP-lowering trials. CVD events prevented and treatment-related nonfatal serious adverse events over 10 years were calculated. Uncertainty surrounding main data inputs was expressed in uncertainty ranges (UR).ResultsOver ten years, achieving and maintaining 2017 ACC/AHA guideline goals compared with current BP levels, achieving 2003 Seventh Joint National Committee Report goals, or achieving 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee goals could prevent 3.0 million (UR, 1.1-5.1 million), 0.5 million (UR, 0.2-0.7 million), or 1.4 million (UR, 0.6-2.0 million) CVD events, respectively. Compared with current BP levels, achieving and maintaining 2017 goals could prevent 71.9 (UR, 26.6-122.3) CVD events per 1000 treated. Achieving 2017 guideline BP goals compared with current BP levels could also lead to nearly 3.3 million more serious adverse events over 10 years (UR, 2.2-4.4 million).ConclusionsAchieving and maintaining 2017 ACC/AHA BP goals could prevent a greater number of CVD events than achieving 2003 Seventh Joint National Committee Report or 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee BP goals but could also lead to more serious adverse events.

Dataset Information

Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets