Coronary Artery Disease: Planet Earth

Dennie CJ, Leipsic J, Brydie A, Anonymous00040. · Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. · Can Assoc Radiol J. · Pubmed #19433026 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Liapis CD, Bell PR, Mikhailidis D, Sivenius J, Nicolaides A, Fernandes e Fernandes J, Biasi G, Norgren L, Anonymous00081. · Department of Vascular Surgery, Athens University Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. · Pubmed #19286127 No free full text.

Abstract: The European Society for Vascular Surgery brought together a group of experts in the field of carotid artery disease to produce updated guidelines for the invasive treatment of carotid disease. The recommendations were rated according to the level of evidence. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is recommended in symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis if the perioperative stroke/death rate is <6% [A], preferably within 2 weeks of the patient's last symptoms [A]. CEA is also recommended in asymptomatic men <75 years old with 70-99% stenosis if the perioperative stroke/death risk is <3% [A]. The benefit from CEA in asymptomatic women is significantly less than in men [A]. CEA should therefore be considered only in younger, fit women [A]. Carotid patch angioplasty is preferable to primary closure [A]. Aspirin at a dose of 75-325 mg daily and statins should be given before, during and following CEA. [A] Carotid artery stenting (CAS) should be performed only in high-risk for CEA patients, in high-volume centres with documented low peri-operative stroke and death rates or inside a randomized controlled trial [C]. CAS should be performed under dual antiplatelet treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel [A]. Carotid protection devices are probably of benefit [C].

Daemen J, Simoons ML, Wijns W, Bagust A, Bos G, Bowen JM, Braunwald E, Camenzind E, Chevaliers B, DiMario C, Fajadeto J, Gitt A, Guagliumi G, Hillege HL, James S, Jüni P, Kastrati A, Kloth S, Kristensen SD, Krucoff M, Legrand V, Pfisterer M, Rothman M, Serruys PW, Silber S, Steg PG, Tariah I, Wallentin L, Windecker SW, Aimonetti A, Allocco D, Berenger M, Boam A, Calle JP, Campo G, Carlier S, de Schepper J, Di Bisceglie G, Dobbels H, Farb A, Ghislain JC, Hellbardt S, ten Hoedt R, Isaia C, de Jong P, Lekehal M, LeNarz L, Mhullain FN, Nagai H, Patteet A, Paunovic D, Potgieter A, Purdy I, Raveau-Landon C, Ternstrom S, Van Wuytswinkel J, Waliszewski M, Anonymous00071. · Thoraxcenter, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. · EuroIntervention. · Pubmed #19284063 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Chow BJ, Larose E, Bilodeau S, Ellins ML, Galiwango P, Kass M, Sheth T, Jassal DS, Kirkpatrick ID, Mancini GB, Mayo J, Abraham A, White J. · Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, Canada. · Can J Cardiol. · Pubmed #19279980 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Raff GL, Abidov A, Achenbach S, Berman DS, Boxt LM, Budoff MJ, Cheng V, DeFrance T, Hellinger JC, Karlsberg RP, Anonymous00022. · Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, 2400 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA. · J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. · Pubmed #19272853 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #19131581 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA, Masoudi FA, Brindis RG, Beckman KJ, Chambers CE, Ferguson TB, Garcia MJ, Grover FL, Holmes DR, Klein LW, Limacher M, Mack MJ, Malenka DJ, Park MH, Ragosta M, Ritchie JL, Rose GA, Rosenberg AB, Shemin RJ, Weintraub WS, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Peterson ED. · Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #19127535 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O'Gara PT, O'Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Nishimura RA, Carabello BA, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Lytle BW, O'Gara PT, O'Rourke RA, Shah PM, Anonymous00383. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #18848134 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Oudkerk M, Stillman AE, Halliburton SS, Kalender WA, Möhlenkamp S, McCollough CH, Vliegenthart R, Shaw LJ, Stanford W, Taylor AJ, van Ooijen PM, Wexler L, Raggi P, Anonymous00008, Anonymous00009. · Department of Radiology, Groningen University Hospital, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. · Eur Radiol. · Pubmed #18651153 No free full text.

Abstract: Current guidelines and literature on screening for coronary artery calcium for cardiac risk assessment are reviewed for both general and special populations. It is shown that for both general and special populations a zero score excludes most clinically relevant coronary artery disease. The importance of standardization of coronary artery calcium measurements by multidetector CT is discussed.

Sobel M, Verhaeghe R, Anonymous00141, Anonymous00142. · VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washihngton School of Medicine, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108-1597, USA. · Chest. · Pubmed #18574279 links to  free full text

Abstract: This chapter is devoted to antithrombotic therapy for peripheral artery occlusive disease as part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see the "Grades of Recommendation" chapter by Guyatt et al, CHEST 2008; 133:123S-131S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: We recommend lifelong antiplatelet therapy in comparison to no antiplatelet therapy in pulmonary artery disease (PAD) patients with clinically manifest coronary or cerebrovascular disease (Grade 1A), and also in those without clinically manifest coronary or cerebrovascular disease (Grade 1B). In patients with PAD and intermittent claudication, we recommend against the use of anticoagulants (Grade 1A). For patients with moderate to severe disabling intermittent claudication who do not respond to exercise therapy, and who are not candidates for surgical or catheter-based intervention, we recommend cilostazol (Grade 1A). We suggest that clinicians not use cilostazol in those with less-disabling claudication (Grade 2A). In patients with short-term (< 14 days) arterial thrombosis or embolism, we suggest intraarterial thrombolytic therapy (Grade 2B), provided they are at low risk of myonecrosis and ischemic nerve damage developing during the time to achieve revascularization. For patients undergoing major vascular reconstructive procedures, we recommend IV unfractionated heparin (UFH) prior to the application of vascular cross clamps (Grade 1A). For all patients undergoing infrainguinal arterial reconstruction, we recommend aspirin (75-100 mg, begun preoperatively) [Grade 1A]. For routine autogenous vein infrainguinal bypass, we recommend aspirin (75-100 mg, begun preoperatively) [Grade 1A]. For routine prosthetic infrainguinal bypass, we recommend aspirin (75-100 mg, begun preoperatively) [Grade 1A]. In patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy, we recommend that aspirin, 75-100 mg, be administered preoperatively and continued indefinitely (75-100 mg/d) [Grade 1A]. In nonoperative patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (primary or recurrent), we suggest that dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel be avoided (Grade 1B). For all patients undergoing lower-extremity balloon angioplasty (with or without stenting), we recommend long-term aspirin, 75-100 mg/d (Grade 1C).

Becker RC, Meade TW, Berger PB, Ezekowitz M, O'Connor CM, Vorchheimer DA, Guyatt GH, Mark DB, Harrington RA, Anonymous00140. · Duke Cardiovascular Thrombosis Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. · Chest. · Pubmed #18574278 links to  free full text

Abstract: The following chapter devoted to antithrombotic therapy for chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do or do not outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patient values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see the "Grades of Recommendation" chapter by Guyatt et al in this supplement, CHEST 2008; 133[suppl]:123S-131S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for patients with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) we recommend daily oral aspirin (75-100 mg) [Grade 1A]. For patients with an aspirin allergy, we recommend clopidogrel, 75 mg/d (Grade 1A). For patients who have received clopidogrel and are scheduled for coronary bypass surgery, we suggest discontinuing clopidogrel for 5 days prior to the scheduled surgery (Grade 2A). For patients after myocardial infarction, after ACS, and those with stable CAD and patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we recommend daily aspirin (75-100 mg) as indefinite therapy (Grade 1A). We recommend clopidogrel in combination with aspirin for patients experiencing ST-segment elevation (STE) and NSTE-ACS (Grade 1A). For patients with contraindications to aspirin, we recommend clopidogrel as monotherapy (Grade 1A). For long-term treatment after PCI in patients who receive antithrombotic agents such as clopidogrel or warfarin, we recommend aspirin (75 to 100 mg/d) [Grade 1B]. For patients who undergo bare metal stent placement, we recommend the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel for at least 4 weeks (Grade 1A). We recommend that patients receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) receive aspirin (325 mg/d for 3 months followed by 75-100 mg/d) and clopidogrel 75 mg/d for a minimum of 12 months (Grade 2B). For primary prevention in patients with moderate risk for a coronary event, we recommend aspirin, 75-100 mg/d, over either no antithrombotic therapy or vitamin K antagonist (Grade 1A).

Harrington RA, Becker RC, Cannon CP, Gutterman D, Lincoff AM, Popma JJ, Steg G, Guyatt GH, Goodman SG, Anonymous00138. · Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. · Chest. · Pubmed #18574276 links to  free full text

Abstract: This chapter about antithrombotic therapy for coronary artery disease is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicans Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggestions are weaker as there is uncertainty regarding the benefits, risks and costs such that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see the "Grades of Recommendation for Antithrombotic Agents" chapter by Guyatt et al, CHEST 2008; 133[suppl]:123S-131S). Among the key recommendations are the following: for all patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndrome (ACS), without a clear allergy to aspirin, we recommend immediate aspirin (162 to 325 mg po) and then daily oral aspirin (75 to 100 mg) [Grade 1A]. For NSTE ACS patients who are at at least moderate risk for an ischemic event and who will undergo an early invasive management strategy, we recommend "upstream" treatment either with clopidogrel (300 mg po bolus, followed by 75 mg/d) or a small-molecule IV glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor (eptifibatide or tirofiban) [Grade 1A]. For NSTE ACS patients who are at least moderate risk for an ischemic event and for whom an early conservative or a delayed invasive strategy of management is to be used, we recommend "upstream" treatment with clopidogrel (300 mg oral bolus, followed by 75 mg/d) [Grade 1A]. For NSTE ACS patients who undergo PCI, we recommend treatment with both clopidogrel and an IV GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (Grade 1A). We recommend a loading dose of 600 mg of clopidogrel given at least 2 h prior to planned PCI followed by 75 mg/d (Grade 1B). For all patients presenting with NSTE ACS, we recommend anticoagulation with UFH or LMWH or bivalirudin or fondaparinux over no anticoagulation (Grade 1A). For NSTE ACS patients who will undergo an early invasive strategy of management, we recommend UFH (with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor) over either LMWH or fondaparinux (Grade 1B). For NSTE ACS patients in whom an early conservative or a delayed invasive strategy of management is to be used, we recommend fondaparinux over enoxaparin (Grade 1A) and LMWH over UFH (Grade 1B). We recommend continuing LMWH during PCI treatment of patients with NSTE ACS when it has been started as the "upstream" anticoagulant (Grade 1B). In low- to moderate-risk patients with NSTE ACS undergoing PCI, we recommend either bivalirudin with provisional ("bail-out") GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors or UFH plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor over alternative antithrombotic regimens (Grade 1B).

Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, Gerber TC, Gersh B, Hillis LD, Hundley WG, Manning WJ, Printz BF, Stuber M, Woodard PK. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #18586979 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Sicari R, Nihoyannopoulos P, Evangelista A, Kasprzak J, Lancellotti P, Poldermans D, Voigt JU, Zamorano JL, Anonymous00198. · Institute of Clinical Physiology, Via G. Moruzzi, 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy. · Eur J Echocardiogr. · Pubmed #18579481 links to  free full text

Abstract: Stress echocardiography is the combination of 2D echocardiography with a physical, pharmacological or electrical stress. The diagnostic end point for the detection of myocardial ischemia is the induction of a transient worsening in regional function during stress. Stress echocardiography provides similar diagnostic and prognostic accuracy as radionuclide stress perfusion imaging, but at a substantially lower cost, without environmental impact, and with no biohazards for the patient and the physician. Among different stresses of comparable diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, semisupine exercise is the most used, dobutamine the best test for viability, and dipyridamole the safest and simplest pharmacological stress and the most suitable for combined wall motion coronary flow reserve assessment. The additional clinical benefit of myocardial perfusion contrast echocardiography and myocardial velocity imaging has been inconsistent to date, whereas the potential of adding - coronary flow reserve evaluation of left anterior descending coronary artery by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography adds another potentially important dimension to stress echocardiography. New emerging fields of application taking advantage from the versatility of the technique are Doppler stress echo in valvular heart disease and in dilated cardiomyopathy. In spite of its dependence upon operator's training, stress echocardiography is today the best (most cost-effective and risk-effective) possible imaging choice to achieve the still elusive target of sustainable cardiac imaging in the field of noninvasive diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

Mehta R, Ward RP, Chandra S, Agarwal R, Williams KA, Anonymous00369, Anonymous00370. · Section of Cardiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill 60637, USA. · J Nucl Cardiol. · Pubmed #18513640 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology appropriateness criteria (AC) were created to guide responsible use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Clinical applicability of the AC has not been evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Indications for testing were determined in 1209 patients and categorized as having appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate indications; the specialty of the ordering physician was noted. There were 940 (80%) appropriate, 154 (13%) inappropriate, and 79 (7%) uncertain tests; 36 tests were labeled "no category," as these were ordered for indications not clearly addressed in the AC. Inappropriate studies had more normal and lower summed stress scores, although there remained a high proportion of abnormal SPECT studies in this group (26% of women and 50% of men). Women had lower summed stress scores and more normal tests in the appropriate and inappropriate groups. Studies ordered by anesthesiologists for preoperative evaluation were more likely to be deemed inappropriate than other specialty groups. CONCLUSION: In evaluating the AC in a single-center academic setting, the majority of studies are appropriate, but a large proportion of ordered SPECT studies were categorized as uncertain, inappropriate, or no category. Although the inappropriate studies showed less ischemia than other groups, especially in women, a substantial portion of these studies (32%) were abnormal.

Graham I, Atar D, Borch-Johnsen K, Boysen G, Burell G, Cifkova R, Dallongeville J, De Backer G, Ebrahim S, Gjelsvik B, Herrmann-Lingen C, Hoes A, Humphries S, Knapton M, Perk J, Priori SG, Pyorala K, Reiner Z, Ruilope L, Sans-Menendez S, Reimer WS, Weissberg P, Wood D, Yarnell J, Zamorano JL, Anonymous00206, Anonymous00207. · European Society of Cardiology · G Ital Cardiol (Rome). · Pubmed #18383763 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00094, Anonymous00095, Anonymous00096, Anonymous00097, Anonymous00098, Anonymous00099, Anonymous00100, Anonymous00101. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #18342240 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Patel MR, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00125, Anonymous00126, Anonymous00127, Anonymous00128, Anonymous00129, Anonymous00130, Anonymous00131, Anonymous00132. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #18316491 links to  free full text

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00137, Anonymous00138, Anonymous00139, Anonymous00140, Anonymous00141, Anonymous00142, Anonymous00143, Anonymous00144, Anonymous00145, Anonymous00146. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #18314889 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain.The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Anonymous00122, Anonymous00123. · No affiliation provided · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #18080332 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Thomas RJ, King M, Lui K, Oldridge N, Piña IL, Spertus J, Anonymous00090. · No affiliation provided · J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. · Pubmed #17885506 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Kaski JP, Elliott P, Anonymous00045. · The Heart Hospital, University College London, UK. · Herz. · Pubmed #17882369 No free full text.

Abstract: In the WHO/ISFC classification of 1996, cardiomyopathies were defined as primary myocardial disorders of unknown cause. Heart muscle disorders of known etiology or associated with systemic disorders were classified as secondary or specific heart muscle diseases. An expert panel of the American Heart Association has recently suggested a new scheme that combines genetic and clinical criteria. In this system, the term primary is used to describe cardiac diseases in which the heart is the sole or predominantly involved organ and secondary to describe diseases in which myocardial dysfunction is part of a systemic disorder. In a radical departure from convention, they also suggested that ion channelopathies and disorders of conduction should be considered cardiomyopathies as well. The ESC Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases has taken a different approach based on the belief that a clinically oriented classification system in which heart muscle disorders are grouped according to ventricular morphology and function remains the clinically most useful method for diagnosing and managing patients and families with heart muscle disease. In the ESC position statement, cardiomyopathies are defined as myocardial disorders in which the heart muscle is structurally and functionally abnormal, in the absence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, valvular disease and congenital heart disease sufficient to cause the observed myocardial abnormality. In this article, this is illustrated by examples of dilated cardiomyopathy as familial/genetic forms and nonfamilial/nongenetic forms.

King SB, Aversano T, Ballard WL, Beekman RH, Cowley MJ, Ellis SG, Faxon DP, Hannan EL, Hirshfeld JW, Jacobs AK, Kellett MA, Kimmel SE, Landzberg JS, McKeever LS, Moscucci M, Pomerantz RM, Smith KM, Vetrovec GW, Creager MA, Hirshfeld JW, Holmes DR, Newby LK, Weitz HH, Merli G, Piña I, Rodgers GP, Tracy CM, Anonymous00143, Anonymous00144, Anonymous00145. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #17601554 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Anonymous00180, King SB, Aversano T, Ballard WL, Beekman RH, Cowley MJ, Ellis SG, Faxon DP, Hannan EL, Hirshfeld JW, Jacobs AK, Kellett MA, Kimmel SE, Landzberg JS, McKeever LS, Moscucci M, Pomerantz RM, Smith KM, Vetrovec GW, Creager MA, Holmes DR, Newby LK, Weitz HH, Merli G, Piña I, Rodgers GP, Tracy CM. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #17592076 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Jones I, Latus K, Bartle L, Gardner M, Parkin V, Anonymous00259. · Nuclear Medicine Department, Derby Hospitals NHS Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, UK. · Nucl Med Commun. · Pubmed #17538400 No free full text.

Abstract: The suggestion by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to more than triple the number of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) procedures carried out by the NHS each year is a challenge both in terms of numbers of gamma cameras available to carry out the scans and qualified staff to supervise stress tests. In the past, exercise and pharmacological stress testing have been supervised only by doctors but, increasingly, this is taken on by suitably trained non-medical professionals such as nurses, radiographers and clinical technologists. The expansion of the numbers of non-medical professionals qualified to supervise stress testing will be key to meeting NICE's recommendations. This paper sets out how potential new stressors should be identified, what their training should cover and discusses the standards of competence they should meet. It provides guidelines for training non-medical stressors to perform a safe and efficient stress test during MPS and advice for maintaining competency.