Abstract

PreambleSince 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone of quality cardiovascular care.In response to reports from the Institute of Medicine1,2 and a mandate to evaluate new knowledge and maintain relevance at the point of care, the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (Task Force) modified its methodology.3–5 The relationships among guidelines, data standards, appropriate use criteria, and performance measures are addressed elsewhere.5Intended UsePractice guidelines provide recommendations applicable to patients with or at risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The focus is on medical practice in the United States, but guidelines developed in collaboration with other organizations may have a broader target. Although guidelines may be used to inform regulatory or payer decisions, the intent is to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Guidelines are intended to define practices meeting the needs of patients in most, but not all, circumstances, and should not replace clinical judgment. Guidelines are reviewed annually by the Task Force and are official policy of the ACC and AHA. Each guideline is considered current until it is updated, revised, or superseded by published addenda, statements of clarification, focused updates, or revised full-text guidelines. To ensure that guidelines remain current, new data are reviewed biannually to determine whether recommendations should be modified. In general, full revisions are posted in 5-year cycles.3–6ModernizationProcesses have evolved to support the evolution of guidelines as “living documents” that can be dynamically updated. This process delineates a recommendation to address a specific clinical question, followed by concise text (ideally <250 words) and hyperlinked to supportive evidence. This approach accommodates time constraints on busy clinicians and facilitates easier access to recommendations via electronic search engines and other evolving technology.Evidence ReviewWriting committee members review the literature; weigh the quality of evidence for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and estimate expected health outcomes. In developing recommendations, the writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies that are based on all available data.3–7 Literature searches focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also include registries, nonrandomized comparative and descriptive studies, case series, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and expert opinion. Only selected references are cited.The Task Force recognizes the need for objective, independent Evidence Review Committees (ERCs) that include methodologists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and biostatisticians who systematically survey, abstract, and assess the evidence to address systematic review questions posed in the PICOTS format (P=population, I=intervention, C=comparator, O=outcome, T=timing, S=setting).2,4–6 Practical considerations, including time and resource constraints, limit the ERCs to evidence that is relevant to key clinical questions and lends itself to systematic review and analysis that could affect the strength of corresponding recommendations.Guideline-Directed Management and TreatmentThe term “guideline-directed management and therapy” (GDMT) refers to care defined mainly by ACC/AHA Class I recommendations. For these and all recommended drug treatment regimens, the reader should confirm dosage with product insert material and carefully evaluate for contraindications and interactions. Recommendations are limited to treatments, drugs, and devices approved for clinical use in the United States.Class of Recommendation and Level of EvidenceThe Class of Recommendation (COR; ie, the strength of the recommendation) encompasses the anticipated magnitude and certainty of benefit in proportion to risk. The Level of Evidence (LOE) rates evidence supporting the effect of the intervention on the basis of the type, quality, quantity, and consistency of data from clinical trials and other reports (Table 1).3–5 Unless otherwise stated, recommendations are sequenced by COR and then by LOE. Where comparative data exist, preferred strategies take precedence. When >1 drug, strategy, or therapy exists within the same COR and LOE and no comparative data are available, options are listed alphabetically.Relationships With Industry and Other EntitiesThe ACC and AHA sponsor the guidelines without commercial support, and members volunteer their time. The Task Force zealously avoids actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that might arise through relationships with industry or other entities (RWI). All writing committee members and reviewers are required to disclose current industry relationships or personal interests, from 12 months before initiation of the writing effort. Management of RWI involves selecting a balanced writing committee and assuring that the chair and a majority of committee members have no relevant RWI (Appendix 1). Members are restricted with regard to writing or voting on sections to which their RWI apply. For transparency, members' comprehensive disclosure information is available online. Comprehensive disclosure information for the Task Force is also available online.The Task Force strives to avoid bias by selecting experts from a broad array of backgrounds representing different geographic regions, sexes, ethnicities, intellectual perspectives/biases, and scopes of clinical practice, and by inviting organizations and professional societies with related interests and expertise to participate as partners or collaborators.Individualizing Care in Patients With Associated Conditions and ComorbiditiesManaging patients with multiple conditions can be complex, especially when recommendations applicable to coexisting illnesses are discordant or interacting.8 The guidelines are intended to define practices meeting the needs of patients in most, but not all, circumstances. The recommendations should not replace clinical judgment.Clinical ImplementationManagement in accordance with guideline recommendations is effective only when followed. Adherence to recommendations can be enhanced by shared decision making between clinicians and patients, with patient engagement in selecting interventions on the basis of individual values, preferences, and associated conditions and comorbidities. Consequently, circumstances may arise in which deviations from these guidelines are appropriate.

Highlights

  • This document supersedes recommendations related to lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) in the “ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease”[9] and the “2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guideline for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease.”[10]. The scope of this guideline is limited to atherosclerotic disease of the lower extremity arteries (PAD) and includes disease of the aortoiliac, femoropopliteal, and infrapopliteal arterial segments

  • Physical activity has been shown to be associated with improvement in functional status in patients with asymptomatic PAD,[93,94] the benefit of resting ankle-brachial index (ABI) testing to identify asymptomatic patients who are at increased risk of functional decline and may benefit from structured exercise programs remains to be determined

  • Patients with PAD have been shown to have increased plasma homocysteine levels compared with patients without PAD, there is no evidence that B-complex vitamin supplementation improves clinical outcomes in patients with PAD.[207]

Read more

Summary

Methodology and Evidence Review

The recommendations listed in this guideline are, whenever possible, evidence based. An initial extensive evidence review, which included literature derived from e728 March 21, 2017. All other guideline recommendations (not based on the systematic review questions) were subjected to an extensive evidence review process. The writing committee in conjunction with the Task Force and ERC Chair identified the following systematic review questions: 1) Is antiplatelet therapy beneficial for prevention of cardiovascular events in the patient with symptomatic or asymptomatic lower extremity PAD? This question had been the subject of a high-quality systematic review that synthesized evidence from observational data and an RCT14; additional RCTs addressing this question are ongoing.[15,16,17] The writing committee and the Task Force decided to expand the survey to include more relevant randomized and observational studies.

Organization of the Writing Committee
Document Review and Approval
Scope of Guideline
History and Physical Examination
Resting ABI for Diagnosing PAD
III: No Benefit
Physiological Testing
Imaging for Anatomic Assessment
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
MEDICAL THERAPY FOR THE PATIENT WITH PAD
Antiplatelet Agents
Statin Agents
Antihypertensive Agents
Smoking Cessation
Glycemic Control
Oral Anticoagulation
Cilostazol
Pentoxifylline
Chelation Therapy
5.10. Homocysteine Lowering
5.11. Influenza Vaccination
STRUCTURED EXERCISE THERAPY
MINIMIZING TISSUE LOSS IN PATIENTS WITH PAD
REVASCULARIZATION FOR CLAUDICATION
Revascularization for Claudication
Endovascular Revascularization for Claudication
Surgical Revascularization for Claudication
MANAGEMENT OF CLI
Revascularization for CLI
Endovascular Revascularization for CLI
Surgical Revascularization for CLI
Wound Healing Therapies for CLI
10. MANAGEMENT OF ALI
10.1. Clinical Presentation of ALI
10.2. Medical Therapy for ALI
10.3. Revascularization for ALI
10.4. Diagnostic Evaluation of the Cause of ALI
11. LONGITUDINAL FOLLOW-UP
12. EVIDENCE GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
13. ADVOCACY PRIORITIES
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call