Why the study?
To compare specific recommendations between ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines across the spectrum of heart failure phenotypes and disease severity, highlight differences, and list consequential recent studies.
This review provides a comprehensive comparison of the ACC/AHA and ESC heart failure guidelines, highlighting differences and recent consequential studies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Directs evidence-based HF care for clinicians; confirms trial-supported GDMT for HFrEF while leaving optimal HFpEF treatment open to research.
The 2013 (with updates in 2016 and 2017) American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines provide practical evidence-based clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of both acute and chronic heart failure (HF). Both guidelines address noninvasive and invasive testing to establish the diagnosis of HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction. Extensive trial evidence supports the use of guideline-directed medical therapy and device-based therapies for the optimal management of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Specific recommendations are also provided for HF with preserved ejection fraction although the evidence is substantially weaker. Management of medical comorbidities is now addressed in both guidelines. Acute HF and end-stage disease requiring advanced therapies are also discussed. This review compares specific recommendations across the spectrum of HF phenotypes and disease severity, highlights areas where differences exist, and lists consequential studies published since the latest guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meer et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: