Download !!TOP!! Cardiology Guidelines

The American Heart Association and American Stroke Association publish medical guidelines and scientific statements on various cardiovascular disease and stroke topics. AHA/ASA volunteer scientists and healthcare professionals write the statements. The statements are supported by scientific studies published in recognized journals and have a rigorous review and approval process. Scientific statements generally include a review of data available on a specific subject, an evaluation on its relationship to overall cardiovascular disease science, and often an AHA/ASA position on the basis of that evaluation.

The foundation of our solution platform for specialty benefits management is our clinical appropriateness guidelines. Carelon Clinical Appropriateness Guidelines for Cardiology are developed through a rigorous process integrating evidence-based literature with expert physician review. Included are guidelines for imaging of the heart, diagnostic coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Download Cardiology Guidelines

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y7PMS 🔥

The guidelines do not address coverage, benefit or other plan specific issues. Applicable federal and state coverage mandates take precedence over these clinical guidelines. If requested by a health plan, Carelon will review requests based on health plan medical policy/guidelines in lieu of the Carelon guidelines.

These recommendations are based on the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition, published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. They recommend how much physical activity we need to be healthy. The guidelines are based on current scientific evidence supporting the connections between physical activity, overall health and well-being, disease prevention and quality of life.

*All health/medical information on this website has been reviewed and approved by the American Heart Association, based on scientific research and American Heart Association guidelines. Find more information on our content editorial process.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

ASNC is committed to documenting and providing evidence-based standards for the field of nuclear cardiology and cardiovascular CT. ASNC served as the author or co-author on each of the clinical guidelines and position statements listed below. The date shown with each guideline or statement reflects the most recent date of approval or endorsement. Clinical guidelines that pertain to our educational activities are also listed below.

Clinical documents related to nuclear cardiology training (such as COCATS)

NEW! PET REPORTING TEMPLATE

Atlas for Reporting PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging and Myocardial Blood Flow in Clinical PracticeNEW! AMYLOID REPORTING TEMPLATE

Interpretation and Reporting of Cardiac Scintigraphy with Bone-avid Tracers in Suspected Transthyretin Cardiac AmyloidosisQUALITY METRICS INFORMATION STATEMENT

Quality Metrics for Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: An ASNC Information Statement

ASNC 2023 Quality Improvement (QI) Challenge

Systematic Reviews are literature reviews focused on a research question that synthesizes allhigh-quality research evidence relevant to that question. Systematic Reviews should be presented in theIntroduction, Methods, Results, Discussion format. The subject must be clearly defined. The objective ofa Systematic Review should be to arrive at an evidence-based conclusion. The Methods section should givea clear indication of the literature search strategy, data extraction procedure, grading of evidence,and kind of analysis used. We strongly encourage authors to comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for SystematicReviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Methods Articles describe methods or protocols used to perform an experiment or carry out a researchplan. They should not report research results. Authors may submit a Study Protocol outlining a researchand/or statistical analysis plan for proposed, or ongoing, but incomplete, research studies, includingbut not limited to, clinical trials, population-based studies, clinical outcome studies, and serviceevaluations. Only study protocols that have received ethical approval will be considered and, whereexpected by community convention, study protocols must be pre-registered and the trial/studyregistration number should be provided in the manuscript. Manuscripts reporting study protocols mustadhere to the relevant reporting guidelines for their study design, such as the SPIRIT, PRISMA-P or otherrelevant reporting guidelines as detailed on the Equator Networkwebsite.

Strategies for radiation dose reduction in nuclear cardiology and cardiac computed tomography imaging: A report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), the Cardiovascular Committee of European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), and the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR) (2018)

Research Letters are concise, focused reports of original research. These should not exceed 600 words of text and 6 references and may include up to 2 tables or figures. Online supplementary material is only allowed for brief additional and absolutely necessary methods but not for any additional results or discussion. Research Letters may have no more than 7 authors. The text should include the full name, academic degrees, and a single institutional affiliation for each author and the email address for the corresponding author. Other persons who have contributed to the study may be indicated in an Acknowledgment, with their permission, including their academic degrees, affiliation, contribution to the study, and an indication if compensation was received for their role. Letters must not duplicate other material published or submitted for publication. In general, Research Letters should be divided into the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. They should not include an abstract or key points, but otherwise should follow all of the guidelines in Manuscript Preparation and Submission Requirements. Letters not meeting these specifications are generally not considered.

Briefly describe characteristics of the literature searched and included in the review, following the PRISMA reporting guidelines, including the bibliographic databases and other sources searched, search terms used, dates included in the search, date the literature search was conducted, screening process, language limitations, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The rating system used to evaluate the quality of the evidence should be specified (see table below) and the methods used to evaluate quality should be described, including number of quality raters, how agreement on quality ratings was assessed, and how disagreements on quality ratings were resolved.

The highest-quality evidence (eg, randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and high-quality prospective cohort studies) should receive the greatest emphasis. Clinical practice guidelines ordinarily should not be used as a primary component of the evidence base for the systematic review, although relevant guidelines should be addressed in the Discussion section of the article.

Clinical Practice Guidelines: In the Discussion section, describe current clinical practice guidelines, relevant to the topic of the review, if available, and whether the conclusions of this review agree with, or disagree with, the current clinical practice guidelines. If this is done and there is more than 1 guideline, a table should be prepared comparing the major features that differ between the guidelines. Guideline quality should be discussed using the standards outlined for the JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis.

Narrative Reviews on clinical topics provide an up-to-date review for clinicians on a topic of general common interest from the perspective of internationally recognized experts in these disciplines. The focus of Narrative Reviews will be an update on current understanding of the physiology of the disease or condition, diagnostic consideration, and treatment. These reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice. Narrative Reviews do not require (but may include) a systematic review of the literature search. Recommendations should be supported with evidence and should rely on recent systematic reviews and guidelines, if available, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention.

All diagnostic and treatment recommendations should be supported by referencing recent authoritative texts or journal articles. Preferably, these recommendations should be supported by governmental or multisociety guidelines, clinical trials, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. The text should have a maximum length of 850 words, consisting of no more than 250 words for the case presentation, question, and 4 one-sentence answers, followed by no more than 600 words that include the diagnosis and a brief discussion. There should be no more than 3 authors. At least 1 of the authors, ideally the corresponding author, should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic. There should be no more than 10 references, and no more than 2 small figures totaling 3 image components (Figure 1, with no more than 2 components, for the case presentation; and Figure 2, with no more than 1 component, for the diagnosis and discussion). 006ab0faaa