Year: 2004
Type: article
Abstract: Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence are expressed in the ACC/AHA format as follows and described in more detail in Table 1. Classification of RecommendationsClass I: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective.Class II: Conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment.Class IIa: Weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy.Class IIb: Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion.Class III: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful. Level of EvidenceLevel of Evidence A: Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses.Level of Evidence B: Data derived from a single randomized trial, or nonrandomized studies.Level of Evidence C: Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard-of-care.The Committee consists of acknowledged experts in cardiac surgery, interventional cardiology, general cardiology, and family practice.The Committee included representatives from the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS).Both academic and private practice sectors were represented.The document was reviewed by 3 outside observers nominated by the ACC, 3 outside reviewers nominated by the AHA, and outside reviewers nominated by STS and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists.This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Foundation's Board of Trustees and the American Heart Association's Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, as well as endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.These guidelines overlap several previously published ACC/AHA guidelines, including those for the management of acute myocardial infarction (MI), for the management of stable angina, for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and for exercise testing.For each of these guidelines, an analysis of overlap or contradiction has been explored by the Committee with attempts to create consensus in each instance.Finally, it is acknowledged that no guideline can take into account all of the various parameters that must be part of the individual decision to recommend CABG for a single patient.However, this entire report is intended to provide a framework that healthcare providers can use in combination with other types of knowledge and patient preferences to make rational decisions about treatment.
Source: Circulation
Language: English
Subfield: Surgery
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W4298186494