Journal of Chest Surgery

The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (대한심장혈관흉부외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Value and Limitations of Guidelines, Expert Consensus, and Registries on the Management of Patients with Thoracic Aortic Disease

  • Pacini, Davide (Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, S. Orsola Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna) ;
  • Murana, Giacomo (Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, S. Orsola Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna) ;
  • Leone, Alessandro (Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, S. Orsola Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna) ;
  • Marco, Luca Di (Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, S. Orsola Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna) ;
  • Pantaleo, Antonio (Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, S. Orsola Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna)
  • Received : 2016.11.06
  • Accepted : 2016.11.24
  • Published : 2016.12.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Doctors are often faced with difficult decisions and uncertainty when patients need a certain treatment. They routinely rely on the scientific literature, in addition to their knowledge, experience, and patient preferences. Clinical practice guidelines are created with the intention of facilitating decision-making. They may offer concise instructions for the diagnosis, management (medical or surgical treatments), and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. All information included in the final version are the result of a systematic review of scientific articles and an assessment of the benefits and costs of alternative care options. The final document attempts to meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances and clinicians, aware of these recommendations, should always make individualized treatment decisions. In this review, we attempted to define the intent and applicability of clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus documents, and registry studies, focusing on the management of patients with thoracic aortic disease.

Keywords

References

  1. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2011.
  2. Wasfy JH, Armstrong K, Milford CE, Sundt TM. Bicuspid aortic disease and decision making under uncertainty: the limitations of clinical guidelines. Int J Cardiol 2015;181:169-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.12.020
  3. Sellke FW. Finding the truth in the guidelines and gospels. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:1474-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.02.020
  4. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ 1999;318:593-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7183.593
  5. Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schunemann HJ, Woolf S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci 2012;7:60. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-60
  6. Woolf S, Schunemann HJ, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P. Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations. Implement Sci 2012;7:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-61
  7. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC Jr. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009;301:831-41. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.205
  8. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999;318:527-30. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527
  9. Shapiro DW, Lasker RD, Bindman AB, Lee PR. Containing costs while improving quality of care: the role of profiling and practice guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health 1993;14:219-41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pu.14.050193.001251
  10. Kane RL. Creating practice guidelines: the dangers of over-reliance on expert judgment. J Law Med Ethics 1995;23:62-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1995.tb01332.x
  11. Mosby Inc. Mosby's medical dictionary. 8th ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby/Elsevier: 2009.
  12. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user's guide. 2nd ed. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
  13. Dreyer NA, Garner S. Registries for robust evidence. JAMA 2009;302:790-1. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1092
  14. Faxon DP, Burgess A. Cardiovascular registries: too much of good thing? Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:e003866. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.003866
  15. Messenger JC, Ho KK, Young CH, et al. The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) data quality brief: the NCDR data quality program in 2012. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1484-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.020
  16. Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2014;35:2873-926. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281
  17. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2438-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.537
  18. Westaby S, Saito S, Katsumata T. Acute type A dissection: conservative methods provide consistently low mortality. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:707-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03449-X
  19. Kazui T, Washiyama N, Muhammad BA, et al. Extended total arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection: experience with seventy patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:558-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70136-X
  20. Urbanski PP, Siebel A, Zacher M, Hacker RW. Is extended aortic replacement in acute type A dissection justifiable? Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:525-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04378-3
  21. Shrestha M, Fleissner F, Ius F, et al. Total aortic arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk in acute type A aortic dissections: are we pushing the limits too far? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015;47:361-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu185
  22. Di Eusanio M, Castrovinci S, Tian DH, et al. Antegrade stenting of the descending thoracic aorta during DeBakey type 1 acute aortic dissection repair. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;45:967-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezt493
  23. Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:e27-e129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.015
  24. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease Representative Members, Hiratzka LF, Creager MA, et al. Surgery for aortic dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valves: a statement of clarification from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:959-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.12.001
  25. Pape LA, Tsai TT, Isselbacher EM, et al. Aortic diameter >or = 5.5 cm is not a good predictor of type A aortic dissection: observations from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). Circulation 2007;116:1120-7. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.702720

Cited by

  1. Expert Consensus Decision Pathways: A Complementary Tool to Supplement Clinical Guidelines vol.34, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2019.10.030
  2. Confronting challenges to opioid risk mitigation in the U.S. health system: Recommendations from a panel of national experts vol.15, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234425