Abstract
Cardiologists in the UK predominantly use the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and European Society of Cardiology guidelines to help guide decision-making. This article will appraise the current recommendations from NICE regarding myocardial revascularisation and compare them with other major international guidelines. While there are many similarities, subtle differences exist. These differences arise in part due to the evidence base at time of publication, as well as from the different healthcare systems that they are designed for, and from the cost-effectiveness models that dominate the methodology used by NICE. The clinical implications of the differences between the international guidelines will be analysed.
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Reference46 articles.
1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Acute coronary syndromes, 2020. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng185
2. National Clinical Guidelines Centre . Stable angina: Full (July 2011): methods, evidence & guidance. Available: http://www.nice.org.uk/ guidance/cg126/evidence/fu
3. Routine revascularization versus initial medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials;Bangalore;Circulation,2020
4. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial
5. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: Executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American heart association joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines;Lawton;Circulation,20222022
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献