| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Swedberg, Karl, 1944, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure: executive summary (update 2005): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology
- 2005
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 26:11, s. 1115-40
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Preamble Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents aim to present all the relevant evidence on a particular issue in order to help physicians to weigh the benefits and risks of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. They should be helpful in everyday clinical decision-making. A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and by different organizations and other related societies. This profusion can put at stake the authority and validity of guidelines, which can only be guaranteed if they have been developed by an unquestionable decision-making process. This is one of the reasons why the ESC and others have issued recommendations for formulating and issuing Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents. In spite of the fact that standards for issuing good quality Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents are well defined, recent surveys of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1998 have shown that methodological standards were not complied with in the vast majority of cases. It is therefore of great importance that guidelines and recommendations are presented in formats that are easily interpreted. Subsequently, their implementation programmes must also be well conducted. Attempts have been made to determine whether guidelines improve the quality of clinical practice and the utilization of health resources. The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups, or consensus panels. The chosen experts in these writing panels are asked to provide disclosure statements of all relationships they may have which might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents or statements. The Task Force has classified and ranked the usefulness or efficacy of the recommended procedure and/or treatments and the Level of Evidence as indicated in the tables on page 3.
|
|
| 5. |
- Willenheimer, Ronnie, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect on Survival and Hospitalization of Initiating Treatment for Chronic Heart Failure With Bisoprolol Followed by Enalapril, as Compared With the Opposite Sequence. Results of the Randomized Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS) III.
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 112:16, s. 2426-2435
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background - In patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), a beta-blocker is generally added to a regimen containing an angiotensin-converting-enzyme ( ACE) inhibitor. It is unknown whether beta-blockade as initial therapy may be as useful. Methods and Results - We randomized 1010 patients with mild to moderate CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction <= 35%, who were not receiving ACE inhibitor, beta-blocker, or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy, to open-label monotherapy with either bisoprolol ( target dose 10 mg QD; n = 505) or enalapril ( target dose 10 mg BID; n = 505) for 6 months, followed by their combination for 6 to 24 months. The 2 strategies were blindly compared with regard to the combined primary end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization and with regard to each of these end point components individually. Bisoprolol-first treatment was noninferior to enalapril-first treatment if the upper limit of the ;95% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute between-group difference was < 5%, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.17. In the intention-to-treat sample, the primary end point occurred in 178 patients allocated to bisoprolol-first treatment versus 186 allocated to enalapril-first treatment ( absolute difference - 1.6%, 95% CI - 7.6 to 4.4%, HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16). In the per-protocol sample, 163 patients allocated to bisoprolol-first treatment had a primary end point, versus 165 allocated to enalapril-first treatment ( absolute difference - 0.7%, 95% CI - 6.6 to 5.1%, HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21). With bisoprolol-first treatment, 65 patients died, versus 73 with enalapril-first treatment ( HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22), and 151 versus 157 patients were hospitalized ( HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19). Conclusion - Although noninferiority of bisoprolol-first versus enalapril-first treatment was not proven in the per-protocol analysis, our results indicate that it may be as safe and efficacious to initiate treatment for CHF with bisoprolol as with enalapril.
|
|
