Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Executive Summary

A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Originally published19 Nov 2012https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182776f83Circulation. 2012;126:3097–3137

Table of Contents

Preamble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3099

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3101

1.1. Methodology and Evidence Overview. . . . . . .3101

1.2. Organization of the Writing Committee. . . . . .3101

1.3. Document Review and Approval. . . . . . . . . . .3101

1.4. Scope of the Guideline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3102

1.5. General Approach and Overlap With Other Guidelines or Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3103

1.6. Magnitude of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3103

1.7. Organization of the Guideline. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3104

1.8. Vital Importance of Involvement by an Informed Patient: Recommendation. . . . . . . . .3104

2. Diagnosis of SIHD: Recommendations. . . . . . . . . .3104

2.1. Clinical Evaluation of Patients With Chest Pain. . .3104

2.1.1. Clinical Evaluation in the Initial Diagnosis of SIHD in Patients With Chest Pain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3104

2.1.2. Electrocardiography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3106

2.1.2.1. Resting Electrocardiography to Assess Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3106

2.1.3. Stress Testing and Advanced Imaging for Initial Diagnosis in Patients With Suspected SIHD Who Require Noninvasive Testing. . . . . . . . .3106

2.1.3.1. Able to Exercise. . . . . . . . . . . .3106

2.1.3.2. Unable to Exercise. . . . . . . . . .3107

2.1.3.3. Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3108

3. Risk Assessment: Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . .3108

3.1. Advanced Testing: Resting and Stress Noninvasive Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3108

3.1.1. Resting Imaging to Assess Cardiac Structure and Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3108

3.1.2. Stress Testing and Advanced Imaging in Patients With Known SIHD Who Require Noninvasive Testing for Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3109

3.1.2.1. Risk Assessment in Patients Able to Exercise. . . . . . . . . . . .3109

3.1.2.2. Risk Assessment in Patients Unable to Exercise. . . . . . . . . .3110

3.1.2.3. Risk Assessment Regardless of Patients' Ability to Exercise. . .3111

3.2. Coronary Angiography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3112

3.2.1. Coronary Angiography as an Initial Testing Strategy to Assess Risk. . . . . . .3112

3.2.2. Coronary Angiography to Assess Risk After Initial Workup With Noninvasive Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3112

4. Treatment: Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3112

4.1. Patient Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3112

4.2. Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy. . . . . . . .3113

4.2.1. Risk Factor Modification. . . . . . . . . . . .3113

4.2.1.1. Lipid Management. . . . . . . . . .3113

4.2.1.2. Blood Pressure Management. . .3113

4.2.1.3. Diabetes Management. . . . . . . .3113

4.2.1.4. Physical Activity. . . . . . . . . . .3113

4.2.1.5. Weight Management. . . . . . . . .3113

4.2.1.6. Smoking Cessation Counseling. . .3114

4.2.1.7. Management of Psychological Factors. . . . . . . .3114

4.2.1.8. Alcohol Consumption. . . . . . . .3114

4.2.1.9. Avoiding Exposure to Air Pollution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3114

4.2.2. Additional Medical Therapy to Prevent MI and Death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3114

4.2.2.1. Antiplatelet Therapy. . . . . . . . .3114

4.2.2.2. Beta-Blocker Therapy. . . . . . . .3114

4.2.2.3. Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone Blocker Therapy. .3114

4.2.2.4. Influenza Vaccination. . . . . . . .3114

4.2.2.5. Additional Therapy to Reduce Risk of MI and Death. . . . . . . .3115

4.2.3. Medical Therapy for Relief of Symptoms. .3115

4.2.3.1. Use of Anti-Ischemic Medications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3115

4.2.4. Alternative Therapies for Relief of Symptoms in Patients With Refractory Angina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3115

5. CAD Revascularization: Recommendations. . . . . . .3115

5.1. Heart Team Approach to Revascularization Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3115

5.2. Revascularization to Improve Survival. . . . . . .3115

5.3. Revascularization to Improve Symptoms. . . . .3118

5.4. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Compliance and Stent Thrombosis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3119

5.5. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization. . . . . . . . .3119

6. Patient Follow-Up: Monitoring of Symptoms and Antianginal Therapy: Recommendations. . . . . . . . .3119

6.1. Clinical Evaluation, Echocardiography During Routine, Periodic Follow-Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3119

6.2. Noninvasive Testing in Known SIHD. . . . . . .3119

6.2.1. Follow-Up Noninvasive Testing in Patients With Known SIHD: New, Recurrent or Worsening Symptoms, Not Consistent With Unstable Angina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3119

6.2.1.1. Patients Able to Exercise. . . . .3119

6.2.1.2. Patients Unable to Exercise. . .3120

6.2.1.3. Irrespective of Ability to Exercise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3120

6.2.2. Noninvasive Testing in Known SIHD—Asymptomatic (or Stable Symptoms). . . . . . . . . . . . . .3121

Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant). . . . . . . . . . . . .3133

Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant). . . . . . . . .3135
Anderson Jeffrey L.

Preamble

The medical profession should play a central role in evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, and prevention of disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of available data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can improve the quality of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect costs by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. An organized and directed approach to a thorough review of evidence has resulted in the production of clinical practice guidelines that assist physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient. Moreover, clinical practice guidelines can provide a foundation for other applications, such as performance measures, appropriate use criteria, and both quality improvement and clinical decision support tools.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly produced guidelines in the area of cardiovascular disease since 1980. The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Task Force), charged with developing, updating, and revising practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases and procedures, directs and oversees this effort. Writing committees are charged with regularly reviewing and evaluating all available evidence to develop balanced, patient-centric recommendations for clinical practice.

Experts in the subject under consideration are selected by the ACCF and AHA to examine subject-specific data and write guidelines in partnership with representatives from other medical organizations and specialty groups. Writing committees are asked to perform a literature review; weigh the strength of evidence for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and include estimates of expected outcomes where such data exist. Patient-specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient preference that may influence the choice of tests or therapies are considered. When available, information from studies on cost is considered, but data on efficacy and outcomes onstitute the primary basis for the recommendations contained herein.

In analyzing the data and developing recommendations and supporting text, the writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies developed by the Task Force.1 The Class of Recommendation (COR) is an estimate of the size of the treatment effect, with consideration given to risks versus benefits in addition to evidence and/or agreement that a given treatment or procedure is or is not useful/effective or in some situations may cause harm. The Level of Evidence (LOE) is an estimate of the certainty or precision of the treatment effect. The writing committee reviews and ranks evidence supporting each recommendation, with the weight of evidence ranked as LOE A, B, or C according to specific definitions that are included in Table 1. Studies are identified as observational, retrospective, prospective, or randomized as appropriate. For certain conditions for which inadequate data are available, recommendations are based on expert consensus and clinical experience and are ranked as LOE C. When recommendations at LOE C are supported by historical clinical data, appropriate references (including clinical reviews) are cited if available. For issues for which sparse data are available, a survey of current practice among the clinicians on the writing committee is the basis for LOE C recommendations, and no references are cited. The schema for COR and LOE is summarized in Table 1, which also provides suggested phrases for writing recommendations within each COR. A new addition to this methodology is separation of the Class III recommendations to delineate whether the recommendation is determined to be of “no benefit” or is associated with “harm” to the patient. In addition, in view of the increasing number of comparative effectiveness studies, comparator verbs and suggested phrases for writing recommendations for the comparative effectiveness of one treatment or strategy versus another have been added for COR I and IIa, LOE A or B only.

Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence
Table 1.

A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective.

*Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age, history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use. †For comparative effectiveness recommendations (Class I and Ila; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated.

In view of the advances in medical therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular diseases, the Task Force has designated the term guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to represent optimal medical therapy as defined by ACCF/AHA guideline-recommended therapies (primarily Class I). This new term, GDMT, will be used herein and throughout all future guidelines.

Because the ACCF/AHA practice guidelines address patient populations (and healthcare providers) residing in North America, drugs that are not currently available in North America are discussed in the text without a specific COR. For studies performed in large numbers of subjects outside North America, each writing committee reviews the potential influence of different practice patterns and patient populations on the treatment effect and relevance to the ACCF/AHA target population to determine whether the findings should inform a specific recommendation.

The ACCF/AHA practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diagnosis, management, and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. The ultimate judgment about care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider and patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. As a result, situations may arise in which deviations from these guidelines might be appropriate. Clinical decision making should involve consideration of the quality and availability of expertise in the area where care is provided. When these guidelines are used as the basis for regulatory or payer decisions, the goal should be improvement in quality of care. The Task Force recognizes that situations arise in which additional data are needed to inform patient care more effectively; these areas will be identified within each respective guideline when appropriate.

Prescribed courses of treatment in accordance with these recommendations are effective only if followed. Because lack of patient understanding and adherence may adversely affect outcomes, physicians and other healthcare providers should make every effort to engage the patient's active participation in prescribed medical regimens and lifestyles. In addition, patients should be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a particular treatment and should be involved in shared decision making whenever feasible, particularly for COR IIa and IIb, for which the benefit-to-risk ratio may be lower.

The Task Force makes every effort to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of industry relationships or personal interests among the members of the writing committee. All writing committee members and peer reviewers of this guideline were required to disclose all such current healthcare-related relationships, as well as those existing 24 months (from 2005) before initiation of the writing effort. The writing committee chair may not have any relevant relationships with industry or other entities (RWI); however, RWI are permitted for the vice chair position. In December 2009, the ACCF and AHA implemented a new policy that requires a minimum of 50% of the writing committee have no relevant RWI; in addition, the disclosure term was changed to 12 months before writing committee initiation. The present guideline was developed during the transition in RWI policy and occurred over an extended period of time. In the interest of transparency, we provide full information on RWI existing over the entire period of guideline development, including delineation of relationships that expired more than 24 months before the guideline was finalized. This information is included in Appendix 1. These statements are reviewed by the Task Force and all members during each conference call and meeting of the writing committee and are updated as changes occur. All guideline recommendations require a confidential vote by the writing committee and must be approved by a consensus of the voting members. Members who recused themselves from voting are indicated in the list of writing committee members, and section recusals are noted in Appendix 1. Authors' and peer reviewers' RWI pertinent to this guideline are disclosed in Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. Comprehensive disclosure information for the Task Force is also available online at http://www.cardiosource.org/ACC/About-ACC/Who-We-Are/Leadership/Guidelines-and-Documents-Task-Forces.aspx. The work of the writing committee is supported exclusively by the ACCF, AHA, American College of Physicians (ACP), American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association (PCNA), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), without commercial support. Writing committee members volunteered their time for this activity.

The recommendations in this guideline are considered current until they are superseded by a focused update or the full-text guideline is revised. The reader is encouraged to consult the full-text guideline2 for additional guidance and details about stable ischemic heart disease since the Executive Summary contains only the recommendations. Guidelines are official policy of both the ACCF and AHA.

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA Chair, ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines

1. Introduction

1.1. Methodology and Evidence Overview

The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. An extensive evidence review was conducted as the document was compiled through December 2008. Repeated literature searches were performed by the guideline development staff and writing committee members as new issues were considered. When available, current and credible meta-analyses were used instead of conducting a systematic review of all primary literature. New clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals and articles through December 2011 were also reviewed and incorporated when relevant. Furthermore, because of the extended development time period for this guideline, peer review comments indicated that the sections focused on imaging technologies required additional updating, which occurred during 2011. Therefore, the evidence review for the imaging sections includes published literature through December 2011.

Searches were limited to studies, reviews, and other evidence in human subjects and published in English. Key search words included, but were not limited to: accuracy, angina, asymptomatic patients, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), cardiac rehabilitation, chest pain, chronic angina, chronic coronary occlusions, chronic ischemic heart disease (IHD), chronic total occlusion, connective tissue disease, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) versus medical therapy, coronary artery disease (CAD) and exercise, coronary calcium scanning, cardiac/coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), CMR angiography, CMR imaging, coronary stenosis, death, depression, detection of CAD in symptomatic patients, diabetes, diagnosis, dobutamine stress echocardiography, echocardiography, elderly, electrocardiogram (ECG) and chronic stable angina, emergency department, ethnic, exercise, exercise stress testing, follow-up testing, gender, glycemic control, hypertension, intravascular ultrasound, fractional flow reserve, invasive coronary angiography, kidney disease, low-density lipoprotein lowering, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), medication adherence, minority groups, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), noninvasive testing and mortality, nuclear myocardial perfusion, nutrition, obesity, outcomes, patient follow-up, patient education, prognosis, proximal left anterior descending (LAD) disease, physical activity, reoperation, risk stratification, smoking, stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD), stable angina and reoperation, stable angina and revascularization, stress echocardiography, radionuclide stress testing, stenting versus CABG, unprotected left main, weight reduction, and women.

1.2. Organization of the Writing Committee

The writing committee was composed of physicians, cardiovascular interventionalists, surgeons, general internists, imagers, nurses, and pharmacists. The writing committee included representatives from the ACP, AATS, PCNA, SCAI, and STS.

1.3. Document Review and Approval

This document was reviewed by 2 external reviewers nominated by both the ACCF and the AHA; 2 reviewers nominated by the ACP, AATS, PCNA, SCAI, and STS; and 19 content reviewers, including representatives from the ACCF Imaging Council, ACCF Interventional Scientific Council, and the AHA Council on Clinical Cardiology. All reviewer RWI information was collected and distributed to the writing committee and is published in this document (Appendix 2). Because extensive peer review comments resulted in substantial revision, the guideline was subjected to a second peer review by all official and organizational reviewers. Lastly, the imaging sections were also peer reviewed separately, after an update to that evidence base.

This document was approved for publication by the governing bodies of the ACCF, AHA, ACP, AATS, PCNA, SCAI, and STS.

1.4. Scope of the Guideline

These guidelines are intended to apply to adult patients with stable known or suspected IHD, including new-onset chest pain (ie, low-risk unstable angina [UA]), or to adult patients with stable pain syndromes (Figure 1). Patients who have “ischemic equivalents,” such as dyspnea or arm pain with exertion, are included in the latter group. Many patients with IHD can become asymptomatic with appropriate therapy. Accordingly, the follow-up sections of this guideline pertain to patients who were previously symptomatic, including those who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or CABG.

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Spectrum of IHD. Guidelines relevant to the spectrum of IHD are in parentheses. CABG indicates oronary artery bypass graft; CV, cardiovascular; ECG, electrocardiogram; IHD, ischemic heart disease; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SCD, sudden cardiac death; SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; STEMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction; UA, unstable angina; UA/NSTEMI, unstable angina/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction; and VA, ventricular arrhythmia.

This guideline also addresses the initial diagnostic approach to patients who present with symptoms that suggest IHD, such as anginal-type chest pain, but who are not known to have IHD. In this circumstance, it is essential that the practitioner ascertain whether such symptoms represent the initial clinical recognition of chronic stable angina, reflecting gradual progression of obstructive CAD or an increase in supply/demand mismatch precipitated by a change in activity or concurrent illness (such as anemia or infection), or whether they represent an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), most likely due to an unstable plaque causing acute thrombosis. For patients with newly diagnosed stable angina, this guideline should be used. For patients with acute MI, the reader is referred to the ACCF/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation MI,3,4 and for patients with UA, the reader is referred to the “ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.”5,5a There are, however, patients with UA who can be categorized as low risk and are addressed in this guideline (Table 2).

Table 2. Short-Term Risk of Death or Nonfatal MI in Patients With UA/NSTEMI
Feature High Risk
Intermediate Risk
Low Risk
At least 1 of the following features must be present: No high-risk features are present, but patient must have 1 of the following: No high- or intermediate-risk features are present, but patient may have any of the following:
History Accelerating tempo of ischemic symptoms in preceding 48 h Prior MI, peripheral or cerebrovascular disease, or CABGPrior aspirin use N/A
Characteristics of pain Prolonged ongoing (>20 min) rest pain Prolonged (>20 min) rest angina, now resolved, with moderate or high likelihood of CADRest angina (>20 min) or relieved with rest or sublingual NTGNocturnal anginaNew-onset or progressive CCS Class III or IV angina in previous 2 wk without prolonged (>20 min) rest pain but with intermediate or high likelihood of CAD Increased angina frequency, severity, or durationAngina provoked at a lower thresholdNew-onset angina with onset 2 wk to 2 mo before presentation
Clinical findings Pulmonary edema, most likely due to ischemiaNew or worsening mitral regurgitation murmurS3 or new/worsening ralesHypotension, bradycardia, or tachycardiaAge >75 y Age >70 y N/A
ECG Angina at rest with transient ST-segment changes >0.5 mmBundle-branch block, new or presumed newSustained ventricular tachycardia T-wave changesPathological Q waves or resting ST-depression <1 mm in multiple lead groups (anterior, inferior, lateral) Normal or unchanged ECG
Cardiac markers Elevated cardiac TnT, TnI, or CK-MB (ie, TnT or TnI >0.1 ng/mL) Slightly elevated cardiac TnT, TnI, or CK-MB (ie, TnT >0.01 but <0.1 ng/mL) Normal

Estimation of the short-term risks of death and nonfatal cardiac ischemic events in UA or NSTEMI is a complex multivariable problem that cannot be fully specified in a table such as this. Therefore, the table is meant to offer general guidance and illustration rather than rigid algorithms.

CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCS, Canadian Cardiovascular Society; CK-MB, creatine kinase-MB fraction; ECG, electrocardiogram; MI, myocardial infarction; NTG, nitroglycerin; N/A, not available; TnI, troponin I; TnT, troponin T; and UA/NSTEMI, unstable angina/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Modified from Braunwald et al.7

A key premise of this guideline is that once a diagnosis of IHD is established, it is necessary in most patients to assess their risk of subsequent complications, such as acute myocardial infarction or death. Because the approach to diagnosis of suspected IHD and the assessment of risk in a patient with known IHD are conceptually different and are based on different literature, these issues are addressed separately. A clinician might, however, select a procedure for a patient with a moderate to high pretest likelihood of IHD to provide information for both diagnosis and risk assessment, whereas in a patient with a low likelihood of IHD, it could be sensible to select a test simply for diagnostic purposes without regard to risk assessment. The purpose of this dichotomy is to promote the sensible application of appropriate testing rather than routine use of the most expensive or complex tests whether warranted or not.

Additionally, this guideline addresses the approach to asymptomatic patients with SIHD that has been diagnosed solely on the basis of an abnormal screening study, rather than on the basis of clinical symptoms or events such as anginal symptoms or ACS. Multiple ACCF/AHA guidelines and scientific statements have discouraged the use of ambulatory monitoring, treadmill testing, stress echocardiography, stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), and computed tomography scoring of coronary calcium or coronary angiography as routine screening tests in asymptomatic individuals.

When patients with documented IHD develop recurrent chest pain, the symptoms still could be attributable to another condition. Such patients are included in this guideline if there is sufficient suspicion that their heart disease is a likely source of symptoms to warrant cardiac evaluation. Just as in the case of patients with new-onset chest pain, if the pain seems to be cardiac in origin, the clinician must determine whether such recurrent or worsening pain is consistent with ACS or simply represents symptoms more consistent with chronic stable angina that do not require emergent attention.

The approach to screening and management of asymptomatic patients who are at risk for IHD but who are not known to have IHD is beyond the scope of this guideline, but it is addressed in the “ACCF/AHA Guideline for Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Asymptomatic Adults.”6 Similarly, the present guideline does not apply to patients with chest pain symptoms early after revascularization, that is, within 6 months of revascularization.

1.5. General Approach and Overlap With Other Guidelines or Statements

This guideline overlaps with numerous clinical practice guidelines published by the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the ACP (Table 3). To maintain consistency, the writing committee worked with members of other committees to harmonize recommendations and eliminate discrepancies.

Table 3. Associated Guidelines and Statements
Document Reference(s) Organization Publication Year
Guidelines
    Chronic Stable Angina: 2007 Focused Update (15) ACCF/AHA 2007
    Valvular Heart Disease (16) ACCF/AHA 2008
    Heart Failure: 2009 Update (17) ACCF/AHA 2009
    STEMI (3, 4, 18) ACCF/AHA 2009
    Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Asymptomatic Adults (6) ACCF/AHA 2010
    Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (19) ACCF/AHA 2011
    Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (20) ACCF/AHA/SCAI 2011
    Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease (8) AHA/ACCF 2011
    UA/NSTEMI: 2007 and 2012 Updates (5, 5a) ACCF/AHA 2012
Statements
    NCEP ATP III Implications of Recent Clinical Trials (22, 23) NHLBI 2004
    National Hypertension Education Program (JNC VII) (24) NHLBI 2004
    Referral, Enrollment, and Delivery of Cardiac Rehabilitation/Secondary Prevention Programs at Clinical Centers and Beyond: A Presidential Advisory From the AHA (25) AHA 2011

ACCF indicates American College of Cardiology Foundation; AHA, American Heart Association; ATP III, Adult Treatment Panel 3; JNC VII, The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; NHLBI, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; and SCAI, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

This document recommends a combination of lifestyle modifications and medications that constitute GDMT. Recommendations for risk reduction are consistent with the “AHA/ACCF Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Vascular Disease: 2011 Update.”8 Recommendations related to revascularization are the result of collaboration discussions among several writing committees, including those addressing SIHD, PCI, CABG, and unstable angina/non–ST-elevation MI. To the fullest extent possible, these guidelines are consistent with the appropriate use criteria documents for imaging testing, diagnostic catheterization, and coronary revascularization that are also sponsored by the ACCF.9–14

1.6. Magnitude of the Problem

It is estimated that 1 in 3 adults in the United States (about 71 million) has some form of cardiovascular disease, including >13 million with CAD and nearly 9 million with angina pectoris.26,27 Among persons 60 to 79 years of age, approximately 23% of men and 15% of women have prevalent IHD, and these figures rise to 33% and 22% among men and women ≥80 years of age, respectively.27

Although the survival rate of patients with IHD has been steadily improving,28 it was still responsible for nearly 380 000 deaths in the United States in 2010, with an age-adjusted mortality rate of 113 per 100 000 population.29 Although IHD is widely known to be the number 1 cause of death in men, this is also the case for women, among whom this condition accounts for 27% of deaths (compared with 22% due to cancer).30 IHD also accounts for the vast majority of the mortality and morbidity of cardiac disease. Each year, >1.5 million patients have an MI. Many more are hospitalized for UA and evaluation and treatment of stable chest pain syndromes. Patients who have had ACS, such as acute MI, remain at risk for recurrent events even if they have no, or limited, symptoms, and they should be considered to have SIHD.

In approximately 50% of patients, angina pectoris is the initial manifestation of IHD.27 The incidence of angina rises continuously with age in women, whereas the incidence of angina in men peaks between 55 and 65 years of age before declining.27 It has been estimated that there are 30 patients with stable angina for every patient hospitalized with infarction, and symptoms in many of these patients are poorly controlled.31–33 The direct and indirect costs of caring for patients with IHD are estimated to exceed $150 billion in the United States.

1.7. Organization of the Guideline

The overarching framework adopted in this guideline reflects the complementary goals of treating patients with known SIHD, alleviating or improving symptoms, and prolonging life. This guideline is divided into 4 basic sections summarizing the approaches to diagnosis, risk assessment, treatment, and follow-up summarized in 5 algorithms: diagnosis (Figure 2), risk assessment (Figure 3), GDMT (Figure 4), and revascularization (Figures 5 and 6). In clinical practice, steps delineated in the algorithms often overlap. An essential principle that transcends all recommendations in this guideline is that of informing and involving patients in all decisions that affect them, directly or indirectly, as summarized in the following recommendation:

Figure 2.

Figure 2. Diagnosis of patients with suspected IHD.* *Colors correspond to the class of recommendations in the ACCF/AHA Table 1. The algorithms do not represent a comprehensive list of recommendations (see full guideline text2 for all recommendations). †See Table 2 for short-term risk of death or nonfatal MI in patients with UA/NSTEMI. ‡CCTA is reasonable only for patients with intermediate probability of IHD. CCTA indicates computed coronary tomography angiography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; ECG, electrocardiogram; Echo, echocardiography; IHD, ischemic heart disease; MI, myocardial infarction; MPI, myocardial perfusion imaging; Pharm, pharmacological; UA, unstable angina; and UA/NSTEMI, unstable angina/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Figure 3.

Figure 3. Algorithm for risk assessment of patients with SIHD.* *Colors correspond to the class of recommendations in the ACCF/AHA Table 1. The algorithms do not represent a comprehensive list of recommendations (see full guideline text2 for all recommendations). CCTA indicates coronary computed tomography angiography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; ECG, electrocardiogram; Echo, echocardiography; LBBB, left bundle branch block; MPI, myocardial perfusion imaging; and Pharm, pharmacological.
Figure 4.

Figure 4. Algorithm for guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with SIHD.* *Colors correspond to the class of recommendations in the ACCF/AHA Table 1. The algorithms do not represent a comprehensive list of recommendations (see full guideline text2 for all recommendations). †The use of bile acid sequestrant is relatively contraindicated when triglycerides are ≥200 mg/dL and is contraindicated when triglycerides are ≥500 mg/dL. ‡Dietary supplement niacin must not be used as a substitute for prescription niacin. ACCF indicates American College of Cardiology Foundation; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; AHA, American Heart Association; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; ASA, aspirin; ATP III, Adult Treatment Panel 3; BP, blood pressure; CCB, calcium channel blocker; CKD, chronic kidney disease; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; JNC VII, Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LV, left ventricular; MI, myocardial infarction; NHLBI, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and NTG, nitroglycerin.
Figure 5.

Figure 5. Algorithm for revascularization to improve survival of patients with SIHD.* *Colors correspond to the class of recommendations in the ACCF/AHA Table 1. The algorithms do not represent a comprehensive list of recommendations (see full guideline text2 for all recommendations).
Figure 6.

Figure 6. Algorithm for revascularization to improve symptoms of patients with SIHD.* *Colors correspond to the class of recommendations in the ACCF/AHA Table 1. The algorithms do not represent a comprehensive list of recommendations (see full guideline text2 for all recommendations). CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft; and PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
1.8. Vital Importance of Involvement by an Informed Patient: Recommendation
Class I

  1. Choices about diagnostic and therapeutic options should be made through a process of shared decision making involving the patient and provider, with the provider explaining information about risks, benefits, and costs to the patient. (Level of Evidence: C)

2. Diagnosis of SIHD: Recommendations

2.1. Clinical Evaluation of Patients With Chest Pain
2.1.1. Clinical Evaluation in the Initial Diagnosis of SIHD in Patients With Chest Pain
Class I

  1. Patients with chest pain should receive a thorough history and physical examination to assess the probability of IHD before additional testing.34 (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. Patients who present with acute angina should be categorized as stable or unstable; patients with UA should be further categorized as being at high, moderate, or low risk.5,5a (Level of Evidence: C)

2.1.2. Electrocardiography
2.1.2.1. Resting Electrocardiography to Assess Risk
Class I

  1. A resting ECG is recommended in patients without an obvious, noncardiac cause of chest pain.36–38 (Level of Evidence: B)

2.1.3. Stress Testing and Advanced Imaging for Initial Diagnosis in Patients With Suspected SIHD Who Require Noninvasive Testing

See Table 4 for a summary of recommendations from this section.

Table 4. Stress Testing and Advanced Imaging for Initial Diagnosis in Patients With Suspected SIHD Who Require Noninvasive Testing
Test Exercise Status
ECG Interpretable
Pretest Probability of IHD
COR LOE References
Able Unable Yes No Low Intermediate High
Patients able to exercise*
    Exercise ECG X X X I A (39–42)
    Exercise with nuclear MPI or Echo X X X X I B (43–53)
    Exercise ECG X X X IIa C N/A
    Exercise with nuclear MPI or Echo X X X X IIa B (43–53)
    Pharmacological stress CMR X X X X IIa B (50, 54, 55)
    CCTA X Any X IIb B (55–63)
    Exercise Echo X X X IIb C N/A
    Pharmacological stress with nuclear MPI, Echo, or CMR X X Any III: No Benefit C (52, 64, 65)
    Exercise stress with nuclear MPI X X X III: No Benefit C N/A
Patients unable to exercise
    Pharmacological stress with nuclear MPI or Echo X Any X X I B (43, 46, 47, 49–53)
    Pharmacological stress Echo X Any X IIa C N/A
    CCTA X Any X X IIa B (55–63)
    Pharmacological stress CMR X Any X X IIa B (50, 54, 55, 66–69)
    Exercise ECG X X Any III: No Benefit C (43–53, 58)
    Other
    CCTA    If patient has any of the following:    a) Continued symptoms with prior normal test, or    b) Inconclusive exercise or pharmacological stress, or    c) Unable to undergo stress with MPI or Echo Any Any X IIa C (70)
    CAC score Any Any X IIb C (71)

*Patients are candidates for exercise testing if they are capable of performing at least moderate physical functioning (ie, moderate household, yard, or recreational work and most activities of daily living) and have no disabling comorbidity. Patients should be able to achieve 85% of age-predicted maximum heart rate.

CAC indicates coronary artery calcium; CCTA, cardiac computed tomography angiography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; COR, class of recommendation; ECG, electrocardiogram; Echo, echocardiography; IHD, ischemic heart disease; LOE, level of evidence; MPI, myocardial perfusion imaging; N/A, not available; and SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease.

2.1.3.1. Able to Exercise
Class I

  1. Standard exercise ECG testing is recommended for patients with an intermediate pretest probability of IHD who have an interpretable ECG and at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity.39–42 (Level of Evidence: A)

  2. Exercise stress with nuclear MPI or echocardiography is recommended for patients with an intermediate to high pretest probability of IHD who have an uninterpretable ECG and at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity.43–53 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. For patients with a low pretest probability of obstructive IHD who do require testing, standard exercise ECG testing can be useful, provided the patient has an interpretable ECG and at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity. (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. Exercise stress with nuclear MPI or echocardiography is reasonable for patients with an intermediate to high pretest probability of obstructive IHD who have an interpretable ECG and at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity.43–53 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. Pharmacological stress with CMR can be useful for patients with an intermediate to high pretest probability of obstructive IHD who have an uninterpretable ECG and at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity.50,54,55 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

  1. CCTA might be reasonable for patients with an intermediate pretest probability of IHD who have at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity.55–63 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. For patients with a low pretest probability of obstructive IHD who do require testing, standard exercise stress echocardiography might be reasonable, provided the patient has an interpretable ECG and at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Pharmacological stress with nuclear MPI, echocardiography, or CMR is not recommended for patients who have an interpretable ECG and at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity.52,64,65 (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. Exercise stress with nuclear MPI is not recommended as an initial test in low-risk patients who have an interpretable ECG and at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity. (Level of Evidence: C)

2.1.3.2. Unable to Exercise
Class I

  1. Pharmacological stress with nuclear MPI or echocardiography is recommended for patients with an intermediate to high pretest probability of IHD who are incapable of at least moderate physical functioning or have disabling comorbidity.43,46,47,49–53 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. Pharmacological stress echocardiography is reasonable for patients with a low pretest probability of IHD who require testing and are incapable of at least moderate physical functioning or have disabling comorbidity. (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. CCTA is reasonable for patients with a low to intermediate pretest probability of IHD who are incapable of at least moderate physical functioning or have disabling comorbidity.55–63 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. Pharmacological stress CMR is reasonable for patients with an intermediate to high pretest probability of IHD who are incapable of at least moderate physical functioning or have disabling comorbidity.50,54,55,66–69 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Standard exercise ECG testing is not recommended for patients who have an uninterpretable ECG or are incapable of at least moderate physical functioning or have disabling comorbidity.43–53,58 (Level of Evidence: C)

2.1.3.3. Other
Class IIa

  1. CCTA is reasonable for patients with an intermediate pretest probability of IHD who a) have continued symptoms with prior normal test findings, or b) have inconclusive results from prior exercise or pharmacological stress testing, or c) are unable to undergo stress with nuclear MPI or echocardiography.70 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

  1. For patients with a low to intermediate pretest probability of obstructive IHD, noncontrast cardiac computed tomography to determine the coronary artery calcium score may be considered.71 (Level of Evidence: C)

3. Risk Assessment: Recommendations

3.1. Advanced Testing: Resting and Stress Noninvasive Testing
3.1.1. Resting Imaging to Assess Cardiac Structure and Function
Class I

  1. Assessment of resting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic ventricular function and evaluation for abnormalities of myocardium, heart valves, or pericardium are recommended with the use of Doppler echocardiography in patients with known or suspected IHD and a prior MI, pathological Q waves, symptoms or signs suggestive of heart failure, complex ventricular arrhythmias, or an undiagnosed heart murmur.17,36,37,72,73 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

  1. Assessment of cardiac structure and function with resting echocardiography may be considered in patients with hypertension or diabetes mellitus and an abnormal ECG. (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. Measurement of LV function with radionuclide imaging may be considered in patients with a prior MI or pathological Q waves, provided there is no need to evaluate symptoms or signs suggestive of heart failure, complex ventricular arrhythmias, or an undiagnosed heart murmur. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Echocardiography, radionuclide imaging, CMR, and cardiac computed tomography are not recommended for routine assessment of LV function in patients with a normal ECG, no history of MI, no symptoms or signs suggestive of heart failure, and no complex ventricular arrhythmias. (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. Routine reassessment (<1 year) of LV function with technologies such as echocardiography radionuclide imaging, CMR, or cardiac computed tomography is not recommended in patients with no change in clinical status and for whom no change in therapy is contemplated. (Level of Evidence: C)

3.1.2. Stress Testing and Advanced Imaging in Patients With Known SIHD Who Require Noninvasive Testing for Risk Assessment

See Table 5 for a summary of recommendations from this section.

Table 5. Using Stress Testing and Advanced Imaging for Patients With Known SIHD Who Require Noninvasive Testing for Risk Assessment
Test Exercise Status
ECG Interpretable
COR LOE References Additional Considerations
Able Unable Yes No
Patients able to exercise*
    Exercise ECG X X I B (41, 45, 74–82)
    Exercise with nuclear MPI or Echo X X I B (83–87, 117–119) Abnormalities other than LBBB or ventricular pacing
    Exercise with nuclear MPI or Echo X X IIa B (88–97)
    Pharmacological stress CMR X X IIa B (97–102)
    CCTA X X IIb B (103, 104)
    Pharmacological stress imaging (nuclear MPI, Echo, CMR) or CCTA X X III: No Benefit C N/A
Patients unable to exercise
    Pharmacological stress with nuclear MPI or Echo X Any I B (83–86, 105–108)
    Pharmacological stress CMR X Any IIa B (98–102, 109)
    CCTA X Any IIa C (104) Without prior stress test
Regardless of patient's ability to exercise
    Exercise Echo or pharmacological stress with MPI or Echo Any X I B (105–108, 110) LBBB present
    Exercise/pharmacological stress with nuclear MPI, Echo, or CMR Any Any I B (84, 96, 111, 112) Known coronary stenosis of unclear physiological significance being considered for revascularization
    CCTA Any Any IIa C N/A Indeterminate result from functional testing
    CCTA Any Any IIb C N/A Unable to undergo stress imaging or as alternative to coronary catheterization when functional testing indicates moderate to high risk and angiographic coronary anatomy is unknown
Requests to perform multiple cardiac imaging or stress studies at the same time Any Any III: No Benefit C N/A

CCTA indicates cardiac computed tomography angiography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; COR, class of recommendation; ECG, electrocardiogram; Echo, echocardiography; LBBB, left bundle-branch block; LOE, level of evidence; MPI, myocardial perfusion imaging; and N/A, not available.

*Patients are candidates for exercise testing if they are capable of performing at least moderate physical functioning (ie, moderate household, yard, or recreational work and most activities of daily living) and have no disabling comorbidity. Patients should be able to achieve 85% of age-predicted maximum heart rate.

3.1.2.1. Risk Assessment in Patients Able to Exercise
Class I

  1. Standard exercise ECG testing is recommended for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are able to exercise to an adequate workload and have an interpretable ECG.41,45,74–82 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. The addition of either nuclear MPI or echocardiography to standard exercise ECG testing is recommended for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are able to exercise to an adequate workload but have an uninterpretable ECG not due to left bundle-branch block or ventricular pacing.83–87,117–119 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. The addition of either nuclear MPI or echocardiography to standard exercise ECG testing is reasonable for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are able to exercise to an adequate workload and have an interpretable ECG.88–97 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. CMR with pharmacological stress is reasonable for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are able to exercise to an adequate workload but have an uninterpretable ECG.97–102 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

  1. CCTA may be reasonable for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are able to exercise to an adequate workload but have an uninterpretable ECG.103,104 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Pharmacological stress imaging (nuclear MPI, echocardiography, or CMR) or CCTA is not recommended for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are able to exercise to an adequate workload and have an interpretable ECG. (Level of Evidence: C)

3.1.2.2. Risk Assessment in Patients Unable to Exercise
Class I

  1. Exercise echo or pharmacological stress with either nuclear MPI or echocardiography is recommended for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are unable to exercise to an adequate workload regardless of interpretability of ECG.83–86,105–108 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. Pharmacological stress CMR is reasonable for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are unable to exercise to an adequate workload regardless of interpretability of ECG.98–102,109 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. CCTA can be useful as a first-line test for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are unable to exercise to an adequate workload regardless of interpretability of ECG.104 (Level of Evidence: C)

3.1.2.3. Risk Assessment Regardless of Patients' Ability to Exercise
Class I

  1. Pharmacological stress with either nuclear MPI or echocardiography is recommended for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who have left bundle-branch block on ECG, regardless of ability to exercise to an adequate workload.105–108,110 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Either exercise or pharmacological stress with imaging (nuclear MPI, echocardiography, or CMR) is recommended for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who are being considered for revascularization of known coronary stenosis of unclear physiological significance.84,96,111,112 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. CCTA can be useful for risk assessment in patients with SIHD who have an indeterminate result from functional testing.104 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

  1. CCTA might be considered for risk assessment in patients with SIHD unable to undergo stress imaging or as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography when functional testing indicates a moderate- to high-risk result and knowledge of angiographic coronary anatomy is unknown. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. A request to perform either a) more than 1 stress imaging study or b) a stress imaging study and a CCTA at the same time is not recommended for risk assessment in patients with SIHD. (Level of Evidence: C)

3.2. Coronary Angiography
3.2.1. Coronary Angiography as an Initial Testing Strategy to Assess Risk
Class I

  1. Patients with SIHD who have survived sudden cardiac death or potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia should undergo coronary angiography to assess cardiac risk.121–123 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Patients with SIHD who develop symptoms and signs of heart failure should be evaluated to determine whether coronary angiography should be performed for risk assessment.124–127 (Level of Evidence: B)

3.2.2. Coronary Angiography to Assess Risk After Initial Workup With Noninvasive Testing
Class I

  1. Coronary arteriography is recommended for patients with SIHD whose clinical characteristics and results of noninvasive testing indicate a high likelihood of severe IHD and when the benefits are deemed to exceed risk.38,72,128–136 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

  1. Coronary angiography is reasonable to further assess risk in patients with SIHD who have depressed LV function (ejection fraction <50%) and moderate risk criteria on noninvasive testing with demonstrable ischemia.137–139 (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. Coronary angiography is reasonable to further assess risk in patients with SIHD and inconclusive prognostic information after noninvasive testing or in patients for whom noninvasive testing is contraindicated or inadequate. (Level of Evidence: C)

  3. Coronary angiography for risk assessment is reasonable for patients with SIHD who have unsatisfactory quality of life due to angina, have preserved LV function (ejection fraction >50%), and have intermediate risk criteria on noninvasive testing.140,141 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Coronary angiography for risk assessment is not recommended in patients with SIHD who elect not to undergo revascularization or who are not candidates for revascularization because of comorbidities or individual preferences.140,141 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Coronary angiography is not recommended to further assess risk in patients with SIHD who have preserved LV function (ejection fraction >50%) and low-risk criteria on noninvasive testing.140,141 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. Coronary angiography is not recommended to assess risk in patients who are at low risk according to clinical criteria and who have not undergone noninvasive risk testing. (Level of Evidence: C)

  4. Coronary angiography is not recommended to assess risk in asymptomatic patients with no evidence of ischemia on noninvasive testing. (Level of Evidence: C)

4. Treatment: Recommendations

4.1. Patient Education
Class I

  1. Patients with SIHD should have an individualized education plan to optimize care and promote wellness, including:

    1. education on the importance of medication adherence for managing symptoms and retarding disease progression142–144 (Level of Evidence: C);

    2. an explanation of medication management and cardiovascular risk reduction strategies in a manner that respects the patient's level of understanding, reading comprehension, and ethnicity8,145–149 (Level of Evidence: B);

    3. a comprehensive review of all therapeutic options8,146–149 (Level of Evidence: B);

    4. a description of appropriate levels of exercise, with encouragement to maintain recommended levels of daily physical activity8,150–153 (Level of Evidence: C);

    5. introduction to self-monitoring skills150,152,153 (Level of Evidence: C); and

    6. information on how to recognize worsening cardiovascular symptoms and take appropriate action. (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. Patients with SIHD should be educated about the following lifestyle elements that could influence prognosis: weight control, maintenance of a body mass index of 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2, and maintenance of a waist circumference less than 102 cm (40 inches) in men and less than 88 cm (35 inches) in women (less for certain racial groups)8,145,154–157; lipid management23; blood pressure control24,158; smoking cessation and avoidance of exposure to secondhand smoke8,159,160; and individualized medical, nutrition, and lifestyle changes for patients with diabetes mellitus to supplement diabetes treatment goals and education.161 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

  1. It is reasonable to educate patients with SIHD about

    1. adherence to a diet that is low in saturated fat, cholesterol, and trans fat; high in fresh fruits, whole grains, and vegetables; and reduced in sodium intake, with cultural and ethnic preferences incorporated8,23,24,162,163 (Level of Evidence: B);

    2. common symptoms of stress and depression to minimize stress-related angina symptoms164 (Level of Evidence: C);

    3. comprehensive behavioral approaches for the management of stress and depression165–168 (Level of Evidence: C); and

    4. evaluation and treatment of major depressive disorder when indicated.142,165,167,169,170,173–175 (Level of Evidence: B)

4.2. Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy
4.2.1. Risk Factor Modification
4.2.1.1. Lipid Management
Class I

  1. Lifestyle modifications, including daily physical activity and weight management, are strongly recommended for all patients with SIHD.23,176 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Dietary therapy for all patients should include reduced intake of saturated fats (to <7% of total calories), trans fatty acids (to <1% of total calories), and cholesterol (to <200 mg/d).23,177–180 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. In addition to therapeutic lifestyle changes, a moderate or high dose of a statin therapy should be prescribed, in the absence of contraindications or documented adverse effects.23,163,181–183 (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIa

  1. For patients who do not tolerate statins, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol-lowering therapy with bile acid sequestrants,* niacin,† or both is reasonable.184,186,187 (Level of Evidence: B)

4.2.1.2. Blood Pressure Management
Class I

  1. All patients should be counseled about the need for lifestyle modification: weight control; increased physical activity; alcohol moderation; sodium reduction; and emphasis on increased consumption of fresh fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products.24,188–196 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. In patients with SIHD with blood pressure 140/90 mm Hg or higher, antihypertensive drug therapy should be instituted in addition to or after a trial of lifestyle modifications.197–202 (Level of Evidence: A)

  3. The specific medications used for treatment of high blood pressure should be based on specific patient characteristics and may include angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and/or beta blockers, with addition of other drugs, such as thiazide diuretics or calcium channel blockers, if needed to achieve a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg.203,204 (Level of Evidence: B)

4.2.1.3. Diabetes Management
Class IIa

  1. For selected individual patients, such as those with a short duration of diabetes mellitus and a long life expectancy, a goal hemoglobin A1c of 7% or less is reasonable.205–207 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. A goal hemoglobin A1c between 7% and 9% is reasonable for certain patients according to age, history of hypoglycemia, presence of microvascular or macrovascular complications, or presence of coexisting medical conditions.208,209 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

  1. Initiation of pharmacotherapy interventions to achieve target hemoglobin A1c might be reasonable.161,210–219 (Level of Evidence: A)

Class III: Harm

  1. Therapy with rosiglitazone should not be initiated in patients with SIHD.220,221 (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.1.4. Physical Activity
Class I

  1. For all patients, the clinician should encourage 30 to 60 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, such as brisk walking, at least 5 days and preferably 7 days per week, supplemented by an increase in daily lifestyle activities (eg, walking breaks at work, gardening, household work) to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and move patients out of the least-fit, least-active, high-risk cohort (bottom 20%).222–224 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. For all patients, risk assessment with a physical activity history and/or an exercise test is recommended to guide prognosis and prescription.225–228 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. Medically supervised programs (cardiac rehabilitation) and physician-directed, home-based programs are recommended for at-risk patients at first diagnosis.222,229,230 (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIa

  1. It is reasonable for the clinician to recommend complementary resistance training at least 2 days per week.231,232 (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.1.5. Weight Management
Class I

  1. Body mass index and/or waist circumference should be assessed at every visit, and the clinician should consistently encourage weight maintenance or reduction through an appropriate balance of lifestyle physical activity, structured exercise, caloric intake, and formal behavioral programs when indicated to maintain or achieve a body mass index between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2 and a waist circumference less than 102 cm (40 inches) in men and less than 88 cm (35 inches) in women (less for certain racial groups).154,233–241 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. The initial goal of weight loss therapy should be to reduce body weight by approximately 5% to 10% from baseline. With success, further weight loss can be attempted if indicated. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.1.6. Smoking Cessation Counseling
Class I

  1. Smoking cessation and avoidance of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work and home should be encouraged for all patients with SIHD. Follow-up, referral to special programs, and pharmacotherapy are recommended, as is a stepwise strategy for smoking cessation (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange, Avoid).242–244 (Level of Evidence: B)

4.2.1.7. Management of Psychological Factors
Class IIa

  1. It is reasonable to consider screening SIHD patients for depression and to refer or treat when indicated.162,165,169,245–248 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

  1. Treatment of depression has not been shown to improve cardiovascular disease outcomes but might be reasonable for its other clinical benefits.165,173,249 (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.1.8. Alcohol Consumption
Class IIb

  1. In patients with SIHD who use alcohol, it might be reasonable for nonpregnant women to have 1 drink (4 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer, or 1 ounce of spirits) a day and for men to have 1 or 2 drinks a day, unless alcohol is contraindicated (such as in patients with a history of alcohol abuse or dependence or with liver disease).250–252 (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.1.9. Avoiding Exposure to Air Pollution
Class IIa

  1. It is reasonable for patients with SIHD to avoid exposure to increased air pollution to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.253–256 (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.2. Additional Medical Therapy to Prevent MI and Death
4.2.2.1. Antiplatelet Therapy
Class I

  1. Treatment with aspirin 75 to 162 mg daily should be continued indefinitely in the absence of contraindications in patients with SIHD.257,258 (Level of Evidence: A)

  2. Treatment with clopidogrel is reasonable when aspirin is contraindicated in patients with SIHD.259 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

  1. Treatment with aspirin 75 to 162 mg daily and clopidogrel 75 mg daily might be reasonable in certain high-risk patients with SIHD.260 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Dipyridamole is not recommended as antiplatelet therapy for patients with SIHD.261–263 (Level of Evidence: B)

4.2.2.2. Beta-Blocker Therapy
Class I

  1. Beta-blocker therapy should be started and continued for 3 years in all patients with normal LV function after MI or ACS.264–266 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Beta-blocker therapy should be used in all patients with LV systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤40%) with heart failure or prior MI, unless contraindicated. (Use should be limited to carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, or bisoprolol, which have been shown to reduce risk of death.)267–271 (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIb

  1. Beta blockers may be considered as chronic therapy for all other patients with coronary or other vascular disease. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.2.3. Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone Blocker Therapy
Class I

  1. ACE inhibitors should be prescribed in all patients with SIHD who also have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, LV ejection fraction 40% or less, or chronic kidney disease, unless contraindicated.113–116,120 (Level of Evidence: A)

  2. Angiotensin-receptor blockers are recommended for patients with SIHD who have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, LV systolic dysfunction, or chronic kidney disease and have indications for, but are intolerant of, ACE inhibitors.272–274 (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIa

  1. Treatment with an ACE inhibitor is reasonable in patients with both SIHD and other vascular disease.275,276 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. It is reasonable to use angiotensin-receptor blockers in other patients who are ACE inhibitor intolerant.277 (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.2.4. Influenza Vaccination
Class I

  1. An annual influenza vaccine is recommended for patients with SIHD.278–282 (Level of Evidence: B)

4.2.2.5. Additional Therapy to Reduce Risk of MI and Death
Class III: No Benefit

  1. Estrogen therapy is not recommended in postmenopausal women with SIHD with the intent of reducing cardiovascular risk or improving clinical outcomes.283–286 (Level of Evidence: A)

  2. Vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene supplementation are not recommended with the intent of reducing cardiovascular risk or improving clinical outcomes in patients with SIHD.181,287–291 (Level of Evidence: A)

  3. Treatment of elevated homocysteine with folate or vitamins B6 and B12 is not recommended with the intent of reducing cardiovascular risk or improving clinical outcomes in patients with SIHD.292–295 (Level of Evidence: A)

  4. Chelation therapy is not recommended with the intent of improving symptoms or reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with SIHD.296–299 (Level of Evidence: C)

  5. Treatment with garlic, coenzyme Q10, selenium, or chromium is not recommended with the intent of reducing cardiovascular risk or improving clinical outcomes in patients with SIHD. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.3. Medical Therapy for Relief of Symptoms
4.2.3.1. Use of Anti-Ischemic Medications
Class I

  1. Beta blockers should be prescribed as initial therapy for relief of symptoms in patients with SIHD.264,300,301 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Calcium channel blockers or long-acting nitrates should be prescribed for relief of symptoms when beta blockers are contraindicated or cause unacceptable side effects in patients with SIHD.302–304 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. Calcium channel blockers or long-acting nitrates, in combination with beta blockers, should be prescribed for relief of symptoms when initial treatment with beta blockers is unsuccessful in patients with SIHD.304 (Level of Evidence: B)

  4. Sublingual nitroglycerin or nitroglycerin spray is recommended for immediate relief of angina in patients with SIHD.305–307 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. Treatment with a long-acting nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (verapamil or diltiazem) instead of a beta blocker as initial therapy for relief of symptoms is reasonable in patients with SIHD.304 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Ranolazine can be useful when prescribed as a substitute for beta blockers for relief of symptoms in patients with SIHD if initial treatment with beta blockers leads to unacceptable side effects or is ineffective or if initial treatment with beta blockers is contraindicated.308 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. Ranolazine in combination with beta blockers can be useful when prescribed for relief of symptoms when initial treatment with beta blockers is not successful in patients with SIHD.309,310 (Level of Evidence: A)

4.2.4. Alternative Therapies for Relief of Symptoms in Patients With Refractory Angina
Class IIb

  1. Enhanced external counterpulsation may be considered for relief of refractory angina in patients with SIHD.311 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Spinal cord stimulation may be considered for relief of refractory angina in patients with SIHD.312,313 (Level of Evidence: C)

  3. Transmyocardial revascularization may be considered for relief of refractory angina in patients with SIHD.314–316 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Acupuncture should not be used for the purpose of improving symptoms or reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with SIHD.317,318 (Level of Evidence: C)

5. CAD Revascularization: Recommendations

Table 6 and Table 7 provide summaries of recommendations from this section.

Table 6. Revascularization to Improve Survival Compared With Medical Therapy
Anatomic Setting COR LOE References
UPLM or complex CAD
    CABG and PCI I—Heart Team approach recommended C (319–321)
    CABG and PCI IIa—Calculation of STS and SYNTAX scores B (321–327)
UPLM*
    CABG I B (328–334)
    PCI IIa—For SIHD when both of the following are present:    • Anatomic conditions associated with a low risk of PCI procedural complications and a high likelihood of good long-term outcome (eg, a low SYNTAX score of < 22, ostial or trunk left main CAD)    • Clinical characteristics that predict a significantly increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (eg, STS-predicted risk of operative mortality > 5%) B (322, 324, 325, 335–353)
IIa—For UA/NSTEMI if not a CABG candidate B (325, 340, 342–344, 349–352, 354)
IIa—For STEMI when distal coronary flow is TIMI flow grade <3 and PCI can be performed more rapidly and safely than CABG C (337, 355, 356)
IIb—For SIHD when both of the following are present:    • Anatomic conditions associated with a low to intermediate risk of PCI procedural complications and an intermediate to high likelihood of good long-term outcome (eg, low-intermediate SYNTAX score of <33, bifurcation left main CAD)    • Clinical characteristics that predict an increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (eg, moderate—severe COPD, disability from prior stroke, or prior cardiac surgery; STS-predicted operative mortality >2%) B (322, 324, 325, 335–353, 357)
III: Harm—For SIHD in patients (versus performing CABG) with unfavorable anatomy for PCI and who are good candidates for CABG B (322, 324, 325, 328–336)
3-vessel disease with or without proximal LAD artery disease*
    CABG I B (125, 330, 334, 358–360)
IIa—It is reasonable to choose CABG over PCI in patients with complex 3-vessel CAD (eg, SYNTAX score >22) who are good candidates for CABG B (336, 353, 360–362)
    PCI IIb—Of uncertain benefit B (140, 330, 353, 358, 360)
2-vessel disease with proximal LAD artery disease*
    CABG I B (125, 330, 334, 358–360)
    PCI IIb—Of uncertain benefit B (140, 330, 358, 360)
2-vessel disease without proximal LAD artery disease*
    CABG IIa—With extensive ischemia B (363–366)
IIb—Of uncertain benefit without extensive ischemia C (360)
    PCI IIb—Of uncertain benefit B (140, 330, 358, 360)
1-vessel proximal LAD artery disease
    CABG IIa—With LIMA for long-term benefit B (334, 360, 367, 368)
    PCI IIb—Of uncertain benefit B (140, 330, 358, 360)
1-vessel disease without proximal LAD artery involvement
    CABG III: Harm B (141, 334, 358, 363, 364, 369–372)
    PCI III: Harm B (141, 334, 358, 363, 364, 369–372)
LV dysfunction
    CABG IIa—EF 35% to 50% B (139, 334, 373–376)
    CABG IIb—EF <35% without significant left main CAD B (127, 139, 334, 373–377)
    PCI Insufficient data N/A
Survivors of sudden cardiac death with presumed ischemia-mediated VT
    CABG I B (122, 378, 379)
    PCI I C (378)
No anatomic or physiological criteria for revascularization
    CABG III: Harm B (141, 334, 358, 363, 364, 369–372)
    PCI III: Harm B (141, 334, 358, 363, 364, 369–372)

*In patients with multivessel disease who also have diabetes mellitus, it is reasonable to choose CABG (with LIMA) over PCI365,380,381,381–386 (Class IIa; LOE: B).

CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COR, class of recommendation; EF, ejection fraction; LAD, left anterior descending; LIMA, left internal mammary artery; LOE, level of evidence; LV, left ventricular; N/A, not available; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; STEMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons; SYNTAX, Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery; TIMI, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction; UA/NSTEMI, unstable angina/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction; UPLM, unprotected left main disease; and VT, ventricular tachycardia.

Table 7. Revascularization to Improve Symptoms With Significant Anatomic (≥50% Left Main or ≥70% Non-Left Main CAD) or Physiological (FFR ≤0.80) Coronary Artery Stenoses
Clinical Setting COR LOE References
≥1 significant stenoses amenable to revascularization and unacceptable angina despite GDMT 1—CABG A (140, 387–396)
1—PCI
≥1 significant stenoses and unacceptable angina in whom GDMT cannot be implemented because of medication contraindications, adverse effects, or patient preferences IIa—CABG C N/A
IIa—PCI C N/A
Previous CABG with ≥1 significant stenoses associated with ischemia and unacceptable angina despite GDMT IIa—PCI C (397–400)
IIb—CABG C (401)
Complex 3-vessel CAD (eg, SYNTAX score >22) with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery and a good candidate for CABG IIa—CABG preferred over PCI B (353, 360–362)
Viable ischemic myocardium that is perfused by coronary arteries that are not amenable to grafting IIb—TMR as an adjunct to CABG B (402–406)
No anatomic or physiological criteria for revascularization III: Harm—CABG C N/A
III: Harm—PCI C N/A

CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; COR, class of recommendation; FFR, fractional flow reserve; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; LOE, level of evidence; N/A, not available; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SYNTAX, Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery; and TMR, transmyocardial revascularization.

5.1. Heart Team Approach to Revascularization Decisions
Class I

  1. A Heart Team approach to revascularization is recommended in patients with unprotected left main or complex CAD.319–321 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

  1. Calculation of the STS and SYNTAX scores is reasonable in patients with unprotected left main and complex CAD.321–327 (Level of Evidence: B)

5.2. Revascularization to Improve Survival
Left Main CAD Revascularization
Class I

  1. CABG to improve survival is recommended for patients with significant (≥50% diameter stenosis) left main coronary artery stenosis.328–334 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. PCI to improve survival is reasonable as an alternative to CABG in selected stable patients with significant (≥50% diameter stenosis) unprotected left main CAD with: 1) anatomic conditions associated with a low risk of PCI procedural complications and a high likelihood of good long-term outcome (eg, a low SYNTAX score [≤22], ostial or trunk left main CAD); and 2) clinical characteristics that predict a significantly increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (eg, STS-predicted risk of operative mortality ≥5%).322,324,325,335–353 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. PCI to improve survival is reasonable in patients with unstable angina/non–ST-elevation MI when an unprotected left main coronary artery is the culprit lesion and the patient is not a candidate for CABG.325,340,342–344,349–352,354 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. PCI to improve survival is reasonable in patients with acute ST-elevation MI when an unprotected left main coronary artery is the culprit lesion, distal coronary flow is less than TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) grade 3, and PCI can be performed more rapidly and safely than CABG.337,355,356 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

  1. PCI to improve survival may be reasonable as an alternative to CABG in selected stable patients with significant (≥50% diameter stenosis) unprotected left main CAD with: a) anatomic conditions associated with a low to intermediate risk of PCI procedural complications and an intermediate to high likelihood of good long-term outcome (eg, low-intermediate SYNTAX score of <33, bifurcation left main CAD); and b) clinical characteristics that predict an increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (eg, moderate-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, disability from previous stroke, or previous cardiac surgery; STS-predicted risk of operative mortality >2%).322,324,325,335–353,357 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

  1. PCI to improve survival should not be performed in stable patients with significant (≥50% diameter stenosis) unprotected left main CAD who have unfavorable anatomy for PCI and who are good candidates for CABG.322,324,325,328–336 (Level of Evidence: B)

Non-Left Main CAD Revascularization

Class I

  1. CABG to improve survival is beneficial in patients with significant (≥70% diameter) stenoses in 3 major coronary arteries (with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery) or in the proximal LAD artery plus 1 other major coronary artery.125,330,334,358–360 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. CABG or PCI to improve survival is beneficial in survivors of sudden cardiac death with presumed ischemia-mediated ventricular tachycardia caused by significant (≥70% diameter) stenosis in a major coronary artery. (CABG Level of Evidence: B122,378,379; PCI Level of Evidence: C378)

Class IIa

  1. CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with significant (≥70% diameter) stenoses in 2 major coronary arteries with severe or extensive myocardial ischemia (eg, high-risk criteria on stress testing, abnormal intracoronary hemodynamic evaluation, or >20% perfusion defect by myocardial perfusion stress imaging) or target vessels supplying a large area of viable myocardium.363–366 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with mild-moderate LV systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction 35% to 50%) and significant (≥70% diameter stenosis) multivessel CAD or proximal LAD coronary artery stenosis, when viable myocardium is present in the region of intended revascularization.139,334,373–376 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. CABG with a left internal mammary artery graft to improve survival is reasonable in patients with significant (≥70% diameter) stenosis in the proximal LAD artery and evidence of extensive ischemia.334,360,367,368 (Level of Evidence: B)

  4. It is reasonable to choose CABG over PCI to improve survival in patients with complex 3-vessel CAD (eg, SYNTAX score >22), with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery who are good candidates for CABG.336,353,360–362 (Level of Evidence: B)

  5. CABG is probably recommended in preference to PCI to improve survival in patients with multivessel CAD and diabetes mellitus, particularly if a left internal mammary artery graft can be anastomosed to the LAD artery.365,380,381–386 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

  1. The usefulness of CABG to improve survival is uncertain in patients with significant (≥70%) diameter stenoses in 2 major coronary arteries not involving the proximal LAD artery and without extensive ischemia.360 (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. The usefulness of PCI to improve survival is uncertain in patients with 2- or 3-vessel CAD (with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery) or 1-vessel proximal LAD disease.140,330,358,360 (Level of Evidence: B)

  3. CABG might be considered with the primary or sole intent of improving survival in patients with SIHD with severe LV systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%) whether or not viable myocardium is present.127,139,334,373–377 (Level of Evidence: B)

  4. The usefulness of CABG or PCI to improve survival is uncertain in patients with previous CABG and extensive anterior wall ischemia on noninvasive testing.397–401,408–411 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

  1. CABG or PCI should not be performed with the primary or sole intent to improve survival in patients with SIHD with 1 or more coronary stenoses that are not anatomically or functionally significant (eg, <70% diameter non–left main coronary artery stenosis, fractional flow reserve >0.80, no or only mild ischemia on noninvasive testing), involve only the left circumflex or right coronary artery, or subtend only a small area of viable myocardium.141,334,358,363,364,369–372 (Level of Evidence: B)

5.3. Revascularization to Improve Symptoms

Class I

  1. CABG or PCI to improve symptoms is beneficial in patients with 1 or more significant (≥70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses amenable to revascularization and unacceptable angina despite GDMT.140,387–393,395,396,412 (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIa

  1. CABG or PCI to improve symptoms is reasonable in patients with 1 or more significant (≥70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses and unacceptable angina for whom GDMT cannot be implemented because of medication contraindications, adverse effects, or patient preferences. (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. PCI to improve symptoms is reasonable in patients with previous CABG, 1 or more significant (≥70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses associated with ischemia, and unacceptable angina despite GDMT.397,399,400 (Level of Evidence: C)

  3. It is reasonable to choose CABG over PCI to improve symptoms in patients with complex 3-vessel CAD (eg, SYNTAX score >22), with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery, who are good candidates for CABG.325,336,353,360–362 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

  1. CABG to improve symptoms might be reasonable for patients with previous CABG, 1 or more significant (≥70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses not amenable to PCI, and unacceptable angina despite GDMT.401 (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. Transmyocardial revascularization performed as an adjunct to CABG to improve symptoms may be reasonable in patients with viable ischemic myocardium that is perfused by arteries that are not amenable to grafting.402–406 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

  1. CABG or PCI to improve symptoms should not be performed in patients who do not meet anatomic (≥50% diameter left main or ≥70% non–left main stenosis diameter) or physiological (eg, abnormal fractional flow reserve) criteria for revascularization. (Level of Evidence: C)

5.4. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Compliance and Stent Thrombosis

Class III: Harm

  1. PCI with coronary stenting (bare-metal stent or drug-eluting stent) should not be performed if the patient is not likely to be able to tolerate and comply with dual antiplatelet therapy for the appropriate duration of treatment based on the type of stent implanted.414–417 (Level of Evidence: B)

5.5. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Class IIa

  1. Hybrid coronary revascularization (defined as the planned combination of left internal mammary artery-to-LAD artery grafting and PCI of ≥1 non-LAD coronary arteries) is reasonable in patients with 1 or more of the following418–424 (Level of Evidence: B):

    1. Limitations to traditional CABG, such as heavily calcified proximal aorta or poor target vessels for CABG (but amenable to PCI);

    2. Lack of suitable graft conduits;

    3. Unfavorable LAD artery for PCI (ie, excessive vessel tortuosity or chronic total occlusion).

Class IIb

  1. Hybrid coronary revascularization (defined as the planned combination of left internal mammary artery-to-LAD artery grafting and PCI of ≥1 non-LAD coronary arteries) may be reasonable as an alternative to multivessel PCI or CABG in an attempt to improve the overall risk-benefit ratio of the procedures. (Level of Evidence: C)

6. Patient Follow-Up: Monitoring of Symptoms and Antianginal Therapy: Recommendations

6.1. Clinical Evaluation, Echocardiography During Routine, Periodic Follow-Up

Class I

  1. Patients with SIHD should receive periodic follow-up, at least annually, that includes all of the following (Level of Evidence: C):

    1. Assessment of symptoms and clinical function;

    2. Surveillance for complications of SIHD, including heart failure and arrhythmias;

    3. Monitoring of cardiac risk factors; and

    4. Assessment of the adequacy of and adherence to recommended lifestyle changes and medical therapy.

  2. Assessment of LV ejection fraction and segmental wall motion by echocardiography or radionuclide imaging is recommended in patients with new or worsening heart failure or evidence of intervening MI by history or ECG. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

  1. Periodic screening for important comorbidities that are prevalent in patients with SIHD, including diabetes mellitus, depression, and chronic kidney disease might be reasonable. (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. A resting 12-lead ECG at 1-year or longer intervals between studies in patients with stable symptoms might be reasonable. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Measurement of LV function with a technology such as echocardiography or radionuclide imaging is not recommended for routine periodic reassessment of patients who have not had a change in clinical status or who are at low risk of adverse cardiovascular events.425 (Level of Evidence: C)

6.2. Noninvasive Testing in Known SIHD

6.2.1. Follow-Up Noninvasive Testing in Patients With Known SIHD: New, Recurrent, or Worsening Symptoms Not Consistent With Unstable Angina

See Table 8 for a summary of recommendations from this section.

Table 8. Follow-Up Noninvasive Testing in Patients With Known SIHD: New, Recurrent, or Worsening Symptoms Not Consistent With UA
Test Exercise Status
ECG Interpretable
COR LOE References Additional Considerations
Able Unable Yes No
Patients able to exercise*
    Exercise ECG X X I B (39–42)
    Exercise with nuclear MPI or Echo X X I B (69, 95, 96, 102, 141, 364, 426–435)
    Exercise with nuclear MPI or Echo X Any IIa B (436, 437) • Prior requirement for imaging with exercise• Known or at high risk for multivessel disease
    Pharmacological stress nuclear MPI/Echo/CMR X X III: No Benefit C (438)
Patients unable to exercise
    Pharmacological stress nuclear MPI or Echo X Any I B (43, 46, 47, 49–53)
    Pharmacological stress CMR X Any IIa B (98, 99, 101)
    Exercise ECG X X III: No Benefit C N/A
Irrespective of ability to exercise
    CCTA Any Any IIb B (439–443) Patency of CABG or coronary stent ≥3 mm diameter
    CCTA Any Any IIb B (55, 58, 439) In the absence of known moderate or severe calcification and intent to assess coronary stent <3 mm in diameter
    CCTA Any Any III: No Benefit B (439–443) Known moderate or severe native coronary calcification or assessment of coronary stent <3 mm in diameter in patients who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA

*Patients are candidates for exercise testing if they are capable of performing at least moderate physical functioning (ie, moderate household, yard, or recreational work and most activities of daily living) and have no disabling comorbidity. Patients should be able to achieve 85% of age-predicted maximum heart rate.

CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft surgery; CCTA, cardiac computed tomography angiography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; COR, class of recommendation; ECG, electrocardiogram; Echo, echocardiography; LOE, level of evidence; MPI, myocardial perfusion imaging; N/A, not available; SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; and UA, unstable angina.

6.2.1.1. Patients Able to Exercise
Class I

  1. Standard exercise ECG testing is recommended in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA and who have a) at least moderate physical functioning and no disabling comorbidity and b) an interpretable ECG.39–42 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Exercise with nuclear MPI or echocardiography is recommended in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA and who have a) at least moderate physical functioning or no disabling comorbidity but b) an uninterpretable ECG.69,95,96,102,141,364,426–435 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. Exercise with nuclear MPI or echocardiography is reasonable in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA and who have a) at least moderate physical functioning and no disabling comorbidity, b) previously required imaging with exercise stress, or c) known multivessel disease or high risk for multivessel disease.436,437 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Pharmacological stress imaging with nuclear MPI, echocardiography, or CMR is not recommended in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA and who are capable of at least moderate physical functioning or have no disabling comorbidity.438 (Level of Evidence: C)

6.2.1.2. Patients Unable to Exercise
Class I

  1. Pharmacological stress imaging with nuclear MPI or echocardiography is recommended in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA and who are incapable of at least moderate physical functioning or have disabling comorbidity.43,46,47,49–53 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. Pharmacological stress imaging with CMR is reasonable in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA and who are incapable of at least moderate physical functioning or have disabling comorbidity.98,99,101 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Standard exercise ECG testing should not be performed in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA and who a) are incapable of at least moderate physical functioning or have disabling comorbidity or b) have an uninterpretable ECG. (Level of Evidence: C)

6.2.1.3. Irrespective of Ability to Exercise
Class IIb

  1. CCTA for assessment of patency of CABG or of coronary stents 3 mm or larger in diameter might be reasonable in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA, irrespective of ability to exercise.439–443 (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. CCTA might be reasonable in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA, irrespective of ability to exercise, in the absence of known moderate or severe calcification or if the CCTA is intended to assess coronary stents less than 3 mm in diameter.55,58,439 (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. CCTA should not be performed for assessment of native coronary arteries with known moderate or severe calcification or with coronary stents less than 3 mm in diameter in patients with known SIHD who have new or worsening symptoms not consistent with UA, irrespective of ability to exercise.439–443 (Level of Evidence: B)

6.2.2. Noninvasive Testing in Known SIHD—Asymptomatic (or Stable Symptoms)

See Table 9 for a summary of recommendations from this section.

Table 9. Noninvasive Testing in Known SIHD: Asymptomatic (or Stable Symptoms)
Test Exercise Status
ECG Interpretable
Pretest Probability of Ischemia COR LOE References Additional Considerations
Able* Unable Yes No
Exercise or pharmacological stress with nuclear MPI, Echo, or CMR at ≥2-y intervals X X Prior evidence of silent ischemia or high risk for recurrent cardiac event. Meets criteria listed in additional considerations IIa C (10, 13, 20) a) Unable to exercise to adequate workload orb) Uninterpretable ECG orc) History of incomplete coronary revascularization
Exercise ECG at ≥1-y intervals X X Any IIb C N/A a) Prior evidence of silent ischemia ORb) At high risk for recurrent cardiac event
Exercise ECG X X No prior evidence of silent ischemia and not at high risk of recurrent cardiac event IIb C N/A For annual surveillance
Exercise or pharmacological stress with nuclear MPI, Echo, or CMR or CCTA Any Any Any III: No Benefit C (10, 13, 20) a) <5-y intervals after CABG, orb) <2-y intervals after PCI

*Patients are candidates for exercise testing if they are capable of performing at least moderate physical functioning (ie, moderate household, yard, or recreational work and most activities of daily living) and have no disabling comorbidity. Patients should be able to achieve 85% of age-predicted maximum heart rate.

CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft surgery; CCTA, cardiac computed tomography angiography; CMR, coronary magnetic resonance; COR, class of recommendation; CCTA, computed tomography angiography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; ECG, electrocardiogram; Echo, echocardiography; LOE, level of evidence; MPI, myocardial perfusion imaging; N/A, not available; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; and SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease.

Class IIa

  1. Nuclear MPI, echocardiography, or CMR with either exercise or pharmacological stress can be useful for follow-up assessment at 2-year or longer intervals in patients with SIHD with prior evidence of silent ischemia or who are at high risk for a recurrent cardiac event and a) are unable to exercise to an adequate workload, b) have an uninterpretable ECG, or c) have a history of incomplete coronary revascularization.10,13,20 (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

  1. Standard exercise ECG testing performed at 1-year or longer intervals might be considered for follow-up assessment in patients with SIHD who have had prior evidence of silent ischemia or are at high risk for a recurrent cardiac event and are able to exercise to an adequate workload and have an interpretable ECG. (Level of Evidence: C)

  2. In patients who have no new or worsening symptoms or no prior evidence of silent ischemia and are not at high risk for a recurrent cardiac event, the usefulness of annual surveillance exercise ECG testing is not well established. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: No Benefit

  1. Nuclear MPI, echocardiography, or CMR, with either exercise or pharmacological stress or CCTA, is not recommended for follow-up assessment in patients with SIHD, if performed more frequently than at a) 5-year intervals after CABG or b) 2-year intervals after PCI.10,13,20 (Level of Evidence: C)

Presidents and Staff

American College of Cardiology Foundation

William A. Zoghbi, MD, FACC, President

Thomas E. Arend, Jr, Esq, CAE, Interim Chief Staff Officer

William J. Oetgen, MD, MBA, FACC, Senior Vice President, Science and Quality

Charlene L. May, Senior Director, Science and Clinical Policy

Erin A. Barrett, MPS, Senior Specialist, Science and Clinical Policy

American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association

Lisa Bradfield, CAE, Director, Science and Clinical Policy

Maria Koinis, Specialist, Science and Clinical Policy

Sue Keller, BSN, MPH, Senior Specialist, Evidence-Based Medicine

American Heart Association

Gordon F. Tomaselli, MD, FAHA, President

Nancy Brown, Chief Executive Officer

Rose Marie Robertson, MD, FAHA, Chief Science Officer

Gayle R. Whitman, PhD, RN, FAHA, FAAN, Senior Vice President, Office of Science Operations

Judy L. Bezanson, DSN, RN, CNS-MS, FAHA, Science and Medicine Advisor, Office of Science Operations

* The use of bile acid sequestrant is relatively contraindicated when triglycerides are >200 mg/dL and is contraindicated when triglycerides are >500 mg/dL.

† Dietary supplement niacin must not be used as a substitute for prescription niacin.

Footnotes

Writing Committee Members*

Full-text guideline available at: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/126/25/e354.

The writing committee gratefully acknowledges the memory of James T. Dove, MD, who died during the development of this document but contributed immensely to our understanding of stable ischemic heart disease.

*Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationship could apply; see Appendix 1 for detailed information.

†ACP Representative.

‡ACCF/AHA Representative.

§PCNA Representative.

‖SCAI Representative.

¶Critical care nursing expertise.

#STS Representative.

**AATS Representative.

††ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines Liaison.

‡‡ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison.

§§Former Task Force member during this writing effort.

This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Board of Trustees, American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons in July 2012.

The American Heart Association requests that this document be cited as follows: Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas AP, Douglas PS, Foody JM, Gerber TC, Hinderliter AL, King SB III, Kligfield PD, Krumholz HM, Kwong RYK, Lim MJ, Linderbaum JA, Mack MJ, Munger MA, Prager RL, Sabik JF, Shaw LJ, Sikkema JD, Smith CR Jr, Smith SC Jr, Spertus JA, Williams SV. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2012;126:3097–3137.

This article is copublished in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org) and the American Heart Association (my.americanheart.org). A copy of the document is available at http://my.americanheart.org/statements by selecting either the “By Topic” link or the “By Publication Date” link. To purchase additional reprints, call 843-216-2533 or e-mail .

Expert peer review of AHA Scientific Statements is conducted by the AHA Office of Science Operations. For more on AHA statements and guidelines development, visit http://my.americanheart.org/statements and select the “Policies and Development” link.

Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American Heart Association. Instructions for obtaining permission are located at http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/General/Copyright-Permission-Guidelines_UCM_300404_Article.jsp. A link to the “Copyright Permissions Request Form” appears on the right side of the page.

© 2012 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc.

ACCF/AHA Task Force Members

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair 2009–2011§§; Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, Past Chair 2006–2008§§; Cynthia D. Adams, MSN, APRN-BC, FAHA§§; Nancy M. Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA; Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC; Christopher E. Buller, MD, FACC§§; Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA; David DeMets, PhD; Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC§§; Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC; Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA; Sharon Ann Hunt, MD, FACC, FAHA§§; Richard J. Kovacs, MD, FACC, FAHA; Frederick G. Kushner, MD, FACC, FAHA§§; Bruce W. Lytle, MD, FACC, FAHA§§; Rick A. Nishimura, MD, FACC, FAHA§§; E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC; Richard L. Page, MD, FACC, FAHA§§; Barbara Riegel, DNSc, RN, FAHA§§; William G. Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Lynn G. Tarkington, RN§§; Clyde W. Yancy, MD, FACC, FAHA

References

  • 1. ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Methodology Manual and Policies From the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2012. Available at: http://assets.cardiosource.com/Methodology_Manual_for_ACC_AHA_Writing_Committees.pdf and http://my.americanheart.org/idc/groups/ahamah-public/@wcm/@sop/documents/downloadable/ucm_319826.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2012 .Google Scholar
  • 2. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J , et al . 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2012; 126:000–000. doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e318277d6a0.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW , et al . 2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2008; 117:296–329.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC , et al . 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2009; 120:2271–306.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Jneid H, Anderson JL, Wright RS , et al . 2012 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2007 guideline and replacing the 2011 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2012; 126:875–910.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5a. Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD , et al . 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011; 123: e426–579.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA , et al . 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2010; 122:e584–636.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Braunwald E, Mark D, Jones R , et al . Unstable Angina: Diagnosis and Management. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 10. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services: 1994.Google Scholar
  • 8. Smith SC, Benjamin EJ, Bonow RO , et al . AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2011; 124:2458–73.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG , et al . ACCF proposed method for evaluating the appropriateness of cardiovascular imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46:1606–13.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF , et al . ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Circulation. 2009; 119: e561–87.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM , et al . ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48:1475–97.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM , et al . ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation. 2010; 122:e525–55.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Douglas PS, Garcia MJ, Haines DE , et al . ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 appropriate use criteria for echocardiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear ardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57:1126–66.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Antman EM, Peterson ED . Tools for guiding clinical practice from the american heart association and the american college of cardiology: what are they and how should clinicians use them?Circulation. 2009; 119:1180–5.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Fraker TD, Fihn SD, Gibbons RJ , et al . 2007 chronic angina focused update of the ACC/AHA 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Writing Group to Develop the Focused Update of the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Chronic Stable Angina. Circulation. 2007; 116:2762–72.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K , et al . 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease). Circulation. 2008; 118:e523–661.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH , et al . 2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heart failure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. [published correction appears in Circulation. 2010;121:e258]. Circulation. 2009; 119:e391– 479.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW , et al . ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction; A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of patients with acute myocardial infarction). Circulation. 2004; 110:e82–292.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL , et al . 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011; 124:e652–735.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC , et al . 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011; 124:e652–735.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Deleted in proof.Google Scholar
  • 22. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CNB , et al . Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004; 110:227–39.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002; 106:3143–421.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR , et al . Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment ofHigh Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2003; 42:1206–52.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Balady GJ, Ades PA, Bittner VA , et al . Referral, Enrollment, and Delivery of Cardiac Rehabilitation/Secondary Prevention Programs at Clinical Centers and Beyond: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011; 124:2951–60.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Mensah GA, Brown DW . An overview of cardiovascular disease burden in the United States. Health Aff(Millwood). 2007; 26:38–48.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM , et al . Heart disease and stroke statistics—2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010; 121:e46–215.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Ford ES, Capewell S . Coronary heart disease mortality among young adults in the U.S. from 1980 through 2002: concealed leveling of mortality rates. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50:2128–32.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD . Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2012;60.Google Scholar
  • 30. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Incidence and Prevalence: 2006 Chart Book on Cardiovascular and Lung Diseases. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. 2006. Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/06_ip_chtbk.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2012 .Google Scholar
  • 31. Rumsfeld JS, Magid DJ, Plomondon ME , et al . Health-related quality of life after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41:1732–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32. Rumsfeld JS, MaWhinney S, McCarthy M , et al . Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Participants of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Processes, Structures, and Outcomes of Care in Cardiac Surgery. JAMA. 1999; 281:1298–303.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Wiest FC, Bryson CL, Burman M , et al . Suboptimal pharmacother-apeutic management of chronic stable angina in the primary care setting. Am J Med. 2004; 117:234–41.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34. Diamond GA, Forrester JS . Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979; 300:1350–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35. Deleted in proof.Google Scholar
  • 36. Daly CA, De Stavola B, Sendon JLL , et al . Predicting prognosis in stable angina—results from the Euro heart survey of stable angina: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2006; 332:262–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37. Daly C, Norrie J, Murdoch DL , et al . The value of routine non-invasive tests to predict clinical outcome in stable angina. Eur Heart J. 2003; 24:532–40.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38. Hammermeister KE, DeRouen TA, Dodge HT . Variables predictive of survival in patients with coronary disease. Selection by univariate and multivariate analyses from the clinical, electrocardiographic, exercise, arteriographic, and quantitative angiographic evaluations. Circulation. 1979; 59:421–30.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 39. Gianrossi R, Detrano R, Mulvihill D , et al . Exercise-induced ST depression in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. A metaanalysis. Circulation. 1989; 80:87–98.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 40. Kwok Y, Kim C, Grady D , et al . Meta-analysis of exercise testing to detect coronary artery disease in women. Am J Cardiol. 1999; 83: 660–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 41. Sabharwal NK, Stoykova B, Taneja AK , et al . A randomized trial of exercise treadmill ECG versus stress SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging as an initial diagnostic strategy in stable patients with chest pain and suspected CAD: cost analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007; 14:174–86.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42. Shaw LJ, Mieres JH, Hendel RH , et al . Comparative Effectiveness of exercise electrocardiography with or without myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in women with suspected coronary artery disease: results from the What Is the Optimal Method for Ischemia Evaluation in Women (WOMEN) trial. Circulation. 2011; 124:1239–49.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 43. Biagini E, Shaw LJ, Poldermans D , et al . Accuracy of non-invasive techniques for diagnosis of coronary artery disease and prediction of cardiac events in patients with left bundle branch block: a metaanalysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33:1442–51.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44. Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG, Kuntz KM , et al . Exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT imaging? A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. JAMA. 1998; 280:913–20.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45. Garber AM, Solomon NA . Cost-effectiveness of alternative test strategies for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 130:719–28.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 46. Geleijnse ML, Krenning BJ, Soliman OI , et al . Dobutamine stress echocardiography for the detection of coronary artery disease in women. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99:714–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 47. Imran MB, Palinkas A, Picano E . Head-to-head comparison of dipyridamole echocardiography and stress perfusion scintigraphy for the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Comparison between stress echo and scintigraphy. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2003; 19:23–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 48. Mahajan N, Polavaram L, Vankayala H , et al . Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging and stress echocardiography for the diagnosis of left main and triple vessel coronary artery disease: a comparative meta-analysis. Heart. 2010; 96:956–66.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 49. Marcassa C, Bax JJ, Bengel F , et al . Clinical value, cost-effectiveness, and safety of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: a position statement. Eur Heart J. 2008; 29:557–63.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 50. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF , et al . Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50:1343–53.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 51. Picano E, Molinaro S, Pasanisi E . The diagnostic accuracy of pharmacological stress echocardiography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2008; 6:30. Published online 2008 June 19, doi:10.1186/1476-7120-6-30.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 52. Underwood SR, Shaw LJ, Anagnostopoulos C , et al . Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and cost effectiveness of diagnosis and management of coronary heart disease. Heart. 2004; 90Suppl 5:v34–v36.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 53. Underwood SR, Anagnostopoulos C, Cerqueira M , et al . Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004; 31:261–91.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 54. Hamon M, Fau G, Nee G , et al . Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010; 12:29.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 55. Schuetz GM, Zacharopoulou NM, Schlattmann P , et al . Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152:167–77.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 56. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG , et al . Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52:1724–32.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 57. Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P , et al . Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48:1896–910.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 58. J anne d'Othee B, Siebert U, Cury R , et al . A systematic review on diagnostic accuracy of CT-based detection of significant coronary artery disease. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 65:449–61.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 59. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD , et al . Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52:2135–44.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 60. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M , et al . Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:2324–36.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 61. Schuijf JD, Bax JJ, Shaw LJ , et al . Meta-analysis of comparative diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and multislice computed tomography for noninvasive coronary angiography. Am Heart J. 2006; 151:404–11.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 62. Stein PD, Beemath A, Kayali F , et al . Multidetector computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Am J Med. 2006; 119:203–16.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 63. Sun Z, Jiang W . Diagnostic value of multislice computed tomography angiography in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2006; 60:279–86.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 64. Underwood SR, Godman B, Salyani S , et al . Economics of myocardial perfusion imaging in Europe—the EMPIRE Study. Eur Heart J. 1999; 20:157–66.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 65. Nucifora G, Schuijf JD, van Werkhoven JM , et al . Relationship between obstructive coronary artery disease and abnormal stress testing in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011; 27:777–85.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 66. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF , et al . Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012; 379:453–60.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 67. Hundley WG, Hamilton CA, Thomas MS , et al . Utility of fast cine magnetic resonance imaging and display for the detection of myocardial ischemia in patients not well suited for second harmonic stress echocardiography. Circulation. 1999; 100:1697–702.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 68. Nagel E, Lehmkuhl HB, Bocksch W , et al . Noninvasive diagnosis of ischemia-induced wall motion abnormalities with the use of high-dose dobutamine stress MRI: comparison with dobutamine stress echocardiography. Circulation. 1999; 99:763–70.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 69. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC , et al . MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2008; 29:480–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 70. de Azevedo CF, Hadlich MS, Bezerra SG , et al . Prognostic value of CT angiography in patients with inconclusive functional stress tests. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011; 4:740–51.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 71. Sarwar A, Shaw LJ, Shapiro MD , et al . Diagnostic and prognostic value of absence of coronary artery calcification. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009; 2:675–88.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 72. Mock MB, Ringqvist I, Fisher LD , et al . Survival of medically treated patients in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) registry. Circulation. 1982; 66:562–8.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 73. Vitarelli A, Tiukinhoy S, Di Luzio S , et al . The role of echocardiography in the diagnosis and management of heart failure. Heart Fail Rev. 2003; 8:181–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 74. Christian TF, Miller TD, Bailey KR , et al . Exercise tomographic thallium-201 imaging in patients with severe coronary artery disease and normal electrocardiograms. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 121:825–32.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 75. Gibbons RJ, Zinsmeister AR, Miller TD , et al . Supine exercise electrocardiography compared with exercise radionuclide angiography in noninvasive identification of severe coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 112:743–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 76. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD , et al . Stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography is clinically effective and cost effective in risk stratification of patients with a high likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) but no known CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43:200–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 77. Kuntz KM, Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG , et al . Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for patients with chest pain. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 130:709–18.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 78. Ladenheim ML, Kotler TS, Pollock BH , et al . Incremental prognostic power of clinical history, exercise electrocardiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1987; 59:270–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 79. Lorenzoni R, Cortigiani L, Magnani M , et al . Cost-effectiveness analysis of noninvasive strategies to evaluate patients with chest pain. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2003; 16:1287–91.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 80. Mattera JA, Arain SA, Sinusas AJ , et al . Exercise testing with myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with normal baseline electrocardiograms: cost savings with a stepwise diagnostic strategy. J Nucl Cardiol. 1998; 5:498–506.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 81. Mowatt G, Vale L, Brazzelli M , et al . Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction. Health Technol Assess. 2004; 8:iii–207.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 82. Nallamothu N, Ghods M, Heo J , et al . Comparison of thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography and electrocardiographic response during exercise in patients with normal rest electrocardiographic results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 25:830–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 83. Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K , et al . ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina–summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). Circulation. 2003; 107:149–58.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 84. Johansen A, Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Vach W , et al . Prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected stable angina pectoris: evaluation in a setting in which myocardial perfusion imaging did not influence the choice of treatment. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2006; 26:288–95.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 85. Leischik R, Dworrak B, Littwitz H , et al . Prognostic significance of exercise stress echocardiography in 3329 outpatients (5-year longitudinal study). Int J Cardiol. 2007; 119:297–305.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 86. Nagao T, Chikamori T, Hida S , et al . Quantitative gated single-photon emission computed tomography with (99m)Tc sestamibi predicts major cardiac events in elderly patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease: the QGS-Prognostic Value in the Elderly (Q-PROVE) Study. Circ J. 2007; 71:1029–34.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 87. Wagdy HM, Hodge D, Christian TF , et al . Prognostic value of vasodilator myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with left bundle-branch block. Circulation. 1998; 97:1563–70.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 88. Bouzas-Mosquera A, Peteiro J, Alvarez-Garcia N , et al . Prediction of mortality and major cardiac events by exercise echocardiography in Fihn et al. patients with normal exercise electrocardiographic testing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53:1981–90.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 89. Navare SM, Mather JF, Shaw LJ , et al . Comparison of risk stratification with pharmacologic and exercise stress myocardial perfusion imaging: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004; 11:551–61.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 90. Gebker R, Jahnke C, Manka R , et al . The role of dobutamine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the clinical management of patients with suspected and known coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011; 13:46.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 91. Peteiro J, Bouzas-Mosquera A, Broullon FJ , et al . Prognostic value of peak and post-exercise treadmill exercise echocardiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31:187–95.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 92. Yao SS, Wever-Pinzon O, Zhang X , et al . Prognostic value of stress echocardiogram in patients with angiographically significant coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2012; 109:153–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 93. Shaw LJ, Cerqueira MD, BM . For the BARI 2D Investigators. Impact of left ventricular function and the extend of ischemia and scar by stress myocardial perfusion imaging on prognosis and therapeutic risk reduction in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease: results from the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation 2 diabetes (BARI 2D) trial. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;In Press.Google Scholar
  • 94. Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ , et al . Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32:1012–24.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 95. Shaw LJ, Min JK, Hachamovitch R , et al . Nomograms for estimating coronary artery disease prognosis with gated stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012; 19:43–52.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 96. Doesch C, Seeger A, Doering J , et al . Risk stratification by adenosine stress cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with coronary artery stenoses of intermediate angiographic severity. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009; 2:424–33.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 97. Jahnke C, Nagel E, Gebker R , et al . Prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance stress tests: adenosine stress perfusion and dobutamine stress wall motion imaging. Circulation. 2007; 115: 1769–76.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 98. Bingham SE, Hachamovitch R . Incremental prognostic significance of combined cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, adenosine stress perfusion, delayed enhancement, and left ventricular function over preimaging information for the prediction of adverse events. Circulation. 2011; 123:1509–18.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 99. Coelho-Filho OR, Seabra LF, Mongeon F-P . Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging by CMR Provides Strong Prognostic Value to Cardiac Events Regardless of Patient's Sex. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011; 4:850–61.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 100. Kelle S, Chiribiri A, Vierecke J , et al . Long-term prognostic value of dobutamine stress CMR. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2011; 4:161–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 101. Korosoglou G, Elhmidi Y, Steen H , et al . Prognostic value of high-dose dobutamine stress magnetic resonance imaging in 1,493 consecutive patients: assessment of myocardial wall motion and perfusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56:1225–34.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 102. Steel K, Broderick R, Gandla V , et al . Complementary prognostic values of stress myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement imaging by cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2009; 120:1390–400.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 103. Chow BJW, Wells GA, Chen L , et al . Prognostic value of 64-slice cardiac computed tomography severity of coronary artery disease, coronary atherosclerosis, and left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55:1017–28.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 104. Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY , et al . Age- and Sex-Related Differences in All-Cause Mortality Risk Based on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Findings Results From the International Multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter Registry) of 23,854 Patients Without Known Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58:849–60.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 105. America YGCJ, Bax JJ, Boersma E , et al . Prognostic value of gated SPECT in patients with left bundle branch block. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007; 14:75–81.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 106. Gil VM, Almeida M, Ventosa A , et al . Prognosis in patients with left bundle branch block and normal dipyridamole thallium-201 scintigraphy. J Nucl Cardiol. 1998; 5:414–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 107. Nallamothu N, Bagheri B, Acio ER , et al . Prognostic value of stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography imaging in patients with left ventricular bundle branch block. J Nucl Cardiol. 1997; 4:487–93.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 108. Nigam A, Humen DP . Prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging with exercise and/or dipyridamole hyperemia in patients with preexisting left bundle branch block. J Nucl Med. 1998; 39: 579–81.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 109. Pilz G, Jeske A, Klos M , et al . Prognostic value of normal adenosine-stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol. 2008; 101: 1408–12.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 110. Tandogan I, Yetkin E, Yanik A , et al . Comparison ofthallium-201 exercise SPECT and dobutamine stress echocardiography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease in patients with left bundle branch block. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2001; 17:339–45.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 111. Hacker M, Jakobs T, Hack N , et al . Combined use of 64-slice computed tomography angiography and gated myocardial perfusion SPECT for the detection of functionally relevant coronary artery stenoses. First results in a clinical setting concerning patients with stable angina. Nuklearmedizin. 2007; 46:29–35.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 112. Yao SS, Bangalore S, Chaudhry FA . Prognostic implications of stress echocardiography and impact on patient outcomes: an effective gatekeeper for coronary angiography and revascularization. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010; 23:832–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 113. Braunwald E, Domanski MJ, Fowler SE , et al . Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351:2058–68.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 114. Fox KM . Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet. 2003; 362:782–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 115. Garg R, Yusuf S . Overview of randomized trials of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. Collaborative Group on ACE Inhibitor Trials. JAMA. 1995; 273:1450–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 116. Kunz R, Friedrich C, Wolbers M , et al . Meta-analysis: effect of monotherapy and combination therapy with inhibitors of the renin angiotensin system on proteinuria in renal disease. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148:30–48.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 117. McCully RB, Roger VL, Mahoney DW , et al . Outcome after abnormal exercise echocardiography for patients with good exercise capacity: prognostic importance of the extent and severity of exercise-related left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 1345–52.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 118. Metz LD, Beattie M, Hom R , et al . The prognostic value of normal exercise myocardial perfusion imaging and exercise echocardiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:227–37.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 119. Shaw LJ, Hendel R, Borges-Neto S , et al . Prognostic value of normal exercise and adenosine (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin SPECT imaging: results from the multicenter registry of 4,728 patients. J Nucl Med. 2003; 44:134–9.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 120. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J , et al . Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342:145–53.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 121. Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with apparently normal heart. Need for definition and standardized clinical evaluation. Consensus statement of the Joint Steering Committees of the Unexplained Cardiac Arrest Registry of Europe and of the Idiopathic Ventricular Fibrillation Registry of the United States. Circulation.1997; 95:265–72.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 122. Every NR, Fahrenbruch CE, Hallstrom AP , et al . Influence of coronary bypass surgery on subsequent outcome of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992; 19:1435–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 123. Spaulding CM, Joly LM, Rosenberg A , et al . Immediate coronary angiography in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336:1629–33.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 124. Califf RM, Harrell FE, Lee KL , et al . The evolution of medical and surgical therapy for coronary artery disease. A 15-year perspective. JAMA. 1989; 261:2077–86.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 125. Myers WO, Schaff HV, Gersh BJ , et al . Improved survival of surgically treated patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease and severe angina pectoris. A report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1989; 97:487–95.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 126. Myers WO, Gersh BJ, Fisher LD , et al . Medical versus early surgical therapy in patients with triple-vessel disease and mild angina pectoris: a CASS registry study of survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 1987; 44:471–86.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 127. Bonow RO, Maurer G, Lee KL , et al . Myocardial Viability and Survival in Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:1617–25.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 128. Brunelli C, Cristofani R, L'Abbate A . Long-term survival in medically treated patients with ischaemic heart disease and prognostic importance of clinical and electrocardiographic data (the Italian CNR Multicentre Prospective Study OD1). Eur Heart J. 1989; 10:292–303.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 129. Chuah SC, Pellikka PA, Roger VL , et al . Role of dobutamine stress echocardiography in predicting outcome in 860 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1998; 97:1474–80.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 130. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ , et al . Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998; 97:535–43.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 131. Harris PJ, Harrell FE, Lee KL , et al . Survival in medically treated coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1979; 60:1259–69.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 132. Ladenheim ML, Pollock BH, Rozanski A , et al . Extent and severity of myocardial hypoperfusion as predictors of prognosis in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986; 7:464–71.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 133. Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Harrell FE , et al . Exercise treadmill score for predicting prognosis in coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106:793–800.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 134. Marwick TH, Mehta R, Arheart K , et al . Use of exercise echocardiography for prognostic evaluation of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 30:83–90.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 135. Morrow K, Morris CK, Froelicher VF , et al . Prediction of cardiovascular death in men undergoing noninvasive evaluation for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118:689–95.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 136. Stratmann HG, Williams GA, Wittry MD , et al . Exercise technetium-99m sestamibi tomography for cardiac risk stratification of patients with stable chest pain. Circulation. 1994; 89:615–22.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 137. Miller TD, Christian TF, Taliercio CP , et al . Impaired left ventricular function, one- or two-vessel coronary artery disease, and severe ischemia: outcome with medical therapy versus revascularization. Mayo Clin Proc. 1994; 69:626–31.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 138. Emond M, Mock MB, Davis KB , et al . Long-term survival of medically treated patients in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry. Circulation. 1994; 90:2645–57.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 139. Alderman EL, Fisher LD, Litwin P , et al . Results of coronary artery surgery in patients with poor left ventricular function (CASS). Circulation. 1983; 68:785–95.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 140. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK , et al . Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356:1503–16.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 141. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ , et al . Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008; 117:1283–91.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 142. McGillion M, Watt-Watson J, LeFort S , et al . Positive shifts in the perceived meaning of cardiac pain following a psychoeducation program for chronic stable angina. Can J Nurs Res. 2007; 39:48–65.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 143. Muszbek N, Brixner D, Benedict A , et al . The economic consequences of noncompliance in cardiovascular disease and related conditions: a literature review. Int J Clin Pract. 2008; 62:338–51.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 144. Rao SV, Schulman KA, Curtis LH , et al . Socioeconomic status and outcome following acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164:1128–33.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 145. Mosca L, Benjamin EJ, Berra K , et al . Effectiveness-based guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women–2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011; 123:1243–62.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 146. Joint Commission. The Joint Commission announces the 2008 National Patient Safety Goals and Requirements. Jt Comm Perspect. 2007; 27:1, 9–1,22.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 147. Miller NH, Taylor C . Lifestyle Management for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease. (Current Issues in Cardiac Rehabilitation, Monograph No. 2.). 1st ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1995.Google Scholar
  • 148. DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Superko HR , et al . A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 120:721–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 149. Haskell WL, Alderman EL, Fair JM , et al . Effects of intensive multiple risk factor reduction on coronary atherosclerosis and clinical cardiac events in men and women with coronary artery disease. The Stanford Coronary Risk Intervention Project (SCRIP). Circulation. 1994; 89:975–90.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 150. Lichtenstein AH, Appel LJ, Brands M , et al . Diet and lifestyle recommendations revision 2006: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee. Circulation. 2006; 114:82–96.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 151. Thompson PD, Buchner D, Pina IL , et al . Exercise and physical activity in the prevention and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a statement from the Council on Clinical Cardiology (Subcommittee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, and Prevention) and the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Subcommittee on Physical Activity). Circulation. 2003; 107:3109–16.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 152. Thompson PD, Franklin BA, Balady GJ , et al . Exercise and acute cardiovascular events placing the risks into perspective: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism and the Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2007; 115:2358–68.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 153. Artinian NT, Fletcher GF, Mozaffarian D , et al . Interventions to promote physical activity and dietary lifestyle changes for cardiovascular risk factor reduction in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010; 122:406–41.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 154. National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: the evidence report. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf. 1998. Accessed January 6, 2012 .Google Scholar
  • 155. Oka R, Kobayashi J, Yagi K , et al . Reassessment of the cutoff values of waist circumference and visceral fat area for identifying Japanese subjects at risk for the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008; 79:474–81.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 156. Tan CE, Ma S, Wai D , et al . Can we apply the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel definition of the metabolic syndrome to Asians?Diabetes Care. 2004; 27:1182–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 157. Buse JB, Ginsberg HN, Bakris GL , et al . Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in people with diabetes mellitus: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. Circulation. 2007; 115:114–26.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 158. Bosworth HB, Olsen MK, Dudley T , et al . The Take Control of Your Blood pressure (TCYB) study: study design and methodology. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007; 28:33–47.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 159. The 2004 United States Surgeon General's Report: The Health Consequences of Smoking. NSW Public Health Bull. 2004; 15:107.Google Scholar
  • 160. Critchley JA, Capewell S . Mortality risk reduction associated with smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003; 290:86–97.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 161. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2011. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34Suppl 1:S11–S61.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 162. Appel LJ, Champagne CM, Harsha DW , et al . Effects of comprehensive lifestyle modification on blood pressure control: main results of the PREMIER clinical trial. JAMA. 2003; 289:2083–93.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 163. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J , et al . Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010; 376:1670–81.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 164. Frattaroli J, Weidner G, Merritt-Worden TA , et al . Angina pectoris and atherosclerotic risk factors in the multisite cardiac lifestyle intervention program. Am J Cardiol. 2008; 101:911–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 165. Berkman LF, Blumenthal J, Burg M , et al . Effects of treating depression and low perceived social support on clinical events after myocardial infarction: the Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease Patients (ENRICHD) Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2003; 289:3106–16.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 166. Carney RM, Freedland KE, Eisen SA , et al . Major depression and medication adherence in elderly patients with coronary artery disease. Health Psychol. 1995; 14:88–90.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 167. Rees K, Bennett P, West R , et al . Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;CD002902.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 168. Ziegelstein RC, Fauerbach JA, Stevens SS , et al . Patients with depression are less likely to follow recommendations to reduce cardiac risk during recovery from a myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160:1818 –23.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 169. Lesperance F, Frasure-Smith N, Koszycki D , et al . Effects of citalopram and interpersonal psychotherapy on depression in patients with coronary artery disease: the Canadian Cardiac Randomized Evaluation of Anti-depressant and Psychotherapy Efficacy (CREATE) trial. JAMA. 2007; 297:367–79.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 170. McManus D, Pipkin SS, Whooley MA . Screening for depression in patients with coronary heart disease (data from the Heart and Soul Study). Am J Cardiol. 2005; 96:1076–81.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 171. Deleted in proof.Google Scholar
  • 172. Deleted in proof.Google Scholar
  • 173. Glassman AH, O'Connor CM, Califf RM , et al . Sertraline treatment of major depression in patients with acute MI or unstable angina. JAMA. 2002; 288:701–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 174. Whooley MA . Depression and cardiovascular disease: healing the broken-hearted. JAMA. 2006; 295:2874–81.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 175. Lichtman JH, Bigger JT, Blumenthal JA , et al . Depression and Coronary Heart Disease. Recommendations for Screening, Referral, and Treatment. A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association Prevention Committee of the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and Interdisciplinary Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research. Circulation. 2008; 118:1768–75.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 176. Dattilo AM, Kris-Etherton PM . Effects of weight reduction on blood lipids and lipoproteins: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992; 56:320–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 177. Ginsberg HN, Kris-Etherton P, Dennis B , et al . Effects of reducing dietary saturated fatty acids on plasma lipids and lipoproteins in healthy subjects: the DELTA Study, protocol 1. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1998; 18:441–9.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 178. Schaefer EJ, Lamon-Fava S, Ausman LM , et al . Individual variability in lipoprotein cholesterol response to National Cholesterol Education Program Step 2 diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997; 65:823–30.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 179. Schaefer EJ, Lichtenstein AH, Lamon-Fava S , et al . Efficacy of a National Cholesterol Education Program Step 2 diet in normolipidemic and hypercholesterolemic middle-aged and elderly men and women. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1995; 15:1079–85.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 180. Yu-Poth S, Zhao G, Etherton T , et al . Effects of the National Cholesterol Education Program's Step I and Step II dietary intervention programs on cardiovascular disease risk factors: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999; 69:632–46.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 181. MRC-BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002; 360:7–22.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 182. LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD , et al . Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:1425–35.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 183. Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ , et al . High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005; 294:2437–45.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 184. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results. I. Reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1984; 251:351–64.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 185. Deleted in proof.Google Scholar
  • 186. Canner PL, Berge KG, Wenger NK , et al . Fifteen year mortality in Coronary Drug Project patients: long-term benefit with niacin. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986; 8:1245–55.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 187. Brown BG, Zhao XQ, Chait A , et al . Simvastatin and niacin, antioxidant vitamins, or the combination for the prevention of coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345:1583–92.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 188. Effects of weight loss and sodium reduction intervention on blood pressure and hypertension incidence in overweight people with high-normal blood pressure. The Trials of Hypertension Prevention, phase II. The Trials of Hypertension Prevention Collaborative Research Group. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157:657–67.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 189. Stevens VJ, Corrigan SA, Obarzanek E , et al . Weight loss intervention in phase 1 of the Trials of Hypertension Prevention. The TOHP Collaborative Research Group. Arch Intern Med. 1993; 153:849–58.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 190. Whelton PK, Appel LJ, Espeland MA , et al . Sodium reduction and weight loss in the treatment of hypertension in older persons: a randomized controlled trial of nonpharmacologic interventions in the elderly (TONE). TONE Collaborative Research Group. JAMA. 1998; 279:839–46.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 191. Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E , et al . A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure. DASH Collaborative Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336:1117–24.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 192. Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM , et al . Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. DASH-Sodium Collaborative Research Group. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344:3–10.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 193. MacGregor GA, Markandu ND, Sagnella GA , et al . Double-blind study of three sodium intakes and long-term effects of sodium restriction in essential hypertension. Lancet. 1989; 2:1244–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 194. Whelton SP, Chin A, Xin X , et al . Effect of aerobic exercise on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 136:493–503.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 195. Xin X, He J, Frontini MG , et al . Effects of alcohol reduction on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hypertension. 2001; 38:1112–7.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 196. Appel LJ, Frohlich ED, Hall JE , et al . The importance of population-wide sodium reduction as a means to prevent cardiovascular disease and stroke: a call to action from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011; 123:1138–43.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 197. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. MRC Working Party. BMJ. 1992; 304:405–12.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 198. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group. JAMA. 1991; 265:3255–64.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 199. MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results. Medical Research Council Working Party. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985; 291:97–104.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 200. Effect of stepped care treatment on the incidence of myocardial infarction and angina pectoris. 5-Year findings of the hypertension detection and follow-up program. Hypertension. 1984; 6:I198–206.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 201. The effect of treatment on mortality in “mild” hypertension: results of the hypertension detection and follow-up program. N Engl J Med. 1982; 307:976–80.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 202. Five-year findings of the hypertension detection and follow-up program. I. Reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. JAMA. 1979; 242:2562–71.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 203. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002; 288:2981–97.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 204. Turnbull F . Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet. 2003; 362:1527–35.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 205. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329:977–86.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 206. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998; 352:837–53.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 207. Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J , et al . Intensive Blood Glucose Control and Vascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:2560–72.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 208. Dluhy RG, McMahon GT . Intensive Glycemic Control in the ACCORD and ADVANCE Trials. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:2630–3.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 209. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T , et al . Glucose Control and Vascular Complications in Veterans with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:129–39.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 210. Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY , et al . Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:2643–53.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 211. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998; 352: 854–65.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 212. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ , et al . Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366: 1279–89.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 213. Skyler JS, Bergenstal R, Bonow RO , et al . Intensive glycemic control and the prevention of cardiovascular events: implications of the ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VA diabetes trials: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and a scientific statement of the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009; 119:351–7.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 214. Kelly TN, Bazzano LA, Fonseca VA , et al . Systematic review: glucose control and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151:394–403.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 215. Selvin E, Bolen S, Yeh HC , et al . Cardiovascular outcomes in trials of oral diabetes medications: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168:2070–80.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 216. Turnbull FM, Abraira C, Anderson RJ , et al . Intensive glucose control and macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2009; 52:2288–98.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 217. Ray KK, Seshasai SR, Wijesuriya S , et al . Effect of intensive control of glucose on cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2009; 373:1765–72.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 218. Currie CJ, Peters JR, Tynan A , et al . Survival as a function of HbA(1c) in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2010; 375:481–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 219. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA , et al . 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:1577–89.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 220. Loke YK, Kwok CS, Singh S . Comparative cardiovascular effects of thiazolidinediones: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 2011; 342:1309.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 221. Woodcock J . Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Decision on continued marketing of rosiglitazone (Avandia, Avandamet, Avandaryl) [Report NDA 021071]. 2010. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProvidersZUCM226959.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2011 .Google Scholar
  • 222. Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S , et al . Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med. 2004; 116:682–92.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 223. Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR , et al . Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2007; 116:1081–93.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 224. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: 2008.Google Scholar
  • 225. Ken-Dror G, Lerman Y, Segev S , et al . [Development of a Hebrew questionnaire to be used in epidemiological studies to assess physical fitness—validation against sub maximal stress test and predicted VO2max]. Harefuah. 2004; 143:566–72, 623.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 226. Cardinal BJ . Predicting cardiorespiratory fitness without exercise testing in epidemiologic studies: a concurrent validity study. J Epidemiol. 1996; 6:31–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 227. Nowak Z, Plewa M, Skowron M , et al . Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire as an additional tool in clinical assessment of patients with coronary artery disease treated with angioplasty. Kardiol Pol. 2010; 68:32–9.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 228. Jurca R, Jackson AS, LaMonte MJ , et al . Assessing cardiorespiratory fitness without performing exercise testing. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 29:185–93.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 229. Taylor RS, Dalal H, Jolly K , et al . Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsCD007130. 2010. Accessed January 6, 2012 .MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 230. Clark AM, Haykowsky M, Kryworuchko J , et al . A meta-analysis of randomized control trials of home-based secondary prevention programs for coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010; 17:261–70.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 231. McCartney N, McKelvie RS, Haslam DR , et al . Usefulness of weightlifting training in improving strength and maximal power output in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1991; 67:939–45.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 232. Beniamini Y, Rubenstein JJ, Faigenbaum AD , et al . High-intensity strength training of patients enrolled in an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 1999; 19:8–17.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 233. Bogers RP, Bemelmans WJ, Hoogenveen RT , et al . Association of overweight with increased risk of coronary heart disease partly independent of blood pressure and cholesterol levels: a meta-analysis of 21 cohort studies including more than 300 000 persons. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167:1720–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 234. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR , et al . Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: an American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Circulation. 2005; 112:2735–52.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 235. Klein S, Burke LE, Bray GA , et al . Clinical implications of obesity with specific focus on cardiovascular disease: a statement for professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Circulation. 2004; 110:2952–67.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 236. Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM , et al . Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341:1097–105.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 237. Jensen MK, Chiuve SE, Rimm EB , et al . Obesity, behavioral lifestyle factors, and risk of acute coronary events. Circulation. 2008; 117: 3062–9.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 238. Arnlov J, Ingelsson E, Sundstrom J , et al . Impact of body mass index and the metabolic syndrome on the risk of cardiovascular disease and death in middle-aged men. Circulation. 2010; 121:230–6.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 239. Lavie CJ, Milani RV, Ventura HO . Obesity and cardiovascular disease: risk factor, paradox, and impact of weight loss. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53:1925–32.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 240. Gruberg L, Weissman NJ, Waksman R , et al . The impact of obesity on the short-term and long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: the obesity paradox?J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39:578–84.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 241. Jacobs EJ, Newton CC, Wang Y , et al . Waist circumference and all-cause mortality in a large US cohort. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1293–301.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 242. Critchley J, Capewell S . Smoking cessation for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;CD003041.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 243. Rigotti NA . Helping smokers with cardiac disease to abstain from tobacco after a stay in hospital. CMAJ. 2009; 180:1283–4.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 244. Smith PM, Burgess E . Smoking cessation initiated during hospital stay for patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2009; 180:1297–303.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 245. Ruo B, Rumsfeld JS, Hlatky MA , et al . Depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life: the Heart and Soul Study. JAMA. 2003; 290:215–21.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 246. Honig A, Kuyper AM, Schene AH , et al . Treatment of post-myocardial infarction depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with mirtazapine. Psychosom Med. 2007; 69:606–13.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 247. DiMatteo MR, Lepper HS, Croghan TW . Depression is a risk factor for noncompliance with medical treatment: meta-analysis of the effects of anxiety and depression on patient adherence. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160:2101–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 248. Yoshinaga K, Chow BJ, Williams K , et al . What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography?J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48:1029–39.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 249. Taylor CB, Youngblood ME, Catellier D , et al . Effects of antidepressant medication on morbidity and mortality in depressed patients after myocardial infarction. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005; 62:792–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 250. Di Castelnuovo A, Rotondo S, Iacoviello L , et al . Meta-analysis of wine and beer consumption in relation to vascular risk. Circulation. 2002; 105:2836–44.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 251. Mukamal KJ, Maclure M, Muller JE , et al . Prior alcohol consumption and mortality following acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2001; 285:1965–70.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 252. Muntwyler J, Hennekens CH, Buring JE , et al . Mortality and light to moderate alcohol consumption after myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1998; 352:1882–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 253. Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thurston GD , et al . Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution: epidemiological evidence of general pathophysiological pathways of disease. Circulation. 2004; 109:71–7.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 254. Pope CA, Muhlestein JB, May HT , et al . Ischemic heart disease events triggered by short-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Circulation. 2006; 114:2443–8.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 255. Pope CA . Mortality effects of longer term exposures to fine particulate air pollution: review of recent epidemiological evidence. Inhal Toxicol. 2007; 19Suppl 1:33–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 256. Brook RD, Rajagopalan S, Pope CA , et al . Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010; 121:2331–78.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 257. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002; 324:71–86.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 258. Juul-Moller S, Edvardsson N, Jahnmatz B , et al . Double-blind trial of aspirin in primary prevention of myocardial infarction in patients with stable chronic angina pectoris. The Swedish Angina Pectoris Aspirin Trial (SAPAT) Group. Lancet. 1992; 340:1421–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 259. A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee. Lancet. 1996; 348:1329–39.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 260. Bhatt DL, Flather MD, Hacke W , et al . Patients with prior myocardial infarction, stroke, or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the CHARISMA trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:1982–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 261. Hirsh J, Dalen JE, Fuster V , et al . Aspirin and other platelet-active drugs. The relationship among dose, effectiveness, and side effects. Chest. 1995; 108:247S–57S.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 262. Balsano F, Rizzon P, Violi F , et al . Antiplatelet treatment with ticlopidine in unstable angina. A controlled multicenter clinical trial. The Studio della Ticlopidina nell'Angina Instabile Group. Circulation. 1990; 82:17–26.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 263. The Persantine-aspirin reinfarction study. The Persantine-aspirin Reinfarction Study (PARIS) research group. Circulation. 1980; 62:V85–8.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 264. Kernis SJ, Harjai KJ, Stone GW , et al . Does beta-blocker therapy improve clinical outcomes of acute myocardial infarction after successful primary angioplasty?J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43:1773–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 265. de Peuter OR, Lussana F, Peters RJ , et al . A systematic review of selective and non-selective beta blockers for prevention of vascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or heart failure. Neth J Med. 2009; 67:284–94.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 266. Freemantle N, Cleland J, Young P , et al . beta Blockade after myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta regression analysis. BMJ. 1999; 318:1730–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 267. Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN , et al . The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334:1349–55.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 268. Tepper D . Frontiers in congestive heart failure: Effect of Metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Congest Heart Fail. 1999; 5:184–5.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 269. Leizorovicz A, Lechat P, Cucherat M , et al . Bisoprolol for the treatment of chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis on individual data of two placebo-controlled studies—CIBIS and CIBIS II. Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study. Am Heart J. 2002; 143:301–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 270. Poole-Wilson PA, Swedberg K, Cleland JG , et al . Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2003; 362:7–13.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 271. Domanski MJ, Krause-Steinrauf H, Massie BM , et al . A comparative analysis of the results from 4 trials of beta-blocker therapy for heart failure: BEST, CIBIS-II, MERIT-HF, and COPERNICUS. J Card Fail. 2003; 9:354–63.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 272. McMurray JJ, Ostergren J, Swedberg K , et al . Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial. Lancet. 2003; 362:767–71.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 273. Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Libby P , et al . Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: the CAMELOT study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004; 292:2217–25.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 274. Julius S, Weber MA, Kjeldsen SE , et al . The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial: outcomes in patients receiving monotherapy. Hypertension. 2006; 48:385–91.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 275. Danchin N, Cucherat M, Thuillez C , et al . Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease and absence of heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction: an overview of long-term randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:787–96.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 276. Al-Mallah MH, Tleyjeh IM, bdel-Latif AA , et al . Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in coronary artery disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47:1576–83.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 277. Pitt B, O'Neill B, Feldman R , et al . The QUinapril Ischemic Event Trial (QUIET): evaluation of chronic ACE inhibitor therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function. Am J Cardiol. 2001; 87:1058–63.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 278. H5N1 avian influenza: first steps towards development of a human vaccine. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2005; 80:277–8.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 279. Davis MM, Taubert K, Benin AL , et al . Influenza vaccination as secondary prevention for cardiovascular disease: a science advisory from the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48:1498–502.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 280. de Diego C, Vila-Corcoles A, Ochoa O , et al . Effects of annual influenza vaccination on winter mortality in elderly people with chronic heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2008; 30:209–16.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 281. Couch RB, Winokur P, Brady R , et al . Safety and immunogenicity of a high dosage trivalent influenza vaccine among elderly subjects. Vaccine. 2007; 25:7656–63.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 282. Keitel WA, Atmar RL, Cate TR , et al . Safety of high doses of influenza vaccine and effect on antibody responses in elderly persons. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:1121–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 283. Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T , et al . Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group. JAMA. 1998; 280:605–13.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 284. Anderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR , et al . Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004; 291:1701–12.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 285. Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC , et al . Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:523–34.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 286. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL , et al . Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA.Google Scholar
  • 287. Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results of the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto miocardico. Lancet. 1999; 354:447–55.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 288. de Gaetano G . Low-dose aspirin and vitamin E in people at cardiovascular risk: a randomised trial in general practice. Collaborative Group of the Primary Prevention Project. Lancet. 2001; 357:89–95.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 289. Stephens NG, Parsons A, Schofield PM , et al . Randomised controlled trial of vitamin E in patients with coronary disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS). Lancet. 1996; 347:781–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 290. Yusuf S, Dagenais G, Pogue J , et al . Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342:154–60.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 291. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL , et al . Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2007; 297:842–57.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 292. Bazzano LA, Reynolds K, Holder KN , et al . Effect of folic acid supplementation on risk of cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006; 296:2720–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 293. Bonaa KH, Njolstad I, Ueland PM , et al . Homocysteine lowering and cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354:1578–88.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 294. Lonn E, Yusuf S, Arnold MJ , et al . Homocysteine lowering with folic acid and B vitamins in vascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354:1567–77.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 295. Toole JF, Malinow MR, Chambless LE , et al . Lowering homocysteine in patients with ischemic stroke to prevent recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death: the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004; 291:565–75.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 296. Guldager B, Jelnes R, Jorgensen SJ , et al . EDTA treatment of intermittent claudication– a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Intern Med. 1992; 231:261–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 297. van Rij AM, Solomon C, Packer SG , et al . Chelation therapy for intermittent claudication. A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Circulation. 1994; 90:1194–9.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 298. Sloth-Nielsen J, Guldager B, Mouritzen C , et al . Arteriographic findings in EDTA chelation therapy on peripheral arteriosclerosis. Am J Surg. 1991; 162:122–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 299. Knudtson ML, Wyse DG, Galbraith PD , et al . Chelation therapy for ischemic heart disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002; 287:481–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 300. Frishman WH, Heiman M, Soberman J , et al . Comparison of celiprolol and propranolol in stable angina pectoris. Celiprolol International Angina Study Group. Am J Cardiol. 1991; 67:665–70.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 301. Narahara KA . Double-blind comparison of once daily betaxolol versus propranolol four times daily in stable angina pectoris. Betaxolol Investigators Group. Am J Cardiol. 1990; 65:577–82.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 302. Boberg J, Larsen FF, Pehrsson SK . The effects of beta blockade with (epanolol) and without (atenolol) intrinsic sympathomimetic activity in stable angina pectoris. The Visacor Study Group. Clin Cardiol. 1992; 15:591–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 303. Ryden L . Efficacy of epanolol versus metoprolol in angina pectoris: report from a Swedish multicentre study of exercise tolerance. J Intern Med. 1992; 231:7–11.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 304. Heidenreich PA, McDonald KM, Hastie T , et al . Meta-analysis of trials comparing beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitrates for stable angina. JAMA. 1999; 281:1927–36.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 305. Abrams J . Clinical practice. Chronic stable angina. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:2524–33.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 306. Wight LJ, VandenBurg MJ, Potter CE , et al . A large scale comparative study in general practice with nitroglycerin spray and tablet formulations in elderly patients with angina pectoris. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992; 42:341–2.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 307. VandenBurg MJ, Wight LJ, Griffiths GK , et al . Sublingual nitroglycerin or spray in the treatment of angina. Br J Clin Pract. 1986; 40:524–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 308. Rousseau MF, Pouleur H, Cocco G , et al . Comparative efficacy of ranolazine versus atenolol for chronic angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol. 2005; 95:311–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 309. Chaitman BR, Pepine CJ, Parker JO , et al . Effects of ranolazine with atenolol, amlodipine, or diltiazem on exercise tolerance and angina frequency in patients with severe chronic angina: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004; 291:309–16.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 310. Stone PH, Gratsiansky NA, Blokhin A , et al . Antianginal efficacy of ranolazine when added to treatment with amlodipine: the ERICA (Efficacy of Ranolazine in Chronic Angina) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48:566–75.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 311. Arora RR, Chou TM, Jain D , et al . The multicenter study of enhanced external counterpulsation (MUST-EECP): effect of EECP on exercise-induced myocardial ischemia and anginal episodes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 33:1833–40.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 312. Mannheimer C, Eliasson T, Augustinsson LE , et al . Electrical stimulation versus coronary artery bypass surgery in severe angina pectoris: the ESBY study. Circulation. 1998; 97:1157–63.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 313. Hautvast RW, DeJongste MJ, Staal MJ , et al . Spinal cord stimulation in chronic intractable angina pectoris: a randomized, controlled efficacy study. Am Heart J. 1998; 136:1114–20.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 314. van der Sloot JA, Huikeshoven M, Tukkie R , et al . Transmyocardial revascularization using an XeCl excimer laser: results of a randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004; 78:875–81.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 315. Guleserian KJ, Maniar HS, Camillo CJ , et al . Quality of life and survival after transmyocardial laser revascularization with the holmium:YAG laser. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 75:1842–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 316. Myers J, Oesterle SN, Jones J , et al . Do transmyocardial and percutaneous laser revascularization induce silent ischemia? An assessment by exercise testing. Am Heart J. 2002; 143:1052–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 317. Ballegaard S, Pedersen F, Pietersen A , et al . Effects of acupuncture in moderate, stable angina pectoris: a controlled study. J Intern Med. 1990; 227:25–30.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 318. Ballegaard S, Jensen G, Pedersen F , et al . Acupuncture in severe, stable angina pectoris: a randomized trial. Acta Med Scand. 1986; 220:307–13.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 319. Feit F, Brooks MM, Sopko G , et al . Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial. BARI Investigators. Circulation. 2000; 101:2795–802.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 320. King SB, Barnhart HX, Kosinski AS , et al . Angioplasty or surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: comparison of eligible registry and randomized patients in the EAST trial and influence of treatment selection on outcomes. Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial Investigators. Am J Cardiol. 1997; 79:1453–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 321. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP , et al . Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:961–72.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 322. Chakravarty T, Buch MH, Naik H , et al . Predictive accuracy of SYNTAX score for predicting long-term outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery revascularization. Am J Cardiol. 2011; 107:360–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 323. Grover FL, Shroyer AL, Hammermeister K , et al . A decade's experience with quality improvement in cardiac surgery using the Veterans Affairs and Society of Thoracic Surgeons national databases. Ann Surg. 2001; 234:464–72.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 324. Kim YH, Park DW, Kim WJ , et al . Validation of SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score for prediction of outcomes after unprotected left main coronary revascularization. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3:612–23.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 325. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP , et al . Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial. Circulation. 2010; 121:2645–53.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 326. Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Filardo G , et al . The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1—coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 88:S2–22.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 327. Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Normand SL , et al . Association of hospital coronary artery bypass volume with processes of care, mortality, morbidity, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons composite quality score. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010; 139:273–82.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 328. Caracciolo EA, Davis KB, Sopko G , et al . Comparison of surgical and medical group survival in patients with left main coronary artery disease. Long-term CASS experience. Circulation. 1995; 91:2325–34.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 329. Chaitman BR, Bourassa MG, Davis K , et al . Angiographic prevalence of high-risk coronary artery disease in patient subsets (CASS). Circulation. 1981; 64:360–7.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 330. Dzavik V, Ghali WA, Norris C , et al . Long-term survival in 11,661 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in the era of stenting: a report from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) Investigators. Am Heart J. 2001; 142:119–26.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 331. Takaro T, Hultgren HN, Lipton MJ , et al . The VA cooperative randomized study of surgery for coronary arterial occlusive disease II. Subgroup with significant left main lesions. Circulation. 1976; 54:III107–III117.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 332. Takaro T, Peduzzi P, Detre KM , et al . Survival in subgroups of patients with left main coronary artery disease. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study of Surgery for Coronary Arterial Occlusive Disease. Circulation. 1982; 66:14–22.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 333. Taylor HA, Deumite NJ, Chaitman BR , et al . Asymptomatic left main coronary artery disease in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry. Circulation. 1989; 79:1171–9.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 334. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P , et al . Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet. 1994; 344:563–70.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 335. Capodanno D, Caggegi A, Miano M , et al . Global Risk Classification and Clinical SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) Score in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous or Surgical Left Main Revascularization. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4:287–97.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 336. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G , et al . Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:331–41.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 337. Ellis SG, Tamai H, Nobuyoshi M , et al . Contemporary percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary stenoses: initial results from a multicenter registry analysis 1994–1996. Circulation. 1997; 96:3867–72.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 338. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Moretti C , et al . A collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis on 1278 patients undergoing percutaneous drug-eluting stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2008; 155:274–83.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 339. Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T , et al . Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57:538–45.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 340. Brener SJ, Galla JM, Bryant R , et al . Comparison of percutaneous versus surgical revascularization of severe unprotected left main coronary stenosis in matched patients. Am J Cardiol. 2008; 101:169–72.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 341. Buszman PE, Kiesz SR, Bochenek A , et al . Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51:538–45.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 342. Chieffo A, Magni V, Latib A , et al . 5-year outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery bypass graft for unprotected left main coronary artery lesions the milan experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3:595–601.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 343. Chieffo A, Morici N, Maisano F , et al . Percutaneous treatment with drug-eluting stent implantation versus bypass surgery for unprotected left main stenosis: a single-center experience. Circulation. 2006; 113:2542–7.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 344. Lee MS, Kapoor N, Jamal F , et al . Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47:864–70.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 345. Makikallio TH, Niemela M, Kervinen K , et al . Coronary angioplasty in drug eluting stent era for the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis compared to coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Med. 2008; 40:437–43.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 346. Naik H, White AJ, Chakravarty T , et al . A meta-analysis of 3,773 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2:739–47.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 347. Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Marrozzini C , et al . Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the Bologna Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2006; 98:54–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 348. Park DW, Seung KB, Kim YH , et al . Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56:117–24.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 349. Rodes-Cabau J, Deblois J, Bertrand OF , et al . Nonrandomized comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in octogenarians. Circulation. 2008; 118:2374–81.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 350. Sanmartin M, Baz JA, Claro R , et al . Comparison of drug-eluting stents versus surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 100:970–3.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 351. Seung KB, Park DW, Kim YH , et al . Stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:1781–92.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 352. White A, Kedia G, Mirocha J , et al . Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous drug-eluting stent implantation for treatment of left main coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol Card Inter. 2008; 1:236–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 353. Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ , et al . Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32:2125–34.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 354. Montalescot G, Brieger D, Eagle KA , et al . Unprotected left main revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2009; 30:2308–17.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 355. Lee MS, Tseng CH, Barker CM , et al . Outcome after surgery and percutaneous intervention for cardiogenic shock and left main disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008; 86:29–34.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 356. Lee MS, Bokhoor P, Park SJ , et al . Unprotected left main coronary disease and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a contemporary review and argument for percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3:791–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 357. Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW , et al . Randomized Trial of Stents versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:1718–27.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 358. Jones RH, Kesler K, Phillips HR , et al . Long-term survival benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996; 111:1013–25.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 359. Varnauskas E . Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European Coronary Surgery Study. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319:332–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 360. Smith PK, Califf RM, Tuttle RH , et al . Selection of surgical or percutaneous coronary intervention provides differential longevity benefit. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006; 82:1420–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 361. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP , et al . Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation. 2004; 109:2290–5.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 362. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G , et al . Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:2174–83.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 363. Di Carli MF, Maddahi J, Rokhsar S , et al . Long-term survival of patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: implications for the role of myocardial viability assessment in management decisions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998; 116:997–1004.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 364. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD , et al . Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation. 2003; 107:2900–7.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 365. Sorajja P, Chareonthaitawee P, Rajagopalan N , et al . Improved survival in asymptomatic diabetic patients with high-risk SPECT imaging treated with coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation. 2005; 112:I311–16.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 366. Davies RF, Goldberg AD, Forman S , et al . Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization. Circulation. 1997; 95:2037–43.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 367. Cameron A, Davis KB, Green G , et al . Coronary bypass surgery with internal-thoracic-artery grafts—effects on survival over a 15-year period. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334:216–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 368. Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM , et al . Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med. 1986; 314:1–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 369. Cashin WL, Sanmarco ME, Nessim SA , et al . Accelerated progression of atherosclerosis in coronary vessels with minimal lesions that are bypassed. N Engl J Med. 1984;824–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 370. Pijls NH, de BB, Peels K , et al . Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334:1703–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 371. Tonino PA, de BB, Pijls NH , et al . Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:213–24.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 372. Sawada S, Bapat A, Vaz D , et al . Incremental value of myocardial viability for prediction of long-term prognosis in surgically revascularized patients with left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42:2099–105.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 373. O'Connor CM, Velazquez EJ, Gardner LH , et al . Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy on long-term outcome in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (a 25-year experience from the Duke Cardiovascular Disease Databank). Am J Cardiol. 2002; 90:101–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 374. Phillips HR, O'Connor CM, Rogers J . Revascularization for heart failure. Am Heart J. 2007; 153:65–73.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 375. Tarakji KG, Brunken R, McCarthy PM , et al . Myocardial viability testing and the effect of early intervention in patients with advanced left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Circulation. 2006; 113:230–7.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 376. Tsuyuki RT, Shrive FM, Galbraith PD , et al . Revascularization in patients with heart failure. CMAJ. 2006; 175:361–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 377. Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA , et al . Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:1607–16.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 378. Borger van der Burg AE, Bax JJ, Boersma E , et al . Impact of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting on outcome after nonfatal cardiac arrest outside the hospital. Am J Cardiol. 2003; 91:785–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 379. Kaiser GA, Ghahramani A, Bolooki H , et al . Role of coronary artery surgery in patients surviving unexpected cardiac arrest. Surgery. 1975; 78:749–54.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 380. The BARI Investigators. Influence of diabetes on 5-year mortality and morbidity in a randomized trial comparing CABG and PTCA in patients with multivessel disease: the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). Circulation. 1997; 96:1761–9.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 381. Hueb W, Lopes NH, Gersh BJ , et al . Five-year follow-up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007; 115:1082–9.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 382. Banning AP, Westaby S, Morice MC , et al . Diabetic and nondiabetic patients with left main and/or 3-vessel coronary artery disease: comparison of outcomes with cardiac surgery and paclitaxel-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55:1067–75.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 383. Hoffman SN, TenBrook JA, Wolf MP , et al . A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: one- to eight year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41:1293–304.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 384. Malenka DJ, Leavitt BJ, Hearne MJ , et al . Comparing long-term survival of patients with multivessel coronary disease after CABG or PCI: analysis of BARI-like patients in northern New England. Circulation. 2005; 112:I371–6.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 385. Niles NW, McGrath PD, Malenka D , et al . Survival of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease after surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of a large regional prospective study. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37:1008–15.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 386. Weintraub WS, Stein B, Kosinski A , et al . Outcome of coronary bypass surgery versus coronary angioplasty in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 31:10–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 387. Benzer W, Hofer S, Oldridge NB . Health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease after different treatments for angina in routine clinical practice. Herz. 2003; 28:421–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 388. Bonaros N, Schachner T, Ohlinger A , et al . Assessment of health-related quality of life after coronary revascularization. Heart Surg Forum. 2005; 8:E380–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 389. Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C , et al . Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2000; 321:73–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 390. Favarato ME, Hueb W, Boden WE , et al . Quality of life in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease: a comparative post hoc analyses of medical, angioplasty or surgical strategies-MASS 11 trial. Int J Cardiol. 2007; 116:364–70.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 391. Hueb W, Lopes N, Gersh BJ , et al . Ten-year follow-up survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2010; 122:949–57.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 392. Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Seed P , et al . Quality of life, employment status, and anginal symptoms after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery. 3-year follow-up in the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) Trial. Circulation. 1996; 94:135–42.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 393. Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Clayton T , et al . Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or continued medical treatment for angina: three-year follow-up in the RITA-2 trial. Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35:907–14.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 394. Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease (TIME): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001; 358:951–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 395. Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P , et al . Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:677–87.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 396. Wijeysundera HC, Nallamothu BK, Krumholz HM , et al . Meta-analysis: effects of percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy on angina relief. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152:370–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 397. Gurfinkel EP, Perez de la Hoz R, Brito VM , et al . Invasive vs non-invasive treatment in acute coronary syndromes and prior bypass surgery. Int J Cardiol. 2007; 119:65–72.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 398. Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J , et al . Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: a multicenter, randomized trial. Investigators of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #385, the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38:143–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 399. Subramanian S, Sabik JF, Houghtaling PL , et al . Decision-making for patients with patent left internal thoracic artery grafts to left anterior descending. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87:1392–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 400. Pfautsch P, Frantz E, Ellmer A , et al . [Long-term outcome of therapy of recurrent myocardial ischemia after surgical revascularization]. Z Kardiol. 1999; 88:489–97.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 401. Weintraub WS, Jones EL, Morris DC , et al . Outcome of reoperative coronary bypass surgery versus coronary angioplasty after previous bypass surgery. Circulation. 1997; 95:868–77.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 402. Aaberge L, Nordstrand K, Dragsund M , et al . Transmyocardial revascularization with CO2 laser in patients with refractory angina pectoris. Clinical results from the Norwegian randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35:1170–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 403. Allen KB, Dowling RD, DelRossi AJ , et al . Transmyocardial laser revascularization combined with coronary artery bypass grafting: a multicenter, blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000; 119:540–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 404. Burkhoff D, Schmidt S, Schulman SP , et al . Transmyocardial laser revascularisation compared with continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris: a prospective randomised trial. ATLANTIC Investigators. Angina Treatments-Lasers and Normal Therapies in Comparison. Lancet. 1999; 354:885–90.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 405. Schofield PM, Sharples LD, Caine N , et al . Transmyocardial laser revascularisation in patients with refractory angina: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999; 353:519–24.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 406. Stamou SC, Boyce SW, Cooke RH , et al . One-year outcome after combined coronary artery bypass grafting and transmyocardial laser revascularization for refractory angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol. 2002; 89:1365–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 407. Deleted in proof.Google Scholar
  • 408. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP , et al . Predictors of revascularization method and long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention or repeat coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary disease and previous coronary bypass surgery. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27:413–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 409. Lytle BW, Loop FD, Taylor PC , et al . The effect of coronary reoperation on the survival of patients with stenoses in saphenous vein bypass grafts to coronary arteries. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993; 105:605–12.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 410. Sergeant P, Blackstone E, Meyns B , et al . First cardiological or cardiosurgical reintervention for ischemic heart disease after primary coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1998; 14:480–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 411. Stephan WJ, O'Keefe JH, Piehler JM , et al . Coronary angioplasty versus repeat coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with previous bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 28:1140–6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 412. Abizaid A, Costa MA, Centemero M , et al . Clinical and economic impact ofdiabetes mellitus on percutaneous and surgical treatment of multivessel coronary disease patients: insights from the Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study (ARTS) trial. Circulation. 2001; 104:533–8.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 413. Deleted in proof.Google Scholar
  • 414. Grines CL, Bonow RO, Casey DE , et al . Prevention of premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery stents: a science advisory from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American College of Surgeons, and American Dental Association, with representation from the American College of Physicians. Circulation. 2007; 115:813–8.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 415. Leon MB, Baim DS, Popma JJ , et al . A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting. Stent Anticoagulation Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339:1665–71.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 416. Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM , et al . Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356:1020–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 417. McFadden EP, Stabile E, Regar E , et al . Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Lancet. 2004; 364:1519–21.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 418. Bonatti J, Schachner T, Bonaros N , et al . Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization using totally endoscopic left internal mammary artery bypass grafting and placement of rapamycin eluting stents in the same interventional session. The COMBINATION pilot study. Cardiology. 2008; 110:92–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 419. Gilard M, Bezon E, Cornily JC , et al . Same-day combined percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery surgery. Cardiology. 2007; 108:363–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 420. Holzhey DM, Jacobs S, Mochalski M , et al . Minimally invasive hybrid coronary artery revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008; 86:1856–60.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 421. Kon ZN, Brown EN, Tran R , et al . Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008; 135:367–75.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 422. Reicher B, Poston RS, Mehra MR , et al . Simultaneous “hybrid” percutaneous coronary intervention and minimally invasive surgical bypass grafting: feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes. Am Heart J. 2008; 155:661–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 423. Vassiliades TA, Douglas JS, Morris DC , et al . Integrated coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents: immediate and seven-month outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 131:956–62.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 424. Zhao DX, Leacche M, Balaguer JM , et al . Routine intraoperative completion angiography after coronary artery bypass grafting and 1-stop hybrid revascularization results from a fully integrated hybrid catheterization laboratory/operating room. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53:232–41.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 425. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H , et al . Value of stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in patients with normal resting electrocardiograms: an evaluation of incremental prognostic value and cost-effectiveness. Circulation. 2002; 105:823–9.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 426. Yao SS, Qureshi E, Sherrid MV , et al . Practical applications in stress echocardiography: risk stratification and prognosis in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42:1084–90.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 427. Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Heller GV , et al . Noninvasive strategies for the estimation of cardiac risk in stable chest pain patients. The Economics of Noninvasive Diagnosis (END) Study Group. Am J Cardiol. 2000; 86:1–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 428. Shaw LJ, Hendel RC, Cerquiera M , et al . Ethnic differences in the prognostic value of stress technetium-99m tetrofosmin gated single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45:1494–504.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 429. Sawada SG, Safadi A, Gaitonde RS , et al . Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities with low-dose dobutamine infusion indicate the presence of severe disease and vulnerable myocardium. Echocardiography. 2007; 24:739–44.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 430. Lauer MS, Lytle B, Pashkow F , et al . Prediction of death and myocardial infarction by screening with exercise-thallium testing after coronary-artery-bypass grafting. Lancet. 1998; 351:615–22.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 431. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD , et al . A prognostic score for prediction of cardiac mortality risk after adenosine stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45:722–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 432. Gehi AK, Ali S, Na B , et al . Inducible ischemia and the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in outpatients with stable coronary heart disease: the heart and soul study. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168:1423–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 433. Calnon DA, McGrath PD, Doss AL , et al . Prognostic value of dobutamine stress technetium—99m-sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: stratification of a high-risk population. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38:1511–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 434. Bodi V, Sanchis J, Lopez-Lereu MP , et al . Prognostic value of dipyridamole stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50:1174–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 435. Berman DS, Hachamovitch R, Kiat H , et al . Incremental value of prognostic testing in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease: a basis for optimal utilization of exercise technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 26:639–47.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 436. Chatziioannou SN, Moore WH, Ford PV , et al . Prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with high exercise tolerance. Circulation. 1999; 99:867–72.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 437. Peteiro J, Monserrrat L, Pineiro M , et al . Comparison of exercise echocardiography and the Duke treadmill score for risk stratification in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease and normal resting electrocardiogram. Am Heart J. 2006; 151:1324–10.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 438. Parisi AF, Hartigan PM, Folland ED . Evaluation of exercise thallium scintigraphy versus exercise electrocardiography in predicting survival outcomes and morbid cardiac events in patients with single-and double-vessel disease. Findings from the Angioplasty Compared to Medicine (ACME) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 30:1256–63.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 439. Mowatt G, Cook JA, Hillis GS , et al . 64-Slice computed tomography angiography in the diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2008; 94:1386–93.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 440. Jones CM, Athanasiou T, Dunne N , et al . Multi-detector computed tomography in coronary artery bypass graft assessment: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 83:341–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 441. Hamon M, Lepage O, Malagutti P , et al . Diagnostic performance of 16- and 64-section spiral CT for coronary artery bypass graft assessment: meta-analysis. Radiology. 2008; 247:679–86.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 442. Carrabba N, Schuijf JD, de Graaf FR , et al . Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography for the detection of in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010; 17:470–8.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 443. Sun Z, Almutairi AM . Diagnostic accuracy of 64 multislice CT angiography in the assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 73:266–73.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant): 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease
Committee Member Employment Consultant Speaker's Bureau Ownership/Partnership/Principal Personal Research Institutional, Organizational, or Other Financial Benefit Expert Witness Voting Recusals by Section*
Stephan D. Fihn (Chair) Veterans Health Administration— Director, Office of Analytics and Business Intelligence;University of Washington—Professor of Medicine and of Health Services; Head, Division of General Internal Medicine None None None None None None None
Julius M. Gardin (Vice Chair) Hackensack University Medical Center— Professor and Chairman, Department of Internal Medicine • Arena Pharmaceuticals (Expired Dec. 2008)• AstraZeneca (Expired Dec. 2009)• Bristol-Myers Squibb (Expired Dec. 2009)• CV Therapeutics (Expired Dec. 2007)• Pfizer (Expired Dec. 2009)• Sanofi-aventis (Expired 2009)• Takeda (Expired Dec. 2007) • Bristol-Myers Squibb (Expired Dec. 2009)• CV Therapeutics (Expired Dec. 2007)• Pfizer (Expired Dec. 2009)• Takeda (Expired Dec. 2007) None • Merck (Expired Dec. 2009) None None 4.4.1.14.4.1.24.4.1.14.4.1.5 4.4.2.14.4.2.24.4.2.14.4.3.14.4.4
Jonathan Abrams University of New Mexico, Office of CME—Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) None None None None None None None
Kathleen Berra Stanford Prevention Research Center— Clinical Trial Director • Boehringer Ingelheim• CV Therapeutics• Gilead Sciences• Novartis‡• Pfizer • Sanofi-aventis None • Kai Pharmaceuticals • PCNA—Board Member‡ None 4.4.1.14.4.1.24.4.2.14.4.2.24.4.2.34.4.3.1
James C. Blankenship Geisinger Medical Center—Director Cardiology; Director Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory None • Sanofi-aventis None • Abiomed• AstraZeneca• Boston Scientific• Conor Medsystems• Kai Pharmaceuticals• Novartis• Schering-Plough• The Medicines Company None None 4.4.2.1
Apostolos P. Dallas Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital— Director of Continuing Medical Education None None • GlaxoSmithKline†• Johnson & Johnson†• Novartis†• Sanofi-aventis† None None None 4.4.1.24.4.1.24.4.1.34.4.1.64.4.2.14.4.2.24.4.2.34.4.3.1
Pamela S. Douglas Duke University Medical Center—Ursula Geller Professor of Research in Cardiovascular Diseases None None None • Novartis None None 4.4.1.14.4.1.24.4.1.34.4.2.3
JoAnne M. Foody Harvard Medical School—Associate Professor; Brigham and Women's/Faulkner Hospitals • Abbott• Amarin• Gilead• Merck• Novartis• Pfizer• Sanofi-aventis None None None None None 2.2.2.22.2.3.33.2.2.64.4.1.14.4.1.24.4.1.34.4.3.1.4
Thomas C. Gerber Mayo Clinic—Radiology, Professor of Medicine None None None None None None None
Alan L. Hinderliter University of North Carolina: Division of Cardiology—Associate Professor None None None None None None None
Spencer B. King III Saint Joseph's Heart and Vascular Institute—President; Saint Joseph's Health System—Executive Director Academic Affairs • Medtronic (Expired June 2007)† None None None • Merck (DSMB)• Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (DSMB) None 4.4.2.14.4.2.24.4.2.34.4.3.1
Paul D. Kligfield Cornell Medical Center—Professor of Medicine • Cardiac Science• GE Healthcare• MDS Pharma Services†• Mortara Instrument• Philips Medical Systems None None None None None 2.2.12.2.4.22.2.4.33.2.26.1
Harlan M. Krumholz Yale University School of Medicine—Harold H. Hines, Jr. Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology and Public Health None None None None None None None
Raymond Y.K. Kwong Brigham & Women's Hospital Medicine, Cardiovascular Division—Instructor of Medicine None None None None None None None
Michael J. Lim St. Louis University— Associate Professor of Medicine; Division of Cardiology, Interim Director; J. Gerard Mudd Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Director • Bristol-Myers Squibb• Cordis• Sanofi-aventis• Schering-Plough None None None None None 4.4.1.14.4.1.24.4.1.34.4.2.1.14.4.2.3
Jane A. Linderbaum Mayo Clinic—Assistant Professor of Medicine None None None None None None None
Michael J. Mack The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano—Director None None None None None None None
Mark A. Munger University of Utah College of Pharmacy—Professor Pharmacotherapy and Internal Medicine; Associate Dean, Academic Affairs None • Gilead None • Novartis† None None 4.4.3.1
Richard L. Prager University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers—Professor of Surgery, Section of Cardiac Surgery None None None None None None None
Joseph F. Sabik Cleveland Clinic Foundation— Professor of Surgery • Medtronic• Novo Nordisk None None None None None 4.4.1.3
Leslee J. Shaw Emory University School of Medicine— Professor of Medicine None None None • Bracco Diagnostics† None None 3.2.2.6
Joanna D. Sikkema University of Miami School of Nursing None • AstraZeneca None None None None 4.4.1.14.4.1.2
Craig R. Smith, Jr Columbia University— Chairman, Department of Surgery None None None None None None None
Sidney C. Smith, Jr Center for Cardiovascular Science and Medicine—Professor of Medicine; Director • Eli Lilly (Expired July 2007)• Sanofi-aventis (Expired Sept. 2009) • AstraZeneca (Expired Nov. 2009)• Bayer (Expired Oct. 2009)• Fornier (Expired May 2009)• Sanofi-aventis (Expired Nov. 2009) None • GlaxoSmithKline (DSMB) (Expired March 2009) None None 4.4.2.1
John A. Spertus MidAmerica Heart Institute of St. Luke's Hospital—Director, Outcomes Research; University of Missouri—Kansas City • Gilead None None • BMS/sanofi-aventis†• Cordis†• Eli Lilly†• Johnson & Johnson†• Roche Diagnostics‡ None None 4.4.1.14.4.1.24.4.1.34.4.3.16.3.1
Sankey V. Williams Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania— Solomon Katz Professor of General Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine None None • Johnson & Johnson• Merck None None None 4.4.1.14.4.1.24.4.1.34.4.1.54.4.1.64.4.2.14.4.2.24.4.2.3

This table represents the relationships of committee members with industry and other entities that were reported by authors to be relevant to this document. These relationships were reviewed and updated in conjunction with all meetings and conference calls of the writing committee during the document development process. The table does not necessarily reflect relationships with industry at the time of publication. A person is deemed to have a significant interest in a business if the interest represents ownership of ≥5% of the voting stock or share of the business entity, or ownership of ≥$10 000 of the fair market value of the business entity; or if funds received by the person from the business entity exceed 5% of the person's gross income for the previous year. A relationship is considered to be modest if it is less than significant under the preceding definition. Relationships in this table are modest unless otherwise noted.

The current guideline was developed during the transition in RWI policy and occurred over an extended period of time. In the interest of transparency, we provide full information on RWI existing over the entire period of guideline development, including delineation of relationships that expired >24 months before the guideline was finalized.

*Writing committee members are required to recuse from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry and other entities could apply. Section numbers apply to the full-text guideline.2

†Significant relationship.

‡No financial benefit.

CV indicates cardiovascular; DSMB, data safety and monitoring board; and SAQ, Seattle Angina Questionnaire.

Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant): 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease
Reviewer Representation Consultant Speaker Ownership/Partnership/Principal Research Institutional, Organizational, or Other Financial Benefit Expert Witness
Ralph G. Brindis Official Reviewer—ACCF Board of Trustees None None None None None None
Timothy D. Henry Official Reviewer—AHA • CV Therapeutics• Sanofi-aventis None None • Baxter*• CV Therapeutics* None None
Judith S. Hochman Official Reviewer— ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines • Eli Lilly• GlaxoSmithKline None None • Johnson & Johnson• Merck
Robert H. Jones Official Reviewer—STS None None None None None None
Janet B. Long Official Reviewer—PCNA None • AstraZeneca None None None None
Bruce W. Lytle Official Reviewer—AATS None None None None None None
Douglass A. Morrison Official Reviewer—SCAI None None None None None None
E. Magnus Ohman Official Reviewer—AHA • Abiomed• Datascope• Inovise*• Liposcience• The Medicines Company• Response Biomedical • CV Therapeutics*• The Medicines Company* Inovise* • Bristol-Myers Squibb*• Daiichi-Sankyo*• Eli Lilly*• The Medicines Company*• Millennium Pharmaceuticals*• Sanofi-aventis*• Schering-Plough* None None
Douglas K. Owens Official Reviewer—ACP • GE Healthcare* None None None None None
Paul Poirier Official Reviewer—ACCF Board of Governors None None None None None None
Amir Qaseem Official Reviewer—ACP None None None None None None
Joyce L. Ross Official Reviewer—PCNA • Kaneka America • Abbott• AstraZeneca*• Bristol-Myers Squibb• Oscient• Pfizer• Sanofi-aventis None None None None
Timothy A. Sanborn Official Reviewer—SCAI None • The Medicines Company• Merck None • St. Jude Medical (DSMB) None None
Jeffrey L. Anderson Content Reviewer— ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines • BMS/sanofi-aventis• Daiichi-Sankyo• Eli Lilly None None None None None
William E. Boden Content Reviewer • Abbott• CV Therapeutics/ Gilead*• Sanofi-aventis• Schering-Plough • Medicure Pharma None None None None
Matthew Budoff Content Reviewer— ACCF Imaging Council None None None None None None
Kim A. Eagle Content Reviewer None None None None None None
Gordon A. Ewy Content Reviewer None None None None None None
Victor Ferrari Content Reviewer— ACCF Imaging Council None None None None None None
Raymond J. Gibbons Content Reviewer • Cardiovascular Clinical Studies• Lantheus Medical Imaging• Medscape• Molecular Insight• TherOx None None • Velomedix* None None
Linda Gillam Content Reviewer— ACCF Imaging Council • Abbott Vascular• Edwards Lifesciences None None None • Core Lab Services None
Robert A. Guyton Content Reviewer— ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines None None None • Edwards Lifesciences None None
L. David Hillis Content Reviewer None None None None None None
David R. Holmes Content Reviewer— ACCF Interventional Scientific Council None None None None None None
Hani Jneid Content Reviewer— AHA Council on Clinical Cardiology None None None None None None
Sanjay Kaul Content Reviewer None None None None None None
Howard C. Lewin Content Reviewer— ACCF Imaging Council None None • Positron Imaging Partners None None None
Todd D. Miller Content Reviewer— AHA Council on Clinical Cardiology • The Medicines Company• TherOx None None • Kai Pharmaceuticals• King Pharmaceuticals• Lantheus Medical Imaging• Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals None None
L. Kristin Newby Content Reviewer— AHA Council on Clinical Cardiology • Adolor• Biovascular• CV Therapeutics• Inverness Medical• Johnson & Johnson• Novartis• Roche Diagnostics • Daiichi-Sankyo None • AstraZeneca• BG Medicine• Carvio Dx*• GlaxoSmithKline*• Medicare*• Millennium Pharmaceuticals• Schering-Plough* None None
Elizabeth Ross Content Reviewer None None None None None None
William S. Weintraub Content Reviewer • AstraZeneca*• Bayer*• Bristol-Myers Squibb• Cardionet• Eli Lilly• Pfizer*• Sanofi-aventis• Shionogi None None • Abbott*• AstraZeneca*• Bristol-Myers Squibb*• Otsuka*• Sanofi-aventis* None • 2004; Defendant; Aprotinin• 2008; Defendant; Quetiapine• 2008; Defendant; Celebrex

This table represents the relationships of reviewers with industry and other entities that were disclosed at the time of peer review. It does not necessarily reflect relationships with industry at the time of publication. A person is deemed to have a significant interest in a business if the interest represents ownership of ≥5% of the voting stock or share of the business entity, or ownership of ≥$10 000 of the fair market value of the business entity; or if funds received by the person from the business entity exceed 5% of the person's gross income for the previous year. A relationship is considered to be modest if it is less than significant under the preceding definition. Relationships noted in this table are modest unless otherwise noted.

*Significant relationship.

AATS indicates American Association for Thoracic Surgery; ACCF, American College of Cardiology Foundation; ACP, American College of Physicans; AHA, American Heart Association; NIH, National Institutes of Health; PCNA, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association; SCAI, Society for Cardiovascular Interventions and Angiography; and STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

eLetters(0)

eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.

Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.

Sign In to Submit a Response to This Article
Back to top

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose eLetter

Contributors

(all fields are required)

Statement of Competing Interests

Cancel