PreambleSince 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone of quality cardiovascular care.In response to reports from the Institute of Medicine1,2 and a mandate to evaluate new knowledge and maintain relevance at the point of care, the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (Task Force) modified its methodology.3–5 The relationships among guidelines, data standards, appropriate use criteria, and performance measures are addressed elsewhere.5Intended UsePractice guidelines provide recommendations applicable to patients with or at risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The focus is on medical practice in the United States, but guidelines developed in collaboration with other organizations may have a broader target. Although guidelines may be used to inform regulatory or payer decisions, the intent is to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Guidelines are intended to define practices meeting the needs of patients in most, but not all, circumstances, and should not replace clinical judgment. Guidelines are reviewed annually by the Task Force and are official policy of the ACC and AHA. Each guideline is considered current until it is updated, revised, or superseded by published addenda, statements of clarification, focused updates, or revised full-text guidelines. To ensure that guidelines remain current, new data are reviewed biannually to determine whether recommendations should be modified. In general, full revisions are posted in 5-year cycles.3–6ModernizationProcesses have evolved to support the evolution of guidelines as “living documents” that can be dynamically updated. This process delineates a recommendation to address a specific clinical question, followed by concise text (ideally <250 words) and hyperlinked to supportive evidence. This approach accommodates time constraints on busy clinicians and facilitates easier access to recommendations via electronic search engines and other evolving technology.Evidence ReviewWriting committee members review the literature; weigh the quality of evidence for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and estimate expected health outcomes. In developing recommendations, the writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies that are based on all available data.3–7 Literature searches focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also include registries, nonrandomized comparative and descriptive studies, case series, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and expert opinion. Only selected references are cited.The Task Force recognizes the need for objective, independent Evidence Review Committees (ERCs) that include methodologists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and biostatisticians who systematically survey, abstract, and assess the evidence to address syste...

Preamble Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone of quality cardiovascular care. In response to reports from the Institute of Medicine1,2 and a mandate to evaluate new knowledge and maintain relevance at the point of care, the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (Task Force) modified its methodology.3–5 The relationships among guidelines, data standards, appropriate use criteria, and performance measures are addressed elsewhere.5 Intended Use Practice guidelines provide recommendations applicable to patients with or at risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The focus is on medical practice in the United States, but guidelines developed in collaboration with other organizations may have a broader target. Although guidelines may be used to inform regulatory or payer decisions, the intent is to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Guidelines are intended to define practices meeting the needs of patients in most, but not all, circumstances, and should not replace clinical judgment. Guidelines are reviewed annually by the Task Force and are official policy of the ACC and AHA. Each guideline is considered current until it is updated, revised, or superseded by published addenda, statements of clarification, focused updates, or revised full-text guidelines. To ensure that guidelines remain current, new data are reviewed biannually to determine whether recommendations should be modified. In general, full revisions are posted in 5-year cycles.3–6 Modernization Processes have evolved to support the evolution of guidelines as “living documents” that can be dynamically updated. This process delineates a recommendation to address a specific clinical question, followed by concise text (ideally <250 words) and hyperlinked to supportive evidence. This approach accommodates time constraints on busy clinicians and facilitates easier access to recommendations via electronic search engines and other evolving technology. Evidence Review Writing committee members review the literature; weigh the quality of evidence for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and estimate expected health outcomes. In developing recommendations, the writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies that are based on all available data.3–7 Literature searches focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also include registries, nonrandomized comparative and descriptive studies, case series, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and expert opinion. Only selected references are cited. The Task Force recognizes the need for objective, independent Evidence Review Committees (ERCs) that include methodologists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and biostatisticians who systematically survey, abstract, and assess the evidence t...

No abstract

Recent advances in clinical protocols have improved the outcomes of pancreatic islet transplantation (PIT), yet PIT recipients typically require pancreatic islet grafts derived from multiple donors to achieve insulin independence. This along with experimental models of syngeneic PIT, showing that up to 60% of pancreatic islet tissue undergoes apoptosis within the first several days post-transplantation, strongly suggest the involvement of nonalloantigen-specific, inflammatory events in partial destruction of the graft following PIT. Interleukin-1beta appears to be among the most important inflammatory mediators, causing pancreatic islet dysfunction and apoptosis through the up-regulation of inducible nitric oxide (NO) synthase and cyclooxygenase-2. Kupffer cells secrete many molecules, including cytokines, NO, and free radicals, which are known to be directly toxic to the pancreatic islets, and depletion or inhibition of Kupffer cells improves outcomes following experimental PIT. Immediately after transplantation, the pancreatic islets are perfused only by portal vein blood until the process of angiogenesis restores arterial blood flow some 7-10 days later. This delayed vascularization may have implications for the expression of leukocyte adhesion molecules, the effects of free radicals, and the role of ischemia-reperfusion injury. Finally, in the immediate post-transplant period, hepatocytes may contribute to pancreatic islet injury through the production of NO. This paper reviews literature regarding the inflammatory events that follow PIT as well as the pathogenesis of diabetes and the pathophysiology of hepatic ischemia-reperfusion and their relation to the survival and function of intrahepatic pancreatic islet grafts.

No abstract

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is a common viral infection in pediatric liverPrior to 2001, the incidence of PTLD at our institution was 16%. After instituting a protocol for EBV monitoring, the incidence of PTLD decreased to 2% (p-value < 0.05). These findings illustrate that frequent EBV viral load monitoring and preemptive immunosuppression modulation have an integral role in preventing PTLD in the pediatric liver transplant population.

Most cases of lower extremity limb loss in the United States occur among people with diabetes who have a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). These DFUs and the associated limb loss that may occur lead to excess healthcare costs and have a large negative impact on mobility, psychosocial well-being, and quality of life. The strategies for DFU prevention and management are evolving, but the implementation of these prevention and management strategies remains challenging. Barriers to implementation include poor access to primary medical care; patient beliefs and lack of adherence to medical advice; delays in DFU recognition; limited healthcare resources and practice heterogeneity of specialists. Herein, we review the contemporary outcomes of DFU prevention and management to provide a framework for prioritizing quality improvement efforts within a resource-limited healthcare environment.

No abstract