心脏肉样瘤病管理指南的比较与对比。

Annals of nuclear cardiology Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-08-31 DOI:10.17996/anc.20-00123
David H Birnie, Niko Tzemos, Pablo B Nery
{"title":"心脏肉样瘤病管理指南的比较与对比。","authors":"David H Birnie, Niko Tzemos, Pablo B Nery","doi":"10.17996/anc.20-00123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Introduction</i>: The Japanese Circulation Society (JCS) recently published new guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Cardiac Sarcoidosis (CS). There are two other guideline documents, the World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders Sarcoidosis Organ (WASOG) Assessment Instrument created in 1999 and updated in 2014. Also, in 2014, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) published their international guideline document. As co-chair of the HRS document I have been invited to compare and contrast the management aspects of the HRS guidelines with the new JCS document. <i>Comments</i>: (i) The HRS document recommended a stepwise approach to VT management and the JCS document is somewhat similar; but with some key differences. (ii) The HRS statement suggested that an ICD for CS patients with an indication for a pacemaker \"can be useful\". The JCS document take a similar position although with some additional criteria related to National Health Institute Coverage guidelines. (iii) Both HRS and the JCS documents agree that ICDs are recommended in patients with general guideline indications for primary prevention (i.e. LVEF less than 35%). However which additional patients should be considered for ICDs is controversial. The 2016 JCS document is broadly similar, with the major exception that it is recommended that all patients with LVEF 35-50% should have an EP study. <i>Conclusion</i>: The Japanese have been leaders in many aspects of CS including in guideline development. It is clear that the future of CS management is bright, with increasing international collaborations and also multiple efforts underway to obtain higher quality data to inform future guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":72228,"journal":{"name":"Annals of nuclear cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10133928/pdf/anc-6-61.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing and Contrasting Guidelines for the Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis.\",\"authors\":\"David H Birnie, Niko Tzemos, Pablo B Nery\",\"doi\":\"10.17996/anc.20-00123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Introduction</i>: The Japanese Circulation Society (JCS) recently published new guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Cardiac Sarcoidosis (CS). There are two other guideline documents, the World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders Sarcoidosis Organ (WASOG) Assessment Instrument created in 1999 and updated in 2014. Also, in 2014, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) published their international guideline document. As co-chair of the HRS document I have been invited to compare and contrast the management aspects of the HRS guidelines with the new JCS document. <i>Comments</i>: (i) The HRS document recommended a stepwise approach to VT management and the JCS document is somewhat similar; but with some key differences. (ii) The HRS statement suggested that an ICD for CS patients with an indication for a pacemaker \\\"can be useful\\\". The JCS document take a similar position although with some additional criteria related to National Health Institute Coverage guidelines. (iii) Both HRS and the JCS documents agree that ICDs are recommended in patients with general guideline indications for primary prevention (i.e. LVEF less than 35%). However which additional patients should be considered for ICDs is controversial. The 2016 JCS document is broadly similar, with the major exception that it is recommended that all patients with LVEF 35-50% should have an EP study. <i>Conclusion</i>: The Japanese have been leaders in many aspects of CS including in guideline development. It is clear that the future of CS management is bright, with increasing international collaborations and also multiple efforts underway to obtain higher quality data to inform future guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of nuclear cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10133928/pdf/anc-6-61.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of nuclear cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17996/anc.20-00123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/8/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of nuclear cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17996/anc.20-00123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:日本循环学会(JCS)最近发布了新的心脏肉样瘤病(CS)诊断和治疗指南。另外还有两份指南文件,即世界肉样瘤病和其他肉芽肿性疾病协会肉样瘤病器官(WASOG)评估工具,该工具于 1999 年制定,并于 2014 年更新。此外,2014 年,心脏节律学会(HRS)发布了他们的国际指南文件。作为心律失常协会文件的联合主席,我受邀将心律失常协会指南的管理方面与新的 JCS 文件进行比较和对比。评论:(i) HRS 文件建议采用循序渐进的方法进行 VT 管理,JCS 文件与 HRS 文件有些类似,但也有一些关键的不同之处。(ii) HRS 声明建议,对于有起搏器适应症的 CS 患者,ICD "可能是有用的"。JCS 文件采取了类似的立场,但增加了一些与国家健康研究所覆盖指南相关的标准。(iii) HRS 和 JCS 文件都同意,对于具有一级预防一般指南指征的患者(即 LVEF 低于 35%),建议使用 ICD。然而,还有哪些患者应考虑使用 ICD 还存在争议。2016 年的 JCS 文件与之大体相似,主要的例外是建议所有 LVEF 为 35-50% 的患者都应进行 EP 研究。结论:日本人在 CS 的许多方面,包括指南制定方面一直处于领先地位。很明显,CS 管理的前景是光明的,国际合作不断增加,同时也在努力获取更高质量的数据,为未来的指南提供依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing and Contrasting Guidelines for the Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis.

Introduction: The Japanese Circulation Society (JCS) recently published new guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Cardiac Sarcoidosis (CS). There are two other guideline documents, the World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders Sarcoidosis Organ (WASOG) Assessment Instrument created in 1999 and updated in 2014. Also, in 2014, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) published their international guideline document. As co-chair of the HRS document I have been invited to compare and contrast the management aspects of the HRS guidelines with the new JCS document. Comments: (i) The HRS document recommended a stepwise approach to VT management and the JCS document is somewhat similar; but with some key differences. (ii) The HRS statement suggested that an ICD for CS patients with an indication for a pacemaker "can be useful". The JCS document take a similar position although with some additional criteria related to National Health Institute Coverage guidelines. (iii) Both HRS and the JCS documents agree that ICDs are recommended in patients with general guideline indications for primary prevention (i.e. LVEF less than 35%). However which additional patients should be considered for ICDs is controversial. The 2016 JCS document is broadly similar, with the major exception that it is recommended that all patients with LVEF 35-50% should have an EP study. Conclusion: The Japanese have been leaders in many aspects of CS including in guideline development. It is clear that the future of CS management is bright, with increasing international collaborations and also multiple efforts underway to obtain higher quality data to inform future guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信