Lévy Samuel
Professor of Cardiology, Aix-Marseille Université, School of Medicine, Marseille, France.
Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2013 Apr;2(1):8-15. doi: 10.15420/aer.2013.2.1.8.
The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) reported joint guidelines on atrial fibrillation (AF) in 2001 and a revised version in 2006. In 2010 new guidelines on AF were published by the ESC, and in 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF)/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and by the Canadian Cardiac Society (CCS). Focused updates have also appeared more recently. We reviewed these three sets of AF guidelines and compared their rating systems and their recommendations regarding four major AF management aspects (i.e. long-term rate control strategy, long-term rhythm control strategy, oral anticoagulation and AF catheter ablation). Significant differences were found between guidelines in the quality of evidence or level of evidence and on the strength of recommendations. Use of new anticoagulants and of new antiarrhythmic drug therapy is also discussed in the light of recent trial results. Whether multiplication of guidelines and differences in recommendation impact their implementation in clinical practice, remains to be assessed.
美国心脏病学会(ACC)、美国心脏协会(AHA)和欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)于2001年发布了关于心房颤动(AF)的联合指南,并于2006年发布了修订版。2010年,ESC发布了关于AF的新指南,2011年,美国心脏病学会基金会(ACCF)/AHA/心律学会(HRS)以及加拿大心脏协会(CCS)也发布了相关指南。近期也出现了重点更新内容。我们回顾了这三套AF指南,并比较了它们的评级系统以及关于AF管理四个主要方面(即长期心率控制策略、长期节律控制策略、口服抗凝治疗和AF导管消融)的建议。指南之间在证据质量或证据水平以及推荐强度方面存在显著差异。还根据近期试验结果讨论了新型抗凝剂和新型抗心律失常药物治疗的使用情况。指南的增多以及推荐的差异是否会影响其在临床实践中的实施,仍有待评估。