In this issue of the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, the “Guidelines in Review” series provides a comparison of the AHA/ACC and ESC Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death.1 Of note, the ESC guidelines committee specifically mentions in its introduction that their guidelines from 20152 should be seen as a European update of the 2006 AHA/ACC guidelines, which at that time were a joint effort together with ESC.3 AHA/ACC have not come up with a specific update of those guidelines to date. For this reason, Velasco and colleagues included recommendations from other, more recent AHA/ACC guidelines on heart failure,4 implantable electronic devices,5 and congenital heart disease6 in their comparison.
From a general cardiologist’s perspective, the differences between both sets of guidelines with regard to device implantation are minor. While AHA/ACC distinguishes between the primary and secondary prevention for ICD therapy, and provides a longer list of class I indications, based on the specific inclusion criteria of respective large clinical trials, the ESC in their most recent version has taken a broader, more clear-cut approach: Based on the accumulated sum of evidence from clinical trials since the 2006 version, they provide one specific recommendation for ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy each, which focuses on heart failure in NYHA class II–III, LVEF ≤ 35%, 3 months or more on medical therapy and reasonable survival expectation as standard criteria for ICD therapy. This facilitates and homogenizes the clinical use, but has little effect on common practice because it is a well-defined summary of the other, often less precise criteria outlined in the multiple indications of the older AHA/ACC documents. Furthermore, some broader class I indications (based on better evidence obtained from more recent studies) are given for CRT and CRT-D, but the sum of the recommendations given for therapy are not going to result in relevant differences of guideline-based clinical practice between America and Europe.
For diagnostic testing and specifically for imaging, there are also no significant differences. As shown by Velasco and colleagues in a final figure to their guidelines in review comparison,7 a matched, clear-cut strategy for the use of exercise testing and stress imaging can be derived from both guidelines. This supports the use of stress imaging in suspected CAD with intermediate pretest probability, in a manner very similar to general guidelines for the management of stable angina.8 Also, the role of echocardiography to determine LV function and the value of direct coronary angiography in recurrent ventricular arrhythmia is emphasized, while cardiac CT and MRI are seen as class IIa indications, for assessing LV morphology/function and ruling out coronary artery disease.
What is important about both sets of guidelines is not just what is written there (especially because differences seem to be limited). From an imager’s point of view, it is also important to recognize what is not written there (and the significant time difference between the “older” AHA/ACC and the “younger” ESC guidelines has not changed this):
No mention is made of specific techniques aiming at characterization of the substrate of ventricular arrhythmia or of ventricular dyssynchrony. Several such novel approaches have been introduced with the hope to achieve a broader application for guidance of device-based therapy. Echo-, magnetic resonance (CMR)- or gated-SPECT-based analysis of contractile patterns have been introduced and explored with regards to their benefit for identification of candidates for CRT.9 Imaging of sympathetic innervation with MIBG10 or PET,11 or imaging of the gray zone using contrast-enhanced CMR,12 have been introduced to identify subjects at elevated risk of ventricular arrhythmia. For some of those techniques, larger registries have been created years before the 2015 update of the ESC guidelines.10 Also, at least in Europe, those techniques have been widely available for potential clinical use. Yet, they have not achieved sufficient recognition to be included in clinical guidelines. For ICD implantation, prospective studies linking the use of those imaging techniques to therapeutic decision making and subsequent outcome and/or cost benefit are lacking. For guidance of CRT, dyssynchrony imaging by echocardiography did not yield convincing results in larger trials,13 and initial enthusiasm created by early work could not be rolled out onto a broader clinical stage.14 And the use of CMR and SPECT in CRT, like in ICD implantation, is lacking prospective trial evidence.
As evidenced by the recent guidelines for infective endocarditis,15 which have triggered a widespread interest in multimodal and molecular imaging of device infection, Europe does provide an environment that is generally open towards inclusion of novel imaging techniques in guidelines in case of clinical need. Hence, from a European perspective, the most important lesson to be learned as an imager from integrated analysis of American and European guidelines on ventricular arrhythmia is that efforts should be focused on finding an entry for newer imaging techniques into the next edition of these guidelines. Further prospective studies linking imaging and therapy will be needed. Continued open discussion, interdisciplinary interaction between imagers and clinicians, and standardization of techniques (within and across continents) will be other criteria to improve clinical acceptance.
References
Velasco A, Stirrup J, Reyes E, Hage FG. Guidelines in review: Comparison between AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. J Nucl Cardiol 2017. doi:10.1007/s12350-017-0895-y.
Priori SG, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Mazzanti A, Blom N, Borggrefe M, Camm J, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: The Task Force for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). Eur Heart J 2015;36:2793–867.
Zipes DP, Camm AJ, Borggrefe M, Buxton AE, Chaitman B, Fromer M, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (writing committee to develop Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death): developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 2006;114:e385–484.
Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Drazner MH, et al. ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 2013;128:e240–327.
Piccini JP Sr, Allen LA, Kudenchuk PJ, Page RL, Patel MR, Turakhia MP. Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2016;133:1715–27.
Warnes CA, Williams RG, Bashore TM, Child JS, Connolly HM, Dearani JA, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to develop guidelines on the management of adults with congenital heart disease). Circulation 2008;118:e714–833.
Velasco A, Stirrup J, Reyes E, Hage FG. Erratum to: Guidelines in review: Comparison between AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. J Nucl Cardiol 2017. doi:10.1007/s12350-017-0895-y.
Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A, et al. ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2949–3003.
Heydari B, Jerosch-Herold M, Kwong RY. Imaging for planning of cardiac resynchronization therapy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5:93–110.
Jacobson AF, Senior R, Cerqueira MD, Wong ND, Thomas GS, Lopez VA, Agostini D, et al. Myocardial iodine-123 meta-iodobenzylguanidine imaging and cardiac events in heart failure. Results of the prospective ADMIRE-HF (AdreView Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2212–21.
Fallavollita JA, Heavey BM, Luisi AJ Jr, Michalek SM, Baldwa S, Mashtare TL Jr, et al. Regional myocardial sympathetic denervation predicts the risk of sudden cardiac arrest in ischemic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:141–9.
Di Marco A, Anguera I, Schmitt M, Klem I, Neilan TG, White JA, et al. Late Gadolinium Enhancement and the Risk for Ventricular Arrhythmias or Sudden Death in Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JACC Heart Fail 2017;5:28–38.
Galli E, Leclercq C, Donal E. Mechanical dyssynchrony in heart failure: Still a valid concept for optimizing treatment? Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2017;110:60–8.
Yu CM, Bax JJ, Gorcsan J 3rd. Critical appraisal of methods to assess mechanical dyssynchrony. Curr Opin Cardiol 2009;24:18–28.
Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J 2015;36:3075–128.
Acknowledgement
Dr Bengel receives grant support and speaker honoraria from GE Healthcare, Siemens AG and Mallinckrodt Pharma. This support is not related to the topic of this manuscript.
Disclosure
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
See related article, doi: 10.1007/s12350-017-0895-y.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bengel, F.M. European perspective: Comparing the AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 24, 1909–1911 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-0958-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-0958-0