Guidelines in review: Comparison of ESC and AHA guidance for the diagnosis and management of infective endocarditis in adults
- 2.2k Downloads
Over recent years, new evidence has led a rethinking of the available guidance on the diagnosis and management of infective endocarditis (IE). This review compares the most recently available guidance provided by the American Heart Association (AHA) IE Writing Committee, and the Task Force for the management of IE of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). This represents the sixth of a new series of comparative guidelines review published in the Journal.
KeywordsInfection image-guided application multimodality
Computed tomographic coronary angiography
Cardiac device-related infective endocarditis
Digital subtraction angiography
Level of evidence
Magnetic resonance imaging
Magnetic resonance angiography
No specific equivalent recommendation
Positron emission tomography/computed tomography
Indications for echocardiography in patients with suspected infective endocarditis
indications for non-invasive imaging in cardiac device-related infective endocarditis (CDREI)
Role of CT, MRI, radionuclide imaging and angiography in the assessment of IE patients
All authors have nothing to disclose.
- 1.Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG Jr, Tleyjeh IM, Rybak MJ, et al. American Heart Association Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease of the Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and Stroke Council. Infective Endocarditis in Adults: Diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: A scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;132:1435-86.Google Scholar
- 2.Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 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.Google Scholar
- 3.Velasco A, Reyes E, Hage FG. Guidelines in review: Comparison of the 2014 ACC/AHA guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery and the 2014 ESC/ESA guidelines on noncardiac surgery: Cardiovascular assessment and management. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:165-70.Google Scholar
- 4.Stirrup J, Velasco A, Hage FG, Reyes E. Comparison of ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines for myocardial revascularization. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:1046-53.Google Scholar
- 5.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;24:1902-3.Google Scholar
- 6.Prejean SP, Din M, Reyes E, Hage FG. Guidelines in review: Comparison of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and the 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. J Nucl Cardiol 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1137-z.Google Scholar
- 7.Joseph J, Velasco A, Hage FG, Reyes E. Guidelines in review: Comparison of ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Ncl Cardiol 2018;25:509-15.Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.