Comparison of Transatlantic Approaches to Lipid Management: The AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines vs the ESC/EAS Guidelines
The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (AHA/ACC) guidelines and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines on lipid management were published less than a year apart. Both guidelines focus on reducing cardiova...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Mayo Clinic proceedings 2020-05, Vol.95 (5), p.998-1014 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (AHA/ACC) guidelines and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines on lipid management were published less than a year apart. Both guidelines focus on reducing cardiovascular risk, but they follow different approaches in terms of methods of risk estimation, definitions of at-risk groups, and treatment goals to achieve this common underlying objective. Both recommend achieving risk-based percentage reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with statin therapy. The ESC/EAS guidelines additionally recommend target LDL-C levels and are more liberal in supporting the use of both statin and nonstatin therapies across broader patient groups. The AHA/ACC guidelines may be considered more conservative, reserving the addition of nonstatins to maximally tolerated statins for only select patient groups based on specific LDL-C thresholds. One of the main reasons for these differences is incorporation of cost value considerations by the AHA/ACC guidelines, whereas the ESC/EAS guidelines consider an ideal setting with unlimited resources while making recommendations. In this review, we discuss similarities and differences between the 2 lipid guidelines to help clinicians become more cognizant of these recommendations and provide the best individualized patient care. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0025-6196 1942-5546 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.01.011 |