Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Differences in the 2020 Esc Versus 2015 Esc and 2014 Acc/Aha Guidelines on the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting Without Persistent St-Segment Elevation Publisher Pubmed



Keykhaei M1 ; Ashraf H1 ; Rashedi S1 ; Farrokhpour H1 ; Heidari B2 ; Zokaei S1 ; Bagheri S1 ; Foroumadi R1 ; Asgarian S1 ; Amirian A1 ; Saleh SK3 ; James S4
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Cardiac Primary Prevention Research Center (CPPRC), Cardiovascular Diseases Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2. Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States
  3. 3. Department of Cardiology, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Hasan Abad Sq, Tehran, 11367-46911, Iran
  4. 4. Department of Medical Sciences and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Dag Hammarskjolds Vag 38, 256, SE-751 05, Uppsala, 751 85, Sweden

Source: Current Atherosclerosis Reports Published:2021


Abstract

Purpose of Review: We assessed the differences in the 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) versus 2015 ESC and 2014 American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines on the management of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). Recent Findings: The recent publication of the 2020 ESC has provided a comprehensive series of recommendations on diagnosis and management of patients presenting with NSTE-ACS. However, there are discrepancies between the 2020 ESC versus 2015 ESC and 2014 ACC guidelines, creating uncertainty among clinicians in routine practices. Our investigation provides insights into several domains, including diagnosis, risk stratification, pharmacological treatments, invasive treatment, and special populations. Summary: Overall, it seems that the 2020 version of the ESC guideline for the management of NSTE-ACS provides the most evidence-based recommendations for clinicians; although due to the lack of validated investigation across some of the proposed recommendations, further longitudinal multicenter studies are warranted to address the current questions. Graphical abstract: Diagnostic algorithm in NSTE-ACS. Abbreviations: ACC = American College of Cardiology; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; CCTA = coronary computed tomography angiography; CMR = cardiac magnetic resonance; CS = cardiogenic shock; ECG = electrocardiography; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESC = European Society of Cardiology; GRACE = Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events; HF = heart failure; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; MPI = myocardial perfusion imaging; MR = mitral regurgitation; NSTE-ACS = non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; TIMI = thrombolysis in myocardial infarction [Figure not available: see fulltext.] © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Related Docs
1. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Research Analysis, JAMA Network Open (2024)
2. Efficacy and Safety Considerations With Dose-Reduced Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Review, JAMA Cardiology (2022)
3. Optimizing Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Coexisting Cardiovascular and Gastrointestinal Disease, Nature Reviews Cardiology (2024)
4. When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment: Jacc State-Of-The-Art Review, Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2024)
5. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration and Stent Type in Patients With High Bleeding Risk: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis, American Heart Journal (2025)
Experts (# of related papers)
View all Related Experts
Azita Hajhossein Talasaz (3)
Farnaz Khatami (1)