Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias Worldwide: Comparison of the Latest European Society of Cardiology (ESC), AHA/ACC/HRS, and CCS/CHRS Guidelines
Authors' conclusion
Overall, the recent ESC guideline places a greater emphasis on the value of cardiac magnetic resonance, genetic testing in cardiomyopathies and arrhythmia syndromes, and the use of risk calculators for risk stratification.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of SCD
- Comparison
- ESC vs AHA/ACC/HRS vs CCS/CHRS
- Outcome
- Differences between recommendations
Methodological detailsESC guideline vs AHA/ACC/HRS 2017 guideline and CCS/CHRS 2020 position statement
- ESC guideline vs AHA/ACC/HRS 2017 guideline and CCS/CHRS 2020 position statement
Recommendations
As reported in the abstract
- Similarities in many aspects
- ESC places greater emphasis on CMR, genetic testing in cardiomyopathies and arrhythmia syndromes, and risk calculators for risk stratification
- Further significant differences in diagnostic criteria for genetic arrhythmia syndromes, management of hemodynamically well-tolerated VT, and primary preventive ICD therapy
- Differences attributed to scopes, publication years, data selection, interpretation and weighing, and regional factors such as drug availability
Original publication
Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias Worldwide: Comparison of the Latest ESC, AHA/ACC/HRS, and CCS/CHRS Guidelines. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Published 22 February 2023. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it