Search

Aims: To assess the feasibility to comply with the recommended actions of ESC guidelines on general cardiology areas in 102 countries and assess how compliance relates to the country's income level., Methods and Results: All recommendations from seven ESC guidelines on general cardiology areas were extracted and labelled on recommended actions. A survey was sent to all 102 ESC national and affiliated cardiac societies (NCSs). Respondents were asked to score recommended actions on their availability in clinical practice on a four-point Likert scale (fully available, mostly/often available, mostly/often unavailable, fully unavailable), and select the top three barriers perceived as being responsible for limiting their national availability. Applicability was assessed overall, per World Bank gross national income (GNI) level, and per guideline.A total of 875 guideline recommendations on general cardiology was extracted. Responses were received from 64 of 102 (62.7%) NCSs. On average, 71·6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 68.6-74.6] of the actions were fully available, 9.9% (95% CI: 8.7-11.1) mostly/often available, 6.7% (95% CI: 5.4-8.0) mostly/often unavailable, and 11·8% (95% CI: 9.5-14.1) fully unavailable. In low-income countries (LICs), substantially more actions were fully unavailable [29·4% (95% CI: 22.6-36.3)] compared with high-income countries [HICs, countries 2.4% (95% CI: 1.2-3.7); P < 0.05]. Nevertheless, a proportion of actions with the lowest availability scores were often fully or mostly unavailable independent of GNIs. Actions were most often not available due to lack of reimbursement and other financial barriers., Conclusion: Local implementation of ESC guidelines on general cardiology is high in HICs and low in LICs , being inversely correlated with country gross national incomes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: D.E.G. is a member of the board of the ESC and chair of the Global Affairs Committee of the ESC. D.E.G. and M.R. are members of the practice guidelines committee of the ESC. Barbara Casadei is immediate past president of the ESC (2020–22). R.v.d.G. is a member of an independent ethical advisory committee to Sanofi. All other authors did not report any conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Reviews of clinical practice guidelines have repeatedly concluded that only a minority of guideline recommendations are supported by high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether these findings apply to the whole cardiovascular evidence base or specific recommendation types and actions., Methods: All recommendations from current European Society of Cardiology guidelines were extracted with their class (I, treatment is beneficial; II, treatment is possibly beneficial; III, treatment is harmful) and level of evidence (A, multiple randomised controlled trials/meta-analyses; B, single randomised controlled trials/large observational studies; C, expert opinion/small studies). Recommendations were categorised by type (therapeutic, diagnostic, other) and actions (e.g. pharmaceutical intervention/non-invasive imaging/test)., Results: In total, 3531 recommendations (median 128, interquartile range 108-150) were extracted from 27 guidelines. Therapeutic recommendations comprised 2545 (72.1%) recommendations, 411 (16.1%) were supported by level of evidence A, 833 (32.7%) by B and 1301 (51.1%) by C. Class I/III (should/should not) recommendations on minimally invasive interventions were most supported by level of evidence A (55/183, 30.1%) (B [70/183, 38.3%], C [58/183, 31.7%]), while class I/III recommendations on open surgical interventions were least supported by level of evidence A (15/164, 9.1%) (B [34/164, 20.7%], C [115/164, 70.1%]). Of all (831, 23.5%) diagnostic recommendations, just 44/503 (8.7%) class I/III recommendations were supported by level of evidence A (B (125/503, 24.9%), C (334/503, 66.4%))., Conclusion: Evidence levels supporting European Society of Cardiology guideline recommendations differ widely between recommendation types and actions. Attributing to this variability are different evidence requirements, therapeutic/diagnostic recommendations, different feasibility levels for trials (e.g. open surgical/pharmacological) and many off-topic/policy recommendations based on expert opinion.