2006 ACC/AHA/ESC心房颤动指南中的一些新观点

美国心脏病学会、美国心脏学会和欧洲心脏病学会（ACC／AHA／ESC）近期联合发布了2006年心房颤动（简称房颤）指南，该版指南是在2001年房颤指南的基础上，结合近期发表的大量大规模临床试验证据而修订完成。新指南第一次确立了导管消融在房颤治疗中的地位，更改了抗凝的指征，同时在抗心律失常药物的使用方面也有一些改动。     

2014年AHA/ACC/HRS心房颤动患者管理指南解读

2014年3月28日,美国心脏协会（AHA）、美国心脏病学会（ACC）、美国心律学会（HRS）和美国胸外科学会（STS）联合发布了2014年心房颤动（房颤）患者管理指南[1],以替代2006年版房颤管理指南[2]和2011年更新的房颤管理指南[3-5].新指南参考了近几年有关房颤基础与临床研究的循证医学证据,在2006年版房颤管理指南的基础上进行了全面更新.     

2009慢性乙型肝炎指南更新

美国肝病学会（AASLD）慢性乙型肝炎（CHB）2009年更新指南日前已在www．assld．org刊登。这是更新的第4个版本,上一版于2007年公布。     

2011年ACCF/AHA/HRS心房颤动防治指南解读

心房颤动（房颤,atrial fibrillation）是临床最常见的一种持续性心律失常,其防治一直是心律失常研究领域的难点之一。继2006年美国心脏病学学会（ACC）/美国心脏协会（AHA）/欧洲心脏病学会（ESC）房颤诊疗指南和2010年ESC房颤治疗指南发表之后,近来又发布了2011年美国心脏病学会基金会（ACCF）／AHA／心律学会（HRS）房颤防治指南。     

2004年和1999年ACC/AHA ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死治疗指南的比较

美国心脏病学会和美国心脏协会（ACC／AHA）最新修订的ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死（STEMI）治疗指南于2004年8月公布，与1999年治疗指南相比，该指南作了较大修改。现将两个指南的主要区别总结如下。     

ACP／ACC最新《慢性稳定性心绞痛诊疗指南》中文版发布

2005年6月15日，美国内科医师学院／美国心脏病学会（ACP／ACC）2004版《慢性稳定性心绞痛诊疗指南》中版发布会在北京举行。会议由方圻教授主持，高润霖教授向与会介绍了该指南的核心内容。     

2011版 ACCF/AHA/HRS心房颤动治疗指南部分更新内容解读

最近,由美国心脏病学院（ACCF）、美国心脏协会（AHA）和美国心律学会（HRS）共同制定的2011版心房颤动治疗指南的最新更新分别在Circulation和JACC等顶尖杂志上发表.与之前制定的2001初版和2006修改版心房颤动治疗指南相比,最新版对有些内容作了重要的更新.本文介绍有关内容.     

欧洲心脏学会经皮冠状动脉介入治疗指南评介

欧洲心脏病学会（ESC）于2005—03发布了首部欧洲经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）指南，该指南以临床实践为导向，其主要内容为PCI适应证选择、辅助用药和辅助器械治疗的策略选择及其相应的循证医学证据，对帮助临床医师在日常工作实践中权衡治疗操作的风险与获益，作出正确的决策具有重要参考价值。与2001年修订的美国心脏病学会／心脏协会（ACC／AHA）PCI指南及2002-12发布的中国PCI指南相比，该指南全面综合了最近几年大量的循证医学新证据，对PCI策略的指导意见有所更新，发表后受到广泛关注。现择其中主要内容和观点评介如下。     

2006年ACC/AHA/ESC室性心律失常治疗和心脏性猝死预防指南的解读

美国心脏病学会、美倒心脏病协会和欧洲心脏病学会（Acc／AHA／Esc）于2006年9月正式在Journal of the Ameriean College of Cardiology、Circulation和European Heart Journal杂志发表了室性心律失常治疗和心脏性猝死（SCD）预防指南，这是美国和欧洲联合发布的第三个指南，其他两个是室上性心律失常治疗指南（2003年）和心房颤动治疗指南（2006年）。该指南为ACC、AHA、ESC[包括欧洲心律协会（EHRA）和欧洲心律学会（HRS）]合并和更新过去重叠且有差异的包括摩性心律失常治疗和预防SCD内容的19个临床指南和4个专家共识，依据目前医学可提供的临床证据和专家共识，共同制定的一个新的意见一致的指南。指南明确指出，不推荐临床医师像对待教科书一样，必须逐条按推荐执行室性心律失常和SCD风险患者的评估和治疔，在具体执行指南推荐的治疗原则时，可蹦不同国家、不同地区的社会，经济、文化等诸多差异的情况有所改变。     

美发布2014房颤指南发布

<正>2014年3月28日,美国心脏协会(AHA)、美国心脏病学会(ACC)、美国心律学会(HRS)和美国胸外科学会(STS)联合发布了《2014年心房颤动患者管理指南》,以代替2006年版房颤指南和2项于2011年更新的指南,并     

Options for screening for colorectal cancer

Unlike other types of cancer, there are several options for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The most extensively examined method, faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), has been shown, in three large randomized trials, to reduce mortality from CRC by up to 20% if offered biennally and possibly more if offered every year. Recently published data from the US trial suggest that CRC incidence rates are also reduced by up to 20%, but only after 18 years. In this study, the number of positive slides was associated with the positive predictive value both for CRC and adenomas larger than 1 cm, suggesting that the reduction in CRC incidence was caused by the identification and removal of large adenomas. In this respect, this study supports the concept that removing adenomas prevents CRC. More efficient methods of detecting adenomas include the use of colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). Considerable evidence exists from case-control and uncontrolled cohort studies to suggest that endoscopic screening by sigmoidoscopy reduces incidence of distal colorectal cancer. However, in the absence of evidence from a randomized trial, several countries have been reluctant to introduce endoscopic screening. Three trialsare currently in progress (in the UK, Italy and the US) to address this issue. Two of these trials are examining the hypothesis that a single FS screen at around age 55-64 might be a cost-effective and acceptable method for reducing CRC incidence rates. Recruitment and screening are now complete in both studies and the first analysis of results on incidence rates is expected in 2004. Colonoscopy screening at 10-year intervals has recently been endorsed in the US on the basis that the reductions in incidence observed with distal CRC screening can be extrapolated to the proximal colon. However, data are lacking and a pilot study for a trial of the acceptability and efficacy of colonoscopy screening is in progress in the US. It has also been suggested that FOBT testing should be used to detect proximal CRC missed by sigmoidoscopy screening, but the small amount of published data suggest that supplementing FS with FOBT offers very little advantage over FS alone. Other forms of CRC screening are under investigation and represent exciting options for the future. Extraction of DNA from stool is now feasible and a number of research groups have shown high sensitivity for CRC using a panel of DNA markers including mutations in k-ras, APC, p53 and BAT26. Data so far indicate that, with the exception of k-ras, these markers are highly specific and therefore represent a significant improvement over FOBT. Whether these tests will replace or supplement existing methods of screening has yet to be determined. It has been suggested that BAT26, which is a marker of microsatellite instability, a feature of proximal sporadic CRC, might be a useful adjunct to sigmoidoscopy screening. Others have suggested that a test for occult blood should be included with the DNA markers to further increase sensitivity. It is not yet known how sensitive these markers are for adenomas--it is only by detecting adenomas that CRC incidence rates can be reduced. A final exciting new option for screening is virtual colonoscopy (VC), which by screening out people without neoplasia allows colonoscopy to be reserved for patients requiring a therapeutic intervention. The sensitivity of VC for large adenomas and CRC appears to be high, although results vary by centre and there is a steep learning curve. Sensitivity for small adenomas is low, but perhaps it is less essential to find such lesions. Some groups have suggested that virtual colonoscopy might be a useful option for investigating patients who test positive with stool-based screening tests. Whichever CRC screening method is finally chosen (and there is no reason why several methods should not ultimately be available), high quality endoscopy resources will always be required to investigate and treat neoplastic lesions detected.     

Indications for surgery for aortic regurgitation

Aortic valve replacement for isolated aortic regurgitation (AR) is usually not indicated unless the regurgitation is severe. However, not all patients with severe AR require aortic valve replacement. This review focuses on the causes of AR and the pathophysiology of acute versus chronic AR, and the attendant adaptive mechanisms of the left ventricle that ultimately determine their different natural histories. Aortic valve surgery must be performed in a timely manner to prevent cardiac death, ameliorate symptoms, and limit late postoperative excess mortality.