Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026

Hydra, a Computer-Based Platform for Aiding Clinicians in Cardiovascular Analysis and Diagnosis
Published on: September 26, 2018
Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines
Pierluigi Tricoci1, Joseph M Allen, Judith M Kramer
1Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705, USA. trico001@dcri.duke.edu
Insights
Cardiology practice guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) increasingly rely on expert opinion rather than strong evidence. This trend highlights a growing need for more robust research to support clinical practice recommendations.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Practice Guidelines
- Evidence-Based Medicine
Background:
- American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines are crucial for cardiology practice and quality assessment.
- These guidelines have evolved significantly over time.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the evolution of recommendations in ACC/AHA cardiovascular guidelines.
- To examine the distribution of recommendation classes and levels of evidence.
Main Methods:
- Abstracted data from 53 ACC/AHA guidelines (1984-2008) covering 22 topics.
- Analyzed 7196 recommendations, focusing on changes between guideline versions and evidence levels.
Main Results:
- The number of recommendations increased by 48% in updated guidelines.
- A significant portion of recommendations (median 48%) are based on Level C evidence (expert opinion), with only 11% on Level A.
- Level of evidence varies across guideline types and individual documents.
Conclusions:
- Current ACC/AHA guidelines predominantly feature recommendations based on lower levels of evidence or expert opinion.
- The proportion of recommendations lacking conclusive evidence is increasing.
- There is a critical need to enhance guideline development processes and expand the evidence base.
Context:
The joint cardiovascular practice guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have become important documents for guiding cardiology practice and establishing benchmarks for quality of care.
Objective:
To describe the evolution of recommendations in ACC/AHA cardiovascular guidelines and the distribution of recommendations across classes of recommendations and levels of evidence.
Data Sources And Study Selection:
Data from all ACC/AHA practice guidelines issued from 1984 to September 2008 were abstracted by personnel in the ACC Science and Quality Division. Fifty-three guidelines on 22 topics, including a total of 7196 recommendations, were abstracted.
Data Extraction:
The number of recommendations and the distribution of classes of recommendation (I, II, and III) and levels of evidence (A, B, and C) were determined. The subset of guidelines that were current as of September 2008 was evaluated to describe changes in recommendations between the first and current versions as well as patterns in levels of evidence used in the current versions.
Results:
Among guidelines with at least 1 revision or update by September 2008, the number of recommendations increased from 1330 to 1973 (+48%) from the first to the current version, with the largest increase observed in use of class II recommendations. Considering the 16 current guidelines reporting levels of evidence, only 314 recommendations of 2711 total are classified as level of evidence A (median, 11%), whereas 1246 (median, 48%) are level of evidence C. Level of evidence significantly varies across categories of guidelines (disease, intervention, or diagnostic) and across individual guidelines. Recommendations with level of evidence A are mostly concentrated in class I, but only 245 of 1305 class I recommendations have level of evidence A (median, 19%).
Conclusions:
Recommendations issued in current ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence or expert opinion. The proportion of recommendations for which there is no conclusive evidence is also growing. These findings highlight the need to improve the process of writing guidelines and to expand the evidence base from which clinical practice guidelines are derived.
More Related Videos
06:16Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
05:47Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems
Published on: June 13, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Hypertension III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...