Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 17, 2026

A Surgical Model of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in Tibetan Minipigs
Published on: February 18, 2022
The Room Where It Happens: A Skeptic's Analysis of the New Heart Failure Guidelines
1Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Insights
Recent heart failure guidelines contain inconsistencies despite new drug approvals. This review satirically examines these guideline flaws, urging cautious clinical application for evidence-based practice.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Practice Guidelines
Background:
- New heart failure guidelines have been released in the US and Europe.
- These guidelines reflect recent advancements and new drug approvals for heart failure treatment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To satirically review inconsistencies in recent heart failure guidelines.
- To highlight the gap between guideline recommendations and evidence-based practice.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of recent US and European heart failure guidelines.
- Identification and discussion of inconsistencies and "foolishness" within the guidelines.
Main Results:
- Guidelines exhibit inexplicable inconsistencies despite reviewing the same data.
- Examples include a "nonexistent disease," competition between digoxin and ivabradine, confusion regarding renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, and special population recommendations.
Conclusions:
- Physicians should understand the limitations of guidelines.
- Strict adherence to guidelines may not constitute evidence-based medicine.
- Critical evaluation of guidelines is necessary for accurate clinical decision-making.
Abstract:
New heart failure guidelines have been issued during the past several months, both in the United States and in Europe, in response to recent advances in and the approval of new drugs for the treatment of heart failure. Although guidelines documents are often viewed as authoritative and purely evidence-based, there are replete with meaningful (and inexplicable) inconsistencies, which derive from a review of the same body of scientific data by different groups. This satirical review highlights several examples of the entertaining foolishness of recent guideline documents in the good-natured hope that physicians will understand what the guidelines are, and more importantly, what they are not. Specifically, this paper describes the emergence of a new nonexistent disease; the strange battle between 2 bradycardic drugs (digoxin and ivabradine); the confusion that reigns over the positioning and dosing of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system; and the special recommendations that have been issued for certain special populations. As Otto von Bismarck remarked, guideline deliberations are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made. Yet, even after they are ready for public view, we should be cautious. Practitioners who rely on them for clinical decision-making engage in an unnecessary form of self-deception; those who read them literally and adhere to them strictly do not practice evidence-based medicine; and those who delve into them in a search for the truth are destined to be disappointed.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Heart Failure VII: Nursing Interventions
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure
Heart Failure I: Introduction
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology

