You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
Review of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on chronic heart failure
  1. Daniel J Doherty1,
  2. Kieran F Docherty1,
  3. Roy S Gardner2,1
  1. 1 School of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  2. 2 Scottish National Advanced Heart Failure Service, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Daniel J Doherty, School of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8TA, UK; daniel.doherty{at}glasgow.ac.uk

Abstract

Guidelines are more accessible than ever and represent an important tool in clinical practice. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has developed recommendations for heart failure diagnosis and management based not only on morbidity and mortality trial outcome data but also in-depth economic analysis, with a focus on generalisability to UK National Health Service clinical practice. There is broad consistency in structure and content between NICE guidelines and those produced by major cardiovascular organisations such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. However, important differences do exist—largely attributable to publication timing—a factor that is enhanced by the rapid pace of heart failure research. This article reviews the most recent iteration of NICE chronic heart failure guidelines and compares them with major guidelines on an international scale. Variations in recommendations will be explored including implications for NICE guideline updates in the future.

  • Heart Failure

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2022-322164

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @Kieranfdocherty

    • Contributors DJD: conceived the review structure and contributed to the writing of the manuscript. RSG, KFD: provided expert appraisal and contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests DJD has no declarations. KFD’s employer, the University of Glasgow, has been remunerated by AstraZeneca for his work on the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials; he has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Pharmacosomos and Radcliffe Cardiology; has served on Advisory Boards for Us2.ai and Bayer AG; has served on a Clinical Endpoint Committee for Bayer AG; and has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim. RSG is the Task Force Co-ordinator for the 2021 ESC HF guidelines and the 2023 update and has received research support from Abbott and Boston Scientific and speaker/consultancy fees from Abbott, Anacardio, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Lumira Dx, Medtronic, Novartis, Occlutech, Pharmacosmos, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.