- Martin Eccles, professor (Martin.Eccles@ncl.ac.uk)a,
- Nick Freemantle, senior research fellowb,
- a Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AA
- b Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York Y)1 5DD
- Other members of the guideline development and project groups are listed in theAppendix
- Correspondence to: Professor Eccles
- Accepted 11 December 1997
This article provides recommendations—evidence based where possible—to guide general practitioners in their use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in adults with heart failure. The development group assumes that doctors will use their knowledge and judgment in applying the principles and recommendations given below in managing individual patients, since recommendations may not be appropriate for use in all circumstances. Doctors must take the decision to adopt any particular recommendation in the light of available resources and the circumstances of each patient. The statements accompanied by categories of evidence (cited as Ia, Ib, II, III, IV) and recommendations classified according to their strength (A, B, C, or D) are as described in our previous article (and in the box).1 All recommendations are for general practitioners and apply to adult patients with heart failure attending general practice. This is a summary of the full guideline.2
Summary points
Heart failure is a common condition in general practice and has a poor prognosis
Only 20-30% of these patients are currently prescribed an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor
All patients with symptomatic heart failure and evidence of impaired left ventricular function should be treated with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor; so should patients with a recent myocardial infarction and evidence of left ventricular function
Left ventricular function should ideally be assessed by echocardiography or radionuclide measurements
Strength of recommendation
A—Directly based on category I evidence
B—Directly based on category II evidence or extrapolated recommendation from category I evidence
C—Directly based on category III evidence or extrapolated recommendation from category I or II evidence
D—Directly based on category IV evidence or extrapolated recommendation from category I, II or III evidence
Categories of evidence
Ia—Evidence from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Ib—Evidence from at least one randomised controlled trial
IIa—Evidence from at least one controlled study …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Bringing Nightingale down to size
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Avoid antimuscarinic drugs in people with dementia
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Strengthening primary health care: Related to the integration of medical training, community service need and health administration
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Strengthening primary health care: Related to the integration of medical training, community service need and health administration
Published 29 May 2012
Health Literacy: Patient involvement and engagement with healthcare
Published 29 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27