Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Coronary Artery Disease: HELP
Articles by John B. Wong
Based on 5 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, John B. Wong wrote the following 5 articles about Coronary Artery Disease.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Risk Assessment for Cardiovascular Disease With Nontraditional Risk Factors: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. 2018

Anonymous2681075 / Curry, Susan J / Krist, Alex H / Owens, Douglas K / Barry, Michael J / Caughey, Aaron B / Davidson, Karina W / Doubeni, Chyke A / Epling, John W / Kemper, Alex R / Kubik, Martha / Landefeld, C Seth / Mangione, Carol M / Silverstein, Michael / Simon, Melissa A / Tseng, Chien-Wen / Wong, John B. ·University of Iowa, Iowa City. · Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia. · Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. · Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. · Stanford University, Stanford, California. · Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. · Columbia University, New York, New York. · University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. · Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke. · Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. · Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · University of Alabama at Birmingham. · University of California, Los Angeles. · Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. · Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. · University of Hawaii, Honolulu. · Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii. · Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts. ·JAMA · Pubmed #29998297.

ABSTRACT: Importance: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death among adults in the United States. Treatment to prevent CVD events by modifying risk factors is currently informed by the Framingham Risk Score, the Pooled Cohort Equations, or similar CVD risk assessment models. If current CVD risk assessment models could be improved by adding more risk factors, treatment might be better targeted, thereby maximizing the benefits and minimizing the harms. Objective: To update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on using nontraditional risk factors in coronary heart disease risk assessment. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on using nontraditional risk factors in CVD risk assessment, focusing on the ankle-brachial index (ABI), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level, and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score; the health benefits and harms of CVD risk assessment and treatment guided by nontraditional risk factors combined with the Framingham Risk Score or Pooled Cohort Equations compared with using either risk assessment model alone; and whether adding nontraditional risk factors to existing CVD risk assessment models improves measures of calibration, discrimination, and risk reclassification. Findings: The USPSTF found adequate evidence that adding the ABI, hsCRP level, and CAC score to existing CVD risk assessment models results in small improvements in discrimination and risk reclassification; however, the clinical meaning of these changes is largely unknown. Evidence on adding the ABI, hsCRP level, and CAC score to the Pooled Cohort Equations is limited. The USPSTF found inadequate evidence to assess whether treatment decisions guided by the ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC score, in addition to risk factors in existing CVD risk assessment models, leads to reduced incidence of CVD events or mortality. The USPSTF found adequate evidence to conceptually bound the harms of early detection and interventions as small. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of using the ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC score in risk assessment for CVD in asymptomatic adults to prevent CVD events. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of adding the ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC score to traditional risk assessment for CVD in asymptomatic adults to prevent CVD events. (I statement).

2 Guideline ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions American Association for Thoracic Surgery American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Heart Failure Society of America Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Society of Thoracic Surgeons. 2012

Patel, Manesh R / Bailey, Steven R / Bonow, Robert O / Chambers, Charles E / Chan, Paul S / Dehmer, Gregory J / Kirtane, Ajay J / Wann, L Samuel / Ward, R Parker / Douglas, Pamela S / Patel, Manesh R / Bailey, Steven R / Altus, Philip / Barnard, Denise D / Blankenship, James C / Casey, Donald E / Dean, Larry S / Fazel, Reza / Gilchrist, Ian C / Kavinsky, Clifford J / Lakoski, Susan G / Le, D Elizabeth / Lesser, John R / Levine, Glenn N / Mehran, Roxana / Russo, Andrea M / Sorrentino, Matthew J / Williams, Mathew R / Wong, John B / Wolk, Michael J / Bailey, Steven R / Douglas, Pamela S / Hendel, Robert C / Kramer, Christopher M / Min, James K / Patel, Manesh R / Shaw, Leslee / Stainback, Raymond F / Allen, Joseph M. ·Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Representative. ·Catheter Cardiovasc Interv · Pubmed #22678595.

ABSTRACT: The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

3 Guideline ACCF/AHA/AMA-PCPI 2011 performance measures for adults with coronary artery disease and hypertension: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and the American Medical Association-Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. 2011

Drozda, Joseph / Messer, Joseph V / Spertus, John / Abramowitz, Bruce / Alexander, Karen / Beam, Craig T / Bonow, Robert O / Burkiewicz, Jill S / Crouch, Michael / Goff, David C / Hellman, Richard / James, Thomas / King, Marjorie L / Machado, Edison A / Ortiz, Eduardo / O'Toole, Michael / Persell, Stephen D / Pines, Jesse M / Rybicki, Frank J / Sadwin, Lawrence B / Sikkema, Joanna D / Smith, Peter K / Torcson, Patrick J / Wong, John B / Anonymous17820697 / Anonymous17830697 / Anonymous17840697 / Anonymous17850697 / Anonymous17860697 / Anonymous17870697 / Anonymous17880697 / Anonymous17890697 / Anonymous17900697. ·ACCF/AHA. ·J Am Coll Cardiol · Pubmed #21676572.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

4 Guideline ACCF/AHA/AMA-PCPI 2011 performance measures for adults with coronary artery disease and hypertension: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and the American Medical Association-Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. 2011

Drozda, Joseph / Messer, Joseph V / Spertus, John / Abramowitz, Bruce / Alexander, Karen / Beam, Craig T / Bonow, Robert O / Burkiewicz, Jill S / Crouch, Michael / Goff, David C / Hellman, Richard / James, Thomas / King, Marjorie L / Machado, Edison A / Ortiz, Eduardo / O'Toole, Michael / Persell, Stephen D / Pines, Jesse M / Rybicki, Frank J / Sadwin, Lawrence B / Sikkema, Joanna D / Smith, Peter K / Torcson, Patrick J / Wong, John B. · ·Circulation · Pubmed #21670226.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

5 Review Propensity Score-Based Methods in Comparative Effectiveness Research on Coronary Artery Disease. 2018

Ellis, Alexandra G / Trikalinos, Thomas A / Wessler, Benjamin S / Wong, John B / Dahabreh, Issa J. ·Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. · Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. · Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Cardiology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Division of Clinical Decision Making, Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. ·Am J Epidemiol · Pubmed #28992207.

ABSTRACT: This review examines the conduct and reporting of observational studies using propensity score-based methods to compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or medical therapy for patients with coronary artery disease. A systematic selection process identified 48 studies: 20 addressing CABG versus PCI; 21 addressing bare-metal stents versus drug-eluting stents; 5 addressing CABG versus medical therapy; 1 addressing PCI versus medical therapy; and 1 addressing drug-eluting stents versus balloon angioplasty. Of 32 studies reporting information on variable selection, 7 relied exclusively on statistical criteria for the association of covariates with treatment, and 5 used such criteria to determine whether product or nonlinear terms should be included in the propensity score model. Twenty-five (52%) studies reported assessing covariate balance using the estimated propensity score, but only 1 described modifications to the propensity score model based on this assessment. The over 400 variables used in the 48 propensity score models were classified into 12 categories and 60 subcategories; only 17 subcategories were represented in at least half of the propensity score models. Overall, reporting of propensity score-based methods in observational studies comparing CABG, PCI, and medical therapy was incomplete; when adequately described, the methods used were often inconsistent with current methodological standards.