ESC vs. ACC/AHA Guidelines for Non-Invasive Imaging in Chronic Coronary Disease: Guideline Discordance, Gaps, and Future Directions

Clicks: 17
ID: 328836
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #94 of 157 articles by views in European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 157 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
AIMS: Chronic coronary disease remains a complex condition for which non-invasive imaging is central to diagnosis, risk stratification, follow-up, and management. An understanding of contemporary clinical practice guidelines is critical to appropriate test selection, avoidance of low-value testing, and individualized care. This review compares the contemporary European Society of Cardiology guidelines and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines regarding non-invasive imaging for chronic coronary disease/syndromes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The European and American guidelines are broadly concordant in supporting clinical likelihood assessment before testing, selective use of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and functional imaging, and avoidance of routine surveillance testing in clinically stable patients. However, several distinctions emerge. First, the European guideline provides a more prescriptive diagnostic algorithm for suspected chronic coronary syndromes, using pre-test likelihood thresholds to guide deferral of testing, CCTA, functional imaging, and invasive angiography, whereas the American guideline is more focused on established chronic coronary disease, symptom change, functional decline, and whether testing will alter management. Second, the European guideline assigns a stronger early role to CCTA, particularly in low-to-moderate likelihood patients, and provides more high-risk anatomic and ischemic imaging thresholds. Third, the guidelines differ in the positioning of exercise electrocardiography and in the diagnostic evaluation of angina or ischemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries, microvascular angina, and vasospastic angina. CONCLUSION: The latest ESC guideline remains more diagnosis-forward and algorithmic, whereas the ACC/AHA guideline is more management-forward and symptom-driven. These differences may influence imaging selection, repeat testing, and evaluation of non-obstructive coronary syndromes.
Reference Key
openalex_W7213370726 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Anas Bader, Adham Elsherbini, Kevin R. An, Andrew J. Einstein, Derrick Y Tam
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ehjci/jeag259
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeag259
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.