A packet of letters

1 volume, 19 pages. One of 45 numbered copies. The type of A Packet of Letters is 18 pt. Bodoni and was set by Mollohan Typesetting of West Warwick, Rhode Island. It was printed on Nideggen paper on a hand fed Vandercook Press. The binding is by Stuart Einhorn of Providence, R.I.A Packet of Letters was published in an edition of 45 ... --Colophon. Title and text in red and black on title page. Bound at the head of the text with white-coated metal spiral binding. Text is attached to a cloth cover binder with an off-center opening in front. A mounted paper label with title and author name is split to allow the cover opening. Library has copy no. 31 Keywords: woodcuts, literacy, World War II, letters from a son serving in the military during WWII to his mother.https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/specialcollections_artistsbooks/1214/thumbnail.jp

ACC/AHA guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: Executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure)

"Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem in the United States. Nearly 5 million patients in this country have HF, and nearly 500,000 patients are diagnosed with HF for the first time each year. The disorder is the underlying reason for 12 to 15 million office visits and 6.5 million hospital days each year (1). During the last 10 years, the annual number of hospitalizations has increased from approximately 550,000 to nearly 900,000 for HF as a primary diagnosis and from 1.7 to 2.6 million for HF as a primary or secondary diagnosis (2). Nearly 300,000 patients die of HF as a primary or contributory cause each year, and the number of deaths has increased steadily despite advances in treatment. HF is primarily a disease of the elderly (3). Approximately 6% to 10% of people older than 65 years have HF (4), and approximately 80% of patients hospitalized with HF are more than 65 years old (2). HF is the most common Medicare diagnosis-related group, and more Medicare dollars are spent for the diagnosis and treatment of HF than for any other diagnosis (5). The total inpatient and outpatient costs for HF in 1991 were approximately $38.1 billion, which was approximately 5.4$500 million annually is spent on drugs for the treatment of HF. The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) first published guidelines for the evaluation and management of HF in 1995 (6). Since that time, a great deal of progress has been made in the development of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches to treatment for this common, costly, disabling, and generally fatal disorder. For this reason, the 2 organizations believed that the time was right to reassess and update these guidelines, fully recognizing that the optimal therapy of HF remains a work in progress and that future guidelines will supersede these.

ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention - Summary article: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to update the 2001 guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (ACC/AHA/SCAI) 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) contains changes in the recommendations, along with supporting text. For the purpose of comparison, this summary contains a list of the updated recommendations (middle column) alongside a list of the 2001 recommendations (left column), with each set accompanied by a comment (right column) that provides the rationale for the changes, additions, or deletions (see Table 1).References that support either the 2001 recommendations that have changed or the new or revised recommendations are cited in parentheses at the end of each recommendation or comment. A list of abbreviations is included in the Appendix. The reader is referred to the full-text guideline posted on the World Wide Web sites of the ACC, the AHA, and the SCAI for a more detailed explanation of the changes discussed here. Please note that we have changed the table of contents headings in the 2001 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from roman numerals to unique identifying numbers

ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

"The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to gather information and make recommendations about appropriate use of technology for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease. Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are an important group of technologies in this regard. Although initially limited to balloon angioplasty and termed percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), PCI now includes other new techniques capable of relieving coronary narrowing. Accordingly, in this document, implantation of intracoronary stents and other catheter-based interventions for treating coronary atherosclerosis are considered components of PCI. In this context, PTCA will be used to refer to those studies using only balloon angioplasty, whereas PCI will refer to the broader group of percutaneous techniques. These new technologies have impacted the effectiveness and safety profile initially established for balloon angioplasty. Moreover, additional experience has been gained in the use of adjunctive pharmacological treatment with glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists and the use of bivalirudin, thienopyridines, and drug-eluting stents (DES). In addition, since publication of the guidelines in 2001, greater experience in the performance of PCI in patients with acute coronary syndromes and in community hospital settings has been gained. In view of these developments, an update of these guidelines e168 Circulation February 21, 2006 is warranted. This document reflects the opinion of the ACC/AHA/SCAI writing committee charged with updating the 2001 guidelines for PCI (1).

ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - Summary article: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (ACC/AHA/SCAI) 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) contains changes in the recommendations, along with supporting text. For the purpose of comparison, this summary contains a list of the updated recommendations (middle column) alongside a list of the 2001 recommendations (left column), with each set accompanied by a comment (right column) that provides the rationale for the changes, additions, or deletions (see Table 1). References that support either the 2001 recommendations that have changed or the new or revised recommendations are cited in parentheses at the end of each recommendation or comment. A list of abbreviations is included in the Appendix. The reader is referred to the full-text guideline posted on the World Wide Web sites of the ACC, the AHA, and the SCAI for a more detailed explanation of the changes discussed here. Please note that we have changed the table of contents headings in the 2001 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from roman numerals to unique identifying numbers

2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heart failure in adults: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines: Developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation

Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing public health problem in the United States. Approximately 5 million patients in this country have HF, and over 550,000 patients are diagnosed with HF for the first time each year. The disorder is the primary reason for 12 to 15 million office visits and 6.5 million hospital days each year. From 1990 to 1999, the annual number of hospitalizations has increased from approximately 810,000 to over 1 million for HF as a primary diagnosis and from 2.4 to 3.6 million for HF as a primary or secondary diagnosis. In 2001, nearly 53 000 patients died of HF as a primary cause. The number of HF deaths has increased steadily despite advances in treatment, in part because of increasing numbers of patients with HF due to better treatment and “salvage” of patients with acute myocardial infarctions (MIs) earlier in life. Heart failure is primarily a condition of the elderly, and thus the widely recognized “aging of the population” also contributes to the increasing incidence of HF. The incidence of HF approaches 10 per 1000 population after age 65, and approximately 80% of patients hospitalized with HF are more than 65 years old. Heart failure is the most common Medicare diagnosis-related group (i.e., hospital discharge diagnosis), and more Medicare dollars are spent for the diagnosis and treatment of HF than for any other diagnosis. The total estimated direct and indirect costs for HF in 2005 were approximately $27.9 billion. In the United States, approximately$2.9 billion annually is spent on drugs for the treatment of HF

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure)

"The committee elected to focus this document on the prevention of HF and on the diagnosis and management of chronic HF in the adult patient with normal or low LVEF. It specifically did not consider acute HF, which might merit a separate set of guidelines and is addressed in part in the ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (8) and the ACC/AHA 2003 Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (9). We have also excluded HF in children, both because the underlying causes of HF in children differ from those in adults and because none of the controlled trials of treatments for HF have included children. We have not considered the management of HF due to primary valvular disease [see ACC/AHA Guidelines on the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease (10)] or congenital malformations, and we have not included recommendations for the treatment of specific myocardial disorders (e.g., hemochromatosis, sarcoidosis, or amyloidosis). These practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of HF. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. However, the ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider in light of all of the circumstances that are relevant to that patient. These guidelines do not address cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. The guidelines are not meant to assist policy makers faced with the necessity to make decisions regarding the allocation of finite healthcare resources. In fact, these guidelines assume no resource limitation. They do not provide policy makers with sufficient information to be able to choose wisely between options for resource allocation. The various therapeutic strategies described in this document can be viewed as a checklist to be considered for each patient in an attempt to individualize treatment for an evolving disease process. Every patient is unique, not only in terms of his or her cause and course of HF, but also in terms of his or her personal and cultural approach to the disease. Guidelines can only provide an outline for evidence-based decisions or recommendations for individual care; these guidelines are meant to provide that outline.

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure)

"The committee elected to focus this document on the prevention of HF and on the diagnosis and management of chronic HF in the adult patient with normal or low LVEF. It specifically did not consider acute HF, which might merit a separate set of guidelines and is addressed in part in the ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (8) and the ACC/AHA 2003 Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (9). We have also excluded HF in children, both because the underlying causes of HF in children differ from those in adults and because none of the controlled trials of treatments for HF have included children. We have not considered the management of HF due to primary valvular disease [see ACC/AHA Guidelines on the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease (10)] or congenital malformations, and we have not included recommendations for the treatment of specific myocardial disorders (e.g., hemochromatosis, sarcoidosis, or amyloidosis). These practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of HF. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. However, the ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider in light of all of the circumstances that are relevant to that patient. These guidelines do not address cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. The guidelines are not meant to assist policy makers faced with the necessity to make decisions regarding the allocation of finite healthcare resources. In fact, these guidelines assume no resource limitation. They do not provide policy makers with sufficient information to be able to choose wisely between options for resource allocation. The various therapeutic strategies described in this document can be viewed as a checklist to be considered for each patient in an attempt to individualize treatment for an evolving disease process. Every patient is unique, not only in terms of his or her cause and course of HF, but also in terms of his or her personal and cultural approach to the disease. Guidelines can only provide an outline for evidence-based decisions or recommendations for individual care; these guidelines are meant to provide that outline.