Authors and peer reviewers RWI pertinent to this guideline are disclosed in Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. Additionally, to ensure complete transparency, writing group members compre- hensive disclosure information including RWI not pertinent to this document is available as an online supplement. Compre- hensive disclosure information for the Task Force is also available online at http://www.cardiosource.org/ACC/About- ACC/Leadership/Guidelines-and-Documents-Task-Forces.aspx. The work of the writing group is supported exclusively by the ACCF and AHA without commercial support. Writing group members volunteered their time for this activity. In an effort to maintain relevance at the point of care for practicing physicians, the Task Force continues to oversee an ongoing process improvement initiative. As a result, in response to pilot projects, several changes to these guidelines will be apparent, including limited narrative text, a focus on Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective. *Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age, history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use. For comparative effectiveness recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated. summary and evidence tables (with references linked to abstracts in PubMed), and more liberal use of summary recommendation tables (with references that support LOE) to serve as a quick reference. 