#B1 archiver pup trial#

7 In small breed dogs, the disease generally is slowly but at times unpredictably progressive. Prevalence is also higher in smaller (<20 kg) dogs, although large breeds sometimes are affected, and larger dogs also often experience faster disease progression with more apparent myocardial dysfunction, and have a more guarded prognosis. 6 The disease is approximately 1.5 times more common in males than in females. 4, 5 Myxomatous mitral valve disease most commonly affects the left atrioventricular or mitral valve, although in at least 30% of cases, the right atrioventricular (tricuspid) valve also is involved. The pathology of MMVD has been relatively recently reviewed, 3 and some progress in understanding the genetics and pathophysiology of the disease has been reported. It is estimated that approximately 10% of dogs presented to primary care veterinary practices have heart disease, and MMVD is the most common heart disease of dogs in many parts of the world, accounting for approximately 75% of heart disease cases seen in dogs by veterinary practices in North America.

#B1 archiver pup trial#

Although randomized clinical trial evidence may be unavailable, a clear clinical consensus that a particular test or treatment is useful may exist.Ĥ. INCIDENCE, PATHOLOGY, AND PATHOGENESIS OF MMVD

At times, the panel has made strong recommendations based on more than the available evidence-thus weak or even absent evidence does not necessarily accompany a weak recommendation. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines have not yet been adequately addressed by clinical trials. The panel acknowledges that future evidence may change the strength of any of these recommendations, as well as the quality of the evidence on which they are based. The recommendation classification and level of evidence (LOE) upon which that recommendation was based were independently determined by the panel (ie, any class of recommendation may be paired with any LOE). Class I recommendations are strong, reflecting the panel's conviction that the recommended action appears to have definite benefit for most patients, outweighing the risk to most patients.Ĭlass I recommendations can be summarized as “benefit > risk”.Ĭlass IIa recommendations are moderately strong, reflecting the panel's belief that the recommended action should benefit most patients, probably outweighing the risk to most patients.Ĭlass IIa recommendations can be summarized as “benefit > risk”.Ĭlass IIb recommendations are weak, reflecting the belief that the recommended action possibly benefits some patients and may outweigh the risk of taking the proposed action in most patients.Ĭlass IIb recommendations can be summarized as “benefit > risk”.Ĭlass III is used to describe recommendations in which the panel believes that the potential risk and benefit of the proposed action are essentially equal, such that these actions should probably not be pursued under most circumstances.Ĭlass III recommendations can be summarized as “benefit = risk”.Ĭlass IV recommendations indicate the panel's belief that the proposed action is more likely to cause harm than benefit to most patients, such that Class IV designates actions that the panel believes are contraindicated under most circumstances.Ĭlass IV recommendations can be summarized as “risk > benefit”.