Search

The 2017 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on meditation and cardiovascular risk suggested that meditation may be considered as an adjunct to guideline-directed cardiovascular risk-reduction interventions. Meditation could potentially increase physical and mental relaxation, leading to improved outcomes after a major cardiovascular event. We hypothesized that meditation is associated with lower cardiovascular risk in the US general population. Using data from the 2012 and 2017 National Health Interview Survey, we identified all patients with hypercholesterolemia, systemic hypertension (SH), diabetes mellitus (DM), stroke, and coronary artery disease (CAD), as well as those who reported that they meditate. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between meditation and risk of hypercholesterolemia, SH, DM, stroke, and CAD, adjusting for potential confounders. Of 61,267 the National Health Interview Survey participants, 5,851 (9.6%) participated in some form of meditation. After adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, race, marital status, cigarette smoking, sleeping duration, and depression, meditation was independently associated with a lower prevalence of hypercholesterolemia (odds ratio [OR] 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.79; p = 0.001), SH (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; p = 0.04), diabetes (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.84; p = 0.0001), stroke (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.99; p = 0.04), or CAD (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.66; p0.001), compared with those who did not meditate. In conclusion, using a large national database, we found that meditation is associated with a lower prevalence of cardiovascular risks factors and disease.

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health [(1)][1]. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) is still a large source of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although early reperfusion therapy has been prioritized in the modern era of percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis, attempts at incremental improvements in clinical outcomes by reducing MI size have not been successful so far. Herein, we review the studies that have evaluated immediate-onset antiplatelet therapy as attempts to improve meaningful clinical outcomes in ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI). Unfortunately, many of the adjunctive pharmacotherapies have proven to be disappointing. Recent studies performed in the background of routine oral administration of P2Y12 adenosine receptor inhibitors, which may take several hours to take full effect, and aspirin have largely shown no improvement in outcomes, despite an earlier onset of antiplatelet activity of the investigative agents. Further progress in improving outcomes during STEMI may depend on exploring therapeutics that modulate the pathophysiology of microvascular damage during ischemia–reperfusion injury, a phenomenon whose effects evolve over hours to days. We speculate that the dynamic nature of the no-reflow phenomenon may be an explanation for these disappointing results with the intravenous antiplatelet agents. We hope that appreciation for what has not worked in this domain may direct future research efforts to focus on novel pathways. Myocardial ischemia and reperfusion injury are very much still a lingering issue. Despite significant improvements in door-to-balloon times, rates of in-hospital mortality for STEMI remain unchanged. Outcomes following successfully reperfused STEMI are likely determined by the initial size of myocardial necrosis (ie, cardiomyocyte death during the period of ongoing ischemia), patency of the infarct-related epicardial coronary artery, possible reperfusion injury, the microvascular no-reflow phenomenon, and adverse remodeling after infarction.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment aimed at preventing the atherothrombotic complications in patients with a variety of coronary artery disease...

The Cardiovascular Disease in Women Committee of the American College of Cardiology, in conjunction with interested parties (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and European Society of Cardiology), convened a working group to develop a consensus on the syndrome of myocardial ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries. In general, these patients have elevated risk for a cardiovascular event (including acute coronary syndrome, heart failure hospitalization, stroke, and repeat cardiovascular procedures) compared with reference subjects and appear to be at higher risk for development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. A subgroup of these patients also has coronary microvascular dysfunction and evidence of inflammation. This document provides a summary of findings and recommendations for the development of an integrated approach for identifying and managing patients with ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries and outlines knowledge gaps in the area. Working group members critically reviewed available literature and current practices for risk assessment and state-of-the-science techniques in multiple areas, with a focus on next steps needed to develop evidence-based therapies. This report presents highlights of this working group review and a summary of suggested research directions to advance this field in the next decade.

The 2013 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on pet ownership and cardiovascular risk suggested that dog ownership is probably associated with decreased cardiovascular risk. Several studies have been shown that pet ownership, particularly of dogs, is associated with increased physical activity levels, social support, and improved outcomes after a major cardiovascular event. We hypothesized that pet ownership is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease in the US general population. Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, we identified all patients with heart failure, coronary artery disease, systemic hypertension (SH), diabetes mellitus, and stroke between 1999 and 2016. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, education, co-morbidities, cigarette smoking, family income, working hours, sleeping duration, depression, and lipid profiles. Of 42,038 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants, 10,905 (31%) were inquired about pet ownership. Pet owners were older, less likely to be women or widowed, and more likely to be white, more educated, tobacco users, and work more than 35 hours per week than non-owners (all p values0.05). Pet owners had higher hemoglobin, lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and a lower prevalence of DM, SH, and stroke (all p values0.05). After adjusting for potential confounders, pet ownership (either cat or dog ownership) was independently associated with a lower prevalence of SH (odds ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.89; p = 0.01), but not heart failure, coronary artery disease, DM, or stroke, compared with non-owners. In conclusions, using a large national database, we found that pet ownership is associated with a decreased prevalence of SH. Further longitudinal studies are needed to draw a conclusion on the protective effect of pet ownership in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Atrial fibrillation is a well-known risk factor for cardioembolic stroke; a number of risk stratification scoring systems have been developed to help differentiate which patients would stand to benefit from anticoagulation. However, these scoring systems cannot be utilized in patients whose atrial fibrillation has not been diagnosed. As implantable cardiac monitors become more prevalent, it becomes possible to identify occult, subclinical atrial fibrillation. With this data, it is also possible to examine the relationship between episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and thromboembolism and the total burden of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk. The data gleaned from these devices provides insight and raises questions regarding the underlying mechanism of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation, and in doing so, exposes shortcomings in the present clinical use of current risk scoring systems, specifically, the inability to account for atrial fibrillation burden and to apply scores at all in subclinical atrial fibrillation.

An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA Kim K. Birtcher, PharmD, MS, AACC Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC, FAHA Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, FACC Lesley H. Curtis, PhD

To ensure that guidelines reflect current knowledge, available treatment options, and optimum medical care, existing clinical practice guideline recommendations are modified and new recommendations are added in response to new data, medications or devices. To keep pace with evolving evidence, the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (“Task Force”) has issued this focused update to revise guideline recommendations on the basis of recently published data. This update is not based on a complete literature review from the date of previous guideline publications, but it has been subject to rigorous, multilevel review and approval, similar to the full guidelines. For specific focused update criteria and additional methodological details, please see the ACC/AHA guideline methodology manual.1 ### Modernization In response to published reports from the Institute of Medicine2,3 and ACC/AHA mandates,4–7 processes have changed leading to adoption of a “knowledge byte” format. This entails delineation of recommendations addressing specific clinical questions, followed by concise text, with hyperlinks to supportive evidence. This approach better accommodates time constraints on busy clinicians, facilitates easier access to recommendations via electronic search engines and other evolving technology (eg, smart phone apps), and supports the evolution of guidelines as “living documents” that can be …

Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair [∗∗][1] Nancy M. Albert, PhD, RN, FAHA[∗∗][1] Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA Kim K. Birtcher, PharmD, MS, AACC Biykem Bozkurt, MD

Two guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and collaborating societies address the risk of aortic dissection in patients with bicuspid aortic valves and severe aortic enlargement: the “2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease” (Circulation. 2010;121:e266–e369) and the “2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease” (Circulation. 2014;129:e521–e643). However, the 2 guidelines differ with regard to the recommended threshold of aortic root or ascending aortic dilatation that would justify surgical intervention in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. The ACC and AHA therefore convened a subcommittee representing members of the 2 guideline writing committees to review the evidence, reach consensus, and draft a statement of clarification for both guidelines. This statement of clarification uses the ACC/AHA revised structure for delineating the Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence to provide recommendations that replace those contained in Section 9.2.2.1 of the thoracic aortic disease guideline and Section 5.1.3 of the valvular heart disease guideline.

Preamble 2356 1. Introduction 2357 2. Overview of Acs 2358 3. Initial Evaluation and Management: Recommendations 2358 4. Early Hospital Care: Recommendations 2363 5. Myocardial Revascularization: Recommendations 2369 6. Late Hospital Care, Hospital Discharge, and Posthospital Discharge Care: Recommendations 2371

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Nancy M. Albert, PhD, RN, FAHA Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC Lesley H. Curtis, PhD, FAHA David DeMets, PhD[††][1] Lee A. Fleisher, MD, FACC, FAHA Samuel

Guideline recommendations on the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with acute coronary syndromes and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been formulated by both the ACC/AHA and the ESC. These recommendations are based primarily on large, phase III, randomized, controlled trials of the P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor. However, few East Asian patients have been included in the trials to assess the use of these agents, particularly the newer agents prasugrel and ticagrelor. Additionally, an increasing body of data suggests that East Asian patients have differing risk profiles for both thrombophilia and bleeding compared with white patients, and that a different ‘therapeutic window’ of on-treatment platelet reactivity might be appropriate in East Asian patients. Furthermore, a phenomenon referred to as the ‘East Asian paradox’ has been described, in which East Asian patients have a similar or even a lower rate of ischaemic events after PCI compared with white patients, despite a higher level of platelet reactivity during DAPT. Recognizing these concerns, the World Heart Federation has undertaken this evidence-based review and produced this expert consensus statement to determine the antiplatelet treatment strategies that are most appropriate for East Asian patients.

Granting clinical staff privileges to physicians is the primary mechanism institutions use to uphold quality care. The Joint Commission requires that medical staff privileges be based on professional criteria specified in medical staff bylaws. Physicians themselves are charged with defining the

Recent randomized controlled trials have suggested that patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease may benefit more from multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with culprit vessel-only primary PCI. The American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions recently published an updated recommendation on this topic. The purpose of this State-of-the-Art Review is to accurately document existing published reports, describe their limitations, and establish a base for future studies.

In the article by Levine et al, “2016 ACC/AHA Guideline Focused Update on Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery,” which published online March 29, 2016, and appeared in the September 6, 2016, issue of the journal ( Circulation. 2016;134:e123–e155. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000404.), several corrections were needed. 1. On pages e124 and e134, corrections have been made to the section 5 title: 2. On pages e124 and e135, corrections have been made to the section 6 title: 3. On page …

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.

Advances in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging over the past 2 decades have led to MR becoming an increasingly attractive imaging modality. With the growing number of patients treated with permanent implanted or temporary cardiovascular devices, it is becoming ever more important to clarify safety issues in regard to the performance of MR examinations in patients with these devices. Extensive, although not complete, ex vivo, animal, and clinical data are available from which to generate recommendations regarding the safe performance of MR examination in patients with cardiovascular devices, as well as to ascertain caveats and contraindications regarding MR examination for such patients. Safe MR imaging involves a careful initial patient screening, accurate determination of the permanent implanted or temporary cardiovascular device and its properties, a thoughtful analysis of the risks and benefits of performing the examination at that time, and, when indicated, appropriate physician management and supervision. This scientific statement is intended to summarize and clarify issues regarding the safety of MR imaging in patients with cardiovascular devices.

The role of endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) in the diagnosis and treatment of adult and pediatric cardiovascular disease remains controversial, and the practice varies widely even among cardiovascular centers of excellence. A need for EMB exists because specific myocardial disorders that have unique prognoses and treatment are seldom diagnosed by noninvasive testing.1 Informed clinical decision making that weighs the risks of EMB against the incremental diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic value of the procedure is especially challenging for nonspecialists because the relevant published literature is usually cited according to specific cardiac diseases, which are only diagnosed after EMB. To define the current role of EMB in the management of cardiovascular disease, a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiomyopathies and cardiovascular pathology was convened by the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The present Writing Group was charged with reviewing the published literature on the role of EMB in cardiovascular diseases, summarizing this information, and making useful recommendations for clinical practice with classifications of recommendations and levels of evidence. The Writing Group identified 14 clinical scenarios in which the incremental diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic value of EMB could be estimated and compared with the procedural risks. The recommendations contained in the present joint Scientific Statement are derived from a comprehensive review of the published literature on specific cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, and cardiac tumors and are categorized according to presenting clinical syndrome rather than pathologically confirmed disease. The ultimate intent of this document is to provide an understanding of the range of acceptable approaches for the use of EMB while recognizing that individual patient care decisions depend on factors not well reflected in the published literature, such as local availability of specialized facilities, cardiovascular pathology expertise, and operator experience. The use of EMB …

The role of endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) in the diagnosis and treatment of adult and pediatric cardiovascular disease remains controversial, and the practice varies widely even among cardiovascular centers of excellence. A need for EMB exists because specific myocardial disorders that have unique

For 3 decades, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly developed clinical practice guidelines in an effort to align patient care with scientific evidence.l The “2015 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Management of Patients With Supraventricular Tachycardia”2 introduces the latest recommendation classification system Table 1, which has continued to evolve. The present brief commentary summarizes and explains the changes incorporated in the current scheme. More detailed reviews of the evolution of ACC/AHA guideline methodology have been published.1,3-5 View this table: Table 1. ACC/AHA Recommendation System: Applying Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence to Clinical Strategies, Interventions, Treatments, or Diagnostic Testing in Patient Care* (Updated August 2015) Guideline recommendations are categorized by the Class of Recommendation (COR) and Level of Evidence (LOE). The COR reflects the magnitude of benefit over risk and corresponds to the strength of the recommendation. Class I recommendations are strong and indicate that the treatment, procedure, or intervention is useful and effective and should be performed or administered for most patients under most circumstances. Class II recommendations are weaker, denoting a lower degree of benefit in proportion to risk. Benefit is generally greater for Class Ila (moderate) recommendations and smaller for Class lib (weak) recommendations, for which benefit only marginally exceeds risk. A …

Objectives The aim of this study was to discern a target range of anticoagulation for enoxaparin during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as measured by the Rapidpoint ENOX (Pharmanetics Inc., Morrisville, North Carolina), a new point-of-care test. Background In the U.S., enoxaparin has been used in only a small proportion of PCI procedures, partly because a rapid enoxaparin-specific assay was unavailable. Methods We analyzed data from 445 enrolled patients receiving subcutaneous or intravenous enoxaparin in a prospective, multicenter study. Serial anticoagulation measurements and clinical outcomes were recorded. Results The in-hospital composite occurrence of death, myocardial infarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization was 5.4%, and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding, minor bleeding, and any reported bleeding occurred in 0.2%, 1.3%, and 7.9% of patients, respectively. No significant association between procedural ENOX times and ischemic events was observed (p = 0.222), although the event rate was 4.0% among those with ENOX times between 250 to 450 s versus 7.2% for those outside this range (p = 0.134). Increasing ENOX time at sheath removal was correlated with any bleeding (p = 0.010) with a 1% increase for every ∼30-s rise. Conclusions Ischemic events were infrequent, and the rate appeared lowest in the mid-range of ENOX times. Bleeding events increased with increasing ENOX times. These observations, combined with a suggested procedural anti-Xa level of 0.8 to 1.8 IU/ml, translate into a recommended ENOX time range of 250 to 450 s for PCI and

Preamble e346 1. Introduction e347 2. Overview of Acs e349 3. Initial Evaluation and Management e350 4. Early Hospital Care e359

Human sexuality is an important aspect of health and quality of life. Many patients with ischemic heart disease - and their partners - are concerned that sexual activity could exacerbate their cardiac condition, possibly causing myocardial infarction or cardiac death. Patients with ischemic heart disease who wish to initiate or resume sexual activity should be evaluated with a thorough medical history and physical examination. Sexual activity is reasonable for individuals with no or mild angina and those who can exercise ≥ 3-5 METS without angina, excessive dyspnea, or ischemic ST segment changes. For the patient who is considered not be at low cardiovascular (CV) risk or in whom the CV risk is unknown, an exercise stress test is reasonable in order to determine his or her exercise capacity and to ascertain if symptoms or ischemia may occur. Regular exercise and cardiac rehabilitation can be effective in reducing the risk of CV complications associated with sexual activity for the patient with ischemic heart disease.