2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Unscheduled Procedural Sedation: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Practice Guideline.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) organized a multidisciplinary effort to create a clinical practice guideline specific to unscheduled, time-sensitive procedural sedation, which differs in important ways from scheduled, elective procedural sedation. The purpose of this guideline is to serve as a resource for practitioners who perform unscheduled procedural sedation regardless of location or patient age. This document outlines the underlying background and rationale, and issues relating to staffing, practice, and quality improvement.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 2 Safety: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations.

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, a public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a second meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds to develop recommendations for procedural sedation research. The previous meeting addressed efficacy and patient- and/or family-centered outcomes. This meeting addressed issues of safety, which was defined as "the avoidance of physical or psychological harm." A literature review identified 133 articles addressing safety measures in procedural sedation clinical trials. After basic reporting of vital signs, the most commonly measured safety parameter was oxygen saturation. Adverse events were inconsistently defined throughout the studies. Only 6 of the 133 studies used a previously validated measure of safety. The meeting identified methodological problems associated with measuring infrequent adverse events. With a consensus discussion, a set of core and supplemental measures were recommended to code for safety in future procedural clinical trials. When adopted, these measures should improve the integration of safety data across studies and facilitate comparisons in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 1 Efficacy: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations.

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds with the objective of developing recommendations for procedural sedation research. Four core outcome domains were recommended for consideration in sedation clinical trials: (1) safety, (2) efficacy, (3) patient-centered and/or family-centered outcomes, and (4) efficiency. This meeting identified core outcome measures within the efficacy and patient-centered and/or family-centered domains. Safety will be addressed in a subsequent meeting, and efficiency will not be addressed at this time. These measures encompass depth and levels of sedation, proceduralist and patient satisfaction, patient recall, and degree of pain experienced. Consistent use of the recommended outcome measures will facilitate the comprehensive reporting across sedation trials, along with meaningful comparisons among studies and interventions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Emergency medical services management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the United States--a report from the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline Program.

OBJECTIVE: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Emergency medical services (EMS) agencies play a critical role in its initial identification and treatment. We conducted this study to assess EMS management of STEMI care in the United States. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was administered to leaders of EMS agencies to define the elements of STEMI care related to 4 core measures: (1) electrocardiogram (ECG) capability at the scene, (2) destination protocols, (3) catheterization laboratory activation before hospital arrival, and (4) 12-lead ECG quality review. Geographic areas were grouped into large metropolitan, small metropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore (or rural) by using Urban Influence Codes, with a stratified analysis. RESULTS: Data were included based on responses from 5296 EMS agencies (36% of those in the United States) serving 91% of the US population, with at least 1 valid response from each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Approximately 63% of agencies obtained ECGs at the scene using providers trained in ECG acquisition and interpretation. A total of 46% of EMS systems used protocols to determine hospital destination, cardiac catheterization laboratory activation, and communications with the receiving hospital. More than 75% of EMS systems used their own agency funds to purchase equipment, train personnel, and provide administrative oversight. A total of 49% of agencies have quality review programs in place. In general, EMS systems covering higher population densities had easier access to resources needed to maintain STEMI systems of care. Emergency medical services systems that have adopted all 4 core elements cover 14% of the US population. CONCLUSIONS: There are large differences in EMS systems of STEMI care in the United States. Most EMS agencies have implemented at least 1 of the 4 core elements of STEMI care, with many having implemented multiple elements.

Nonurgent commercial air travel after nonhemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident.

Nonurgent commercial air travel in patients who have experienced a nonhemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident (CVA) may occur, particularly in the elderly traveling population. A recent CVA, particularly occurring during a person's travel, presents a significant challenge to the patient, companions, family, and health care team. Specific medical recommendation, based on accumulated scientific data and interpreted by medical experts, is needed so that travel health care professionals can appropriately guide the patient. Unfortunately, such recommendations are almost entirely lacking despite the relative frequency of CVA and air travel. This article reviews the existing recommendations with conclusions based on both these limited data and rationale conjecture.

Nonurgent commercial air travel after acute coronary syndrome: a review of 288 patient events.

OBJECTIVES: We studied a population of individuals who experienced an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event while traveling abroad and required nonurgent commercial air travel to the home region. METHODS: This retrospective study gathered data from 288 patients enrolled in a travel-based medical assistance program. Interventions, complications, and travel home were assessed for trends. Descriptive and comparison statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-eight patients were identified and entered into the review. Of the patients in this study, 77.1% were male with an average age of 67.7 years. One hundred sixteen (40.3%) patients were diagnosed with unstable angina pectoris (USAP), whereas the remaining 172 (59.7%) patients experienced acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Regarding inpatient complications during the initial admission, 121 (42.0%) patients experienced 1 or more adverse event. The average number of days after an ACS event that a patient began to travel home was 10.5 days for the entire patient population (USAP patients = 8.8 days, AMI patients = 11.8 days). Two hundred twenty (76.4%) patients traveled with a medical escort, and 48 (16.7%) patients received supplemental oxygen during air travel. Four (1.4%) in-flight adverse events occurred in the following ACS diagnostic groups: 2 in the complicated AMI group, 1 in the uncomplicated USAP group, and 1 in the uncomplicated AMI group. No in-flight deaths occurred. Nine (3.1%) deaths were noted within 2 weeks after returning to the home region. The deaths after returning to the home region occurred in the following ACS diagnostic groups: 2 in the complicated USAP group, 1 in the uncomplicated USAP group, and 6 in the complicated AMI group. None of the patients who experienced in-flight events died after returning to their home region. CONCLUSIONS: Upon discharge, the vast majority of ACS patients who travel to their home region via commercial air do not experience adverse events in-flight; when such adverse events occur in-flight, these events do not result in a poor outcome. No in-flight deaths occurred; death occurred in a minority of patients after returning to their home region, particularly in the complicated USAP and AMI groups, who were planned readmissions to the hospital.

Air travel of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: urgent air medical evacuation and nonurgent commercial air repatriation.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) presents across a spectrum of severity. Although some resources suggest a theoretic risk for rupture related to air travel, this claim remains unproven. In fact, there are little data from which to make evidence-based recommendations. Air medical evacuation of a patient with either an AAA at risk of imminent rupture or status post recent rupture can be performed, assuming that local surgical care is not available and that transfer is taking the patient to a higher level of medical intervention. Furthermore, medical opinion suggests that patients with asymptomatic and/or surgically corrected AAA can safely travel by commercial aircraft for nonurgent reasons, assuming that other issues including postoperative needs are appropriately addressed. In this discussion, answers to the following issues are sought: flight safety for urgent evacuation and nonurgent repatriation scenarios, waiting time to fly nonurgently after AAA diagnosis, and the need for medical accompaniment.

Mass-gathering medicine: a descriptive analysis of a range of mass-gathering event types.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate the volume, nature, and severity of patient presentations encountered by emergency medical services (EMS) at all mass-gathering events held at or near a southeastern US university. In addition, to compare the existing literature base (single mass-gathering event held in large urban population centers) with a broader variety of events varying in crowd size and locations. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all EMS records from mass-gathering patient presentations (individual-patient cases) between October 24, 2009, and August 27, 2011. All patrons seen by event-based EMS were included. Events categories included the following: football, concerts, public exhibitions, and nonfootball athletic events. Event volumes were defined as follows: low (<1000 patrons), medium (between 1001 and 15 000 patrons), and large (>15 000 patrons). Case presentation-management categories included the following: trauma, medical, and support (minimal medical intervention required, eg, minor dressing for abrasion, water, etc). Severity categories included the following: mild, moderate, and severe based on the following definitions using both provider assessment and the use of transport to a hospital: minor cases were considered non-life threats and did not result in a transport to a hospital; moderate cases were associated with transports to a hospital; and severe cases were life threats with transport to a hospital. RESULTS: We studied 79 events over the study period. Event volumes were 16.45% high, 79.75% medium, and 3.80% low. A total of 670 cases presented, with a mean of 8.48 cases/event. The football category had the highest mean number of cases with 37.09 cases/event, for a total of 408 cases. The nonfootball, athletic event category had the lowest mean number of cases at 1.83 cases/event. Most (81.82%) of the football events were classified as large volume. Support cases were the most common presentation (43.13%), followed closely by medical complaints (41.94%). Most cases were mild in severity (95.97%). There were 27 cases requiring transport to hospital, with 3 cases being life-threatening. The average patient age was 33 years, with 60.3% female sex. These features are similar to the published information on large event medical attendance. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective, descriptive study of a broad range of event type, the most common patient presentations at mass-gathering events were mild in severity, requiring minimal medical intervention. Both transports from the event to a hospital and the occurrence of life threats were uncommon. Our findings are similar to the data found in the existing medical literature.

Primary outcomes for resuscitation science studies: a consensus statement from the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The guidelines presented in this consensus statement are intended to serve researchers, clinicians, reviewers, and regulators in the selection of the most appropriate primary outcome for a clinical trial of cardiac arrest therapies. The American Heart Association guidelines for the treatment of cardiac arrest depend on high-quality clinical trials, which depend on the selection of a meaningful primary outcome. Because this selection process has been the subject of much controversy, a consensus conference was convened with national and international experts, the National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: The Research Working Group of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee nominated subject leaders, conference attendees, and writing group members on the basis of their expertise in clinical trials and a diverse perspective of cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (see the online-only Data Supplement). Approval was obtained from the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the American Heart Association Manuscript Oversight Committee. Preconference position papers were circulated for review; the conference was held; and postconference consensus documents were circulated for review and comments were invited from experts, conference attendees, and writing group members. Discussions focused on (1) when after cardiac arrest the measurement time point should occur; (2) what cardiovascular, neurological, and other physiology should be assessed; and (3) the costs associated with various end points. The final document underwent extensive revision and peer review by the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, and oversight committees. RESULTS: There was consensus that no single primary outcome is appropriate for all studies of cardiac arrest. The best outcome measure is the pairing of a time point and physiological condition that will best answer the question under study. Conference participants were asked to assign an outcome to each of 4 hypothetical cases; however, there was not complete agreement on an ideal outcome measure even after extensive discussion and debate. There was general consensus that it is appropriate for earlier studies to enroll fewer patients and to use earlier time points such as return of spontaneous circulation, simple "alive versus dead," hospital mortality, or a hemodynamic parameter. For larger studies, a longer time point after arrest should be considered because neurological assessments fluctuate for at least 90 days after arrest. For large trials designed to have a major impact on public health policy, longer-term end points such as 90 days coupled with neurocognitive and quality-of-life assessments should be considered, as should the additional costs of this approach. For studies that will require regulatory oversight, early discussions with regulatory agencies are strongly advised. For neurological assessment of post-cardiac arrest patients, researchers may wish to use the Cerebral Performance Categories or modified Rankin Scale for global outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no single recommended outcome measure for trials of cardiac arrest care, the simple Cerebral Performance Categories or modified Rankin Scale after 90 days provides a reasonable outcome parameter for many trials. The lack of an easy-to-administer neurological functional outcome measure that is well validated in post-cardiac arrest patients is a major limitation to the field and should be a high priority for future development.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: the importance of uninterrupted chest compressions in cardiac arrest resuscitation.

Over the last decade, the importance of delivering high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for cardiac arrest patients has become increasingly emphasized. Many experts are in agreement concerning the appropriate compression rate, depth, and amount of chest recoil necessary for high-quality CPR. In addition to these factors, there is a growing body of evidence supporting continuous or uninterrupted chest compressions as an equally important aspect of high-quality CPR. An innovative resuscitation protocol, called cardiocerebral resuscitation, emphasizes uninterrupted chest compressions and has been associated with superior rates of survival when compared with traditional CPR with standard advanced life support. Interruptions in chest compressions during CPR can negatively impact outcome in cardiac arrest; these interruptions occur for a range of reasons, including pulse determinations, cardiac rhythm analysis, electrical defibrillation, airway management, and vascular access. In addition to comparing cardiocerebral resuscitation to CPR, this review article also discusses possibilities to reduce interruptions in chest compressions without sacrificing the benefit of these interventions.

The introduction of public access defibrillation to a university community: the University of Virginia public access defibrillation program.

The use of the automatic external defibrillator (AED) can significantly reduce the time to defibrillation in patients with sudden cardiac death. This early defibrillation via the AED can also improve patient outcome, including survival and neurologic status among survivors. We undertook the addition of a public access defibrillation program at a large mid-Atlantic university. In our design of the system, we found little useful information to guide us in the development and construction our system. This article is a review of the process of public access defibrillation AED system development such that other medical and academic leaders at similar institutions can more easily develop such systems.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Part 10: acute coronary syndromes: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

There has been tremendous progress in reducing disability and death from ACS. But many patients still die before reaching the hospital because patients and family members fail to recognize the signs of ACS and fail to activate the EMS system. Once the patient with ACS contacts the healthcare system, providers must focus on support of cardiorespiratory function, rapid transport, and early classification of the patient based on ECG characteristics. Patients with STEMI require prompt reperfusion; the shorter the interval from symptom onset to reperfusion, the greater the benefit. In the STEMI population, mechanical reperfusion with percutaenous coronary intervention improves survival and decreases major cardiovascular events compared to fibrinolysis. Patients with UA/NSTEMI (non-STEMI ACS) or nonspecific or normal ECGs require risk stratification and appropriate monitoring and therapy. Healthcare providers can improve survival rates and myocardial function of patients with ACS by providing skilled, efficient, and coordinated out-of-hospital and in-hospital care.

Part 2: evidence evaluation and management of potential or perceived conflicts of interest: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

In summary, the evidence review process has attempted to provide a systematic review of the scientific literature using a priori defined methods. The details and steps of the literature review are transparent and replicable. External opinions and community critique are highly valued, and the final products represent the combined labor of hundreds of participants.

Regional systems of care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A policy statement from the American Heart Association.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest continues to be an important public health problem, with large and important regional variations in outcomes. Survival rates vary widely among patients treated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by emergency medical services and among patients transported to the hospital after return of spontaneous circulation. Most regions lack a well-coordinated approach to post-cardiac arrest care. Effective hospital-based interventions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest exist but are used infrequently. Barriers to implementation of these interventions include lack of knowledge, experience, personnel, resources, and infrastructure. A well-defined relationship between an increased volume of patients or procedures and better outcomes among individual providers and hospitals has been observed for several other clinical disorders. Regional systems of care have improved provider experience and patient outcomes for those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and life-threatening traumatic injury. This statement describes the rationale for regional systems of care for patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest and the preliminary recommended elements of such systems. Many more people could potentially survive out-of-hospital cardiac arrest if regional systems of cardiac resuscitation were established. A national process is necessary to develop and implement evidence-based guidelines for such systems that must include standards for the categorization, verification, and designation of components of such systems. The time to do so is now.

Part 1: executive summary: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

The goal of therapy for bradycardia or tachycardia is to rapidly identify and treat patients who are hemodynamically unstable or symptomatic due to the arrhythmia. Drugs or, when appropriate, pacing may be used to control unstable or symptomatic bradycardia. Cardioversion or drugs or both may be used to control unstable or symptomatic tachycardia. ACLS providers should closely monitor stable patients pending expert consultation and should be prepared to aggressively treat those with evidence of decompensation.