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.

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: 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.

Credible Threat: Perceptions of Pandemic Coronavirus, Climate Change and the Morality and Management of Global Risks.

Prior research suggests that the pandemic coronavirus pushes all the "hot spots" for risk perceptions, yet both governments and populations have varied in their responses. As the economic impacts of the pandemic have become salient, governments have begun to slash their budgets for mitigating other global risks, including climate change, likely imposing increased future costs from those risks. Risk analysts have long argued that global environmental and health risks are inseparable at some level, and must ultimately be managed systemically, to effectively increase safety and welfare. In contrast, it has been suggested that we have worry budgets, in which one risk crowds out another. "In the wild," our problem-solving strategies are often lexicographic; we seek and assess potential solutions one at a time, even one attribute at a time, rather than conducting integrated risk assessments. In a U.S. national survey experiment in which participants were randomly assigned to coronavirus or climate change surveys (N = 3203) we assess risk perceptions, and whether risk perception "hot spots" are driving policy preferences, within and across these global risks. Striking parallels emerge between the two. Both risks are perceived as highly threatening, inequitably distributed, and not particularly controllable. People see themselves as somewhat informed about both risks and have moral concerns about both. In contrast, climate change is seen as better understood by science than is pandemic coronavirus. Further, individuals think they can contribute more to slowing or stopping pandemic coronavirus than climate change, and have a greater moral responsibility to do so. Survey assignment influences policy preferences, with higher support for policies to control pandemic coronavirus in pandemic coronavirus surveys, and higher support for policies to control climate change risks in climate change surveys. Across all surveys, age groups, and policies to control either climate change or pandemic coronavirus risks, support is highest for funding research on vaccines against pandemic diseases, which is the only policy that achieves majority support in both surveys. Findings bolster both the finite worry budget hypothesis and the hypothesis that supporters of policies to confront one threat are disproportionately likely also to support policies to confront the other threat.

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.

Improving Care of STEMI in the United States 2008 to 2012.

Background We aimed to determine the change in treatment strategies and times to treatment over the first 5 years of the Mission: Lifeline program. Methods and Results We assessed pre- and in-hospital care and outcomes from 2008 to 2012 for patients with ST -segment-elevation myocardial infarction at US hospitals, using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines Registry. In-hospital adjusted mortality was calculated including and excluding cardiac arrest as a reason for primary percutaneous coronary intervention delay. A total of 147 466 patients from 485 hospitals were analyzed. There was a decrease in the proportion of eligible patients not treated with reperfusion (6.2% versus 3.3%) and treated with fibrinolytic therapy (13.4% versus 7.0%). Median time from symptom onset to first medical contact was unchanged (≈50 minutes). Use of prehospital ECGs increased (45% versus 71%). All major reperfusion times improved: median first medical contact-to-device for emergency medical systems transport to percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospitals (93 to 84 minutes), first door-to-device for transfers for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (130 to 112 minutes), and door-in-door-out at non-percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospitals (76 to 62 minutes) (all P<0.001 over 5 years). Rates of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, and overall in-hospital mortality increased (5.7% to 6.3%). Adjusted mortality excluding patients with known cardiac arrest decreased by 14% at 3 years and 25% at 5 years ( P<0.001). Conclusions Quality of care for patients with ST -segment-elevation myocardial infarction improved over time in Mission: Lifeline, including increased use of reperfusion therapy and faster times-to-treatment. In-hospital mortality improved for patients without cardiac arrest but did not appear to improve overall as the number of these high-risk patients increased.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Among Children.

Importance: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), or concussion, in children is a rapidly growing public health concern because epidemiologic data indicate a marked increase in the number of emergency department visits for mTBI over the past decade. However, no evidence-based clinical guidelines have been developed to date for diagnosing and managing pediatric mTBI in the United States. Objective: To provide a guideline based on a previous systematic review of the literature to obtain and assess evidence toward developing clinical recommendations for health care professionals related to the diagnosis, prognosis, and management/treatment of pediatric mTBI. Evidence Review: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Board of Scientific Counselors, a federal advisory committee, established the Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Guideline Workgroup. The workgroup drafted recommendations based on the evidence that was obtained and assessed within the systematic review, as well as related evidence, scientific principles, and expert inference. This information includes selected studies published since the evidence review was conducted that were deemed by the workgroup to be relevant to the recommendations. The dates of the initial literature search were January 1, 1990, to November 30, 2012, and the dates of the updated literature search were December 1, 2012, to July 31, 2015. Findings: The CDC guideline includes 19 sets of recommendations on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management/treatment of pediatric mTBI that were assigned a level of obligation (ie, must, should, or may) based on confidence in the evidence. Recommendations address imaging, symptom scales, cognitive testing, and standardized assessment for diagnosis; history and risk factor assessment, monitoring, and counseling for prognosis; and patient/family education, rest, support, return to school, and symptom management for treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: This guideline identifies the best practices for mTBI based on the current evidence; updates should be made as the body of evidence grows. In addition to the development of the guideline, CDC has created user-friendly guideline implementation materials that are concise and actionable. Evaluation of the guideline and implementation materials is crucial in understanding the influence of the recommendations.

Diagnosis and Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Children: A Systematic Review.

Importance: In recent years, there has been an exponential increase in the research guiding pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) clinical management, in large part because of heightened concerns about the consequences of mTBI, also known as concussion, in children. The CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's (NCIPC) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), a federal advisory committee, established the Pediatric Mild TBI Guideline workgroup to complete this systematic review summarizing the first 25 years of literature in this field of study. Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the pediatric mTBI literature to serve as the foundation for an evidence-based guideline with clinical recommendations associated with the diagnosis and management of pediatric mTBI. Evidence Review: Using a modified Delphi process, the authors selected 6 clinical questions on diagnosis, prognosis, and management or treatment of pediatric mTBI. Two consecutive searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, and SportDiscus. The first included the dates January 1, 1990, to November 30, 2012, and an updated search included December 1, 2012, to July 31, 2015. The initial search was completed from December 2012 to January 2013; the updated search, from July 2015 to August 2015. Two authors worked in pairs to abstract study characteristics independently for each article selected for inclusion. A third author adjudicated disagreements. The risk of bias in each study was determined using the American Academy of Neurology Classification of Evidence Scheme. Conclusion statements were developed regarding the evidence within each clinical question, and a level of confidence in the evidence was assigned to each conclusion using a modified GRADE methodology. Data analysis was completed from October 2014 to May 2015 for the initial search and from November 2015 to April 2016 for the updated search. Findings: Validated tools are available to assist clinicians in the diagnosis and management of pediatric mTBI. A significant body of research exists to identify features that are associated with more serious TBI-associated intracranial injury, delayed recovery from mTBI, and long-term sequelae. However, high-quality studies of treatments meant to improve mTBI outcomes are currently lacking. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review was used to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of pediatric mTBI. While an increasing amount of research provides clinically useful information, this systematic review identified key gaps in diagnosis, prognosis, and management.

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.

Optimizing neurologically intact survival from sudden cardiac arrest: a call to action.

The U.S. national out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates, although improving recently, have remained suboptimal despite the collective efforts of individuals, communities, and professional societies. Only until very recently, and still with inconsistency, has focus been placed specifically on survival with pre-arrest neurologic function. The reality of current approaches to sudden cardiac arrest is that they are often lacking an integrative, multi-disciplinary approach, and without deserved funding and outcome analysis. In this manuscript, a multidisciplinary group of authors propose practice, process, technology, and policy initiatives to improve cardiac arrest survival with a focus on neurologic function.

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.