Resistant hypertension is a common clinical problem faced by both primary care clinicians and specialists. While the exact prevalence of resistant hypertension is unknown, clinical trials suggest that it is not rare, involving perhaps 20% to 30% of study participants. As older age and obesity are 2 of the strongest risk factors for uncontrolled hypertension, the incidence of resistant hypertension will likely increase as the population becomes more elderly and heavier. The prognosis of resistant hypertension is unknown, but cardiovascular risk is undoubtedly increased as patients often have a history of long-standing, severe hypertension complicated by multiple other cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, sleep apnea, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. The diagnosis of resistant hypertension requires use of good blood pressure technique to confirm persistently elevated blood pressure levels. Pseudoresistance, including lack of blood pressure control secondary to poor medication adherence or white coat hypertension, must be excluded. Resistant hypertension is almost always multifactorial in etiology. Successful treatment requires identification and reversal of lifestyle factors contributing to treatment resistance; diagnosis and appropriate treatment of secondary causes of hypertension; and use of effective multidrug regimens. As a subgroup, patients with resistant hypertension have not been widely studied. Observational assessments have allowed for identification of demographic and lifestyle characteristics associated with resistant hypertension, and the role of secondary causes of hypertension in promoting treatment resistance is well documented; however, identification of broader mechanisms of treatment resistance is lacking. In particular, attempts to elucidate potential genetic causes of resistant hypertension have been limited. Recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of resistant hypertension remain largely empiric due to the lack of systematic assessments of 3 or 4 drug combinations. Studies of resistant hypertension are limited by the high cardiovascular risk of patients within this subgroup, which generally precludes safe withdrawal of medications; the presence of multiple disease processes (eg, sleep apnea, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic disease) and their associated medical therapies, which confound interpretation of study results; and the difficulty in enrolling large numbers of study participants. Expanding our understanding of the causes of resistant hypertension and thereby potentially allowing for more effective prevention and/or treatment will be essential to improve the long-term clinical management of this disorder.

The 2010 impact goal of the American Heart Association is to reduce death rates from heart disease and stroke by 25% and to lower the prevalence of the leading risk factors by the same proportion. Much of the burden of acute heart disease is initially experienced out of hospital and can be reduced by timely delivery of effective prehospital emergency care. Many patients with an acute myocardial infarction die from cardiac arrest before they reach the hospital. A small proportion of those with cardiac arrest who reach the hospital survive to discharge. Current health surveillance systems cannot determine the burden of acute cardiovascular illness in the prehospital setting nor make progress toward reducing that burden without improved surveillance mechanisms. Accordingly, the goals of this article provide a brief overview of strategies for managing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We review existing surveillance systems for monitoring progress in reducing the burden of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States and make recommendations for filling significant gaps in these systems, including the following: 1. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and their outcomes through hospital discharge should be classified as reportable events as part of a heart disease and stroke surveillance system. 2. Data collected on patients' encounters with emergency medical services systems should include descriptions of the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders and defibrillation by lay responders. 3. National annual reports on key indicators of progress in managing acute cardiovascular events in the out-of-hospital setting should be developed and made publicly available. Potential barriers to action on cardiac arrest include concerns about privacy, methodological challenges, and costs associated with designating cardiac arrest as a reportable event.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.