Survival after cardiac arrest requires an integrated system of people, training, equipment, and organizations working together to achieve a common goal. Part 7 of the 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care focuses on systems of care, with an emphasis on elements that are relevant to a broad range of resuscitation situations. Previous systems of care guidelines have identified a Chain of Survival, beginning with prevention and early identification of cardiac arrest and proceeding through resuscitation to post-cardiac arrest care. This concept is reinforced by the addition of recovery as an important stage in cardiac arrest survival. Debriefing and other quality improvement strategies were previously mentioned and are now emphasized. Specific to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, this Part contains recommendations about community initiatives to promote cardiac arrest recognition, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, public access defibrillation, mobile phone technologies to summon first responders, and an enhanced role for emergency telecommunicators. Germane to in-hospital cardiac arrest are recommendations about the recognition and stabilization of hospital patients at risk for developing cardiac arrest. This Part also includes recommendations about clinical debriefing, transport to specialized cardiac arrest centers, organ donation, and performance measurement across the continuum of resuscitation situations.

Although cardiologists have long treated patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), T2DM has traditionally been considered just a comorbidity that affected the development and progression of the disease. Over the past decade, a number of factors have shifted that have forced the cardiology community to reconsider the role of T2DM in CAD. First, in addition to being associated with increased cardiovascular risk, T2DM has the potential to affect a number of treatment choices for CAD. In this document, we discuss the role that T2DM has in the selection of testing for CAD, in medical management (both secondary prevention strategies and treatment of stable angina), and in the selection of revascularization strategy. Second, although glycemic control has been recommended as a part of comprehensive risk factor management in patients with CAD, there is mounting evidence that the mechanism by which glucose is managed can have a substantial impact on cardiovascular outcomes. In this document, we discuss the role of glycemic management (both in intensity of control and choice of medications) in cardiovascular outcomes. It is becoming clear that the cardiologist needs both to consider T2DM in cardiovascular treatment decisions and potentially to help guide the selection of glucose-lowering medications. Our statement provides a comprehensive summary of effective, patient-centered management of CAD in patients with T2DM, with emphasis on the emerging evidence. Given the increasing prevalence of T2DM and the accumulating evidence of the need to consider T2DM in treatment decisions, this knowledge will become ever more important to optimize our patients' cardiovascular outcomes.

This 2019 focused update to the American Heart Association and American Red Cross first aid guidelines follows the completion of a systematic review of treatments for presyncope of vasovagal or orthostatic origin. This review was commissioned by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and resulted in the development of an international summary statement of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation First Aid Task Force Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations. This focused update highlights the evidence supporting specific interventions for presyncope of orthostatic or vasovagal origin and recommends the use of physical counterpressure maneuvers. These maneuvers include the contraction of muscles of the body such as the legs, arms, abdomen, or neck, with the goal of elevating blood pressure and alleviating symptoms. Although lower-body counterpressure maneuvers are favored over upper-body counterpressure maneuvers, multiple methods can be beneficial, depending on the situation.

This 2019 focused update to the American Heart Association pediatric basic life support guidelines follows the 2019 systematic review of the effects of dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DA-CPR) on survival of infants and children with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This systematic review and the primary studies identified were analyzed by the Pediatric Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. It aligns with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's continuous evidence review process, with updates published when the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation completes a literature review based on new published evidence. This update summarizes the available pediatric evidence supporting DA-CPR and provides treatment recommendations for DA-CPR for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Four new pediatric studies were reviewed. A systematic review of this data identified the association of a significant improvement in the rates of bystander CPR and in survival 1 month after cardiac arrest with DA-CPR. The writing group recommends that emergency medical dispatch centers offer DA-CPR for presumed pediatric cardiac arrest, especially when no bystander CPR is in progress. No recommendation could be made for or against DA-CPR instructions when bystander CPR is already in progress.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) represents the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality. The technological landscape for management of acute intermediate- and high-risk PE is rapidly evolving. Two interventional devices using pharmacomechanical means to recanalize the pulmonary arteries have recently been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for marketing, and several others are in various stages of development. The purpose of this document is to clarify the current state of endovascular interventional therapy for acute PE and to provide considerations for evidence development for new devices that will define which patients with PE would derive the greatest net benefit from their use in various clinical settings. First, definitions and limitations of commonly used risk stratification tools for PE are reviewed. An adjudication of risks and benefits of available interventional therapies for PE follows. Next, considerations for optimal future evidence development in this field are presented in the context of the current US regulatory framework. Finally, the document concludes with a discussion of the pros and cons of the rapidly expanding PE response team model of care delivery.

Successful resuscitation from cardiac arrest results in a post-cardiac arrest syndrome, which can evolve in the days to weeks after return of sustained circulation. The components of post-cardiac arrest syndrome are brain injury, myocardial dysfunction, systemic ischemia/reperfusion response, and persistent precipitating pathophysiology. Pediatric post-cardiac arrest care focuses on anticipating, identifying, and treating this complex physiology to improve survival and neurological outcomes. This scientific statement on post-cardiac arrest care is the result of a consensus process that included pediatric and adult emergency medicine, critical care, cardiac critical care, cardiology, neurology, and nursing specialists who analyzed the past 20 years of pediatric cardiac arrest, adult cardiac arrest, and pediatric critical illness peer-reviewed published literature. The statement summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, management, and prognostication after return of sustained circulation after cardiac arrest, and it provides consensus on the current evidence supporting elements of pediatric post-cardiac arrest care.

Cardiovascular disease is a competing cause of death in patients with cancer with early-stage disease. This elevated cardiovascular disease risk is thought to derive from both the direct effects of cancer therapies and the accumulation of risk factors such as hypertension, weight gain, cigarette smoking, and loss of cardiorespiratory fitness. Effective and viable strategies are needed to mitigate cardiovascular disease risk in this population; a multimodal model such as cardiac rehabilitation may be a potential solution. This statement from the American Heart Association provides an overview of the existing knowledge and rationale for the use of cardiac rehabilitation to provide structured exercise and ancillary services to cancer patients and survivors. This document introduces the concept of cardio-oncology rehabilitation, which includes identification of patients with cancer at high risk for cardiac dysfunction and a description of the cardiac rehabilitation infrastructure needed to address the unique exposures and complications related to cancer care. In this statement, we also discuss the need for future research to fully implement a multimodal model of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with cancer and to determine whether reimbursement of these services is clinically warranted.

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol found little evidence to support the use of nonstatin lipid-modifying medications to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events. Since publication of these guidelines, multiple randomized controlled trials evaluating nonstatin lipid-modifying medications have been published.

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. These guidelines, which are based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a foundation for the delivery of quality cardiovascular care. The ACC and AHA sponsor the development and publication of clinical practice guidelines without commercial support, and members volunteer their time to the writing and review efforts. Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations applicable to patients with or at risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). The focus is on medical practice in the United States, but these guidelines are relevant to patients throughout the world. Although guidelines may be used to inform regulatory or payer decisions, the intent is to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Guidelines are intended to define practices meeting the needs of patients in most, but not all, circumstances, and should not replace clinical judgment. Recommendations for guideline-directed management and therapy, which encompasses clinical evaluation, diagnostic testing, and both pharmacological and procedural treatments, are effective only when followed by both practitioners and patients. Adherence to recommendations can be enhanced by shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, with patient engagement in selecting interventions on the basis of individual values, preferences, and associated conditions and comorbidities. The ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines strives to ensure that the guideline writing committee both contains requisite expertise and is representative of the broader medical community by selecting experts from a broad array of backgrounds, representing different geographic regions, sexes, races, ethnicities, intellectual perspectives/biases, and scopes of clinical practice, and by inviting organizations and professional societies with related interests and expertise to participate as partners or collaborators. The ACC and AHA have rigorous policies and methods to ensure that documents are developed without bias or improper influence. The complete policy on relationships with industry and other entities (RWI) can be found online. Beginning in 2017, numerous modifications to the guidelines have been and continue to be implemented to make guidelines shorter and enhance “user friendliness.” Guidelines are written and presented in a modular knowledge chunk format, in which each chunk includes a table of recommendations, a brief synopsis, recommendation-specific supportive text and, when appropriate, flow diagrams or additional tables. Hyperlinked references are provided for each modular knowledge chunk to facilitate quick access and review. More structured guidelines–including word limits (“targets”) and a web guideline supplement for useful but noncritical tables and figures–are 2 such changes. This Preamble is an abbreviated version, with the detailed version available online. The reader is encouraged to consult the full-text guideline for additional guidance and details, since the executive summary contains mainly the recommendations.

The optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation represents a challenge in clinical practice. In 2016, an updated opinion of selected experts from the United States and Canada on the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention was reported. After the 2016 North American consensus statement on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, results of pivotal clinical trials assessing the type of oral anticoagulant agent and the duration of antiplatelet treatment have been published. On the basis of these results, this focused update on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention recommends that a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant be preferred over a vitamin K antagonist as the oral anticoagulant of choice. Moreover, a double-therapy regimen (oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor) by the time of hospital discharge should be considered for most patients, whereas extending the use of aspirin beyond hospital discharge (ie, triple therapy) should be considered only for selected patients at high ischemic/thrombotic and low bleeding risks and for a limited period of time. The present document provides a focused updated on the rationale for the new expert consensus-derived recommendations on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

This 2018 American Heart Association focused update on pediatric advanced life support guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care follows the 2018 evidence review performed by the Pediatric Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. It aligns with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's continuous evidence review process, and updates are published when the group completes a literature review based on new published evidence. This update provides the evidence review and treatment recommendation for antiarrhythmic drug therapy in pediatric shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest. As was the case in the pediatric advanced life support section of the "2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care," only 1 pediatric study was identified. This study reported a statistically significant improvement in return of spontaneous circulation when lidocaine administration was compared with amiodarone for pediatric ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest. However, no difference in survival to hospital discharge was observed among patients who received amiodarone, lidocaine, or no antiarrhythmic medication. The writing group reaffirmed the 2015 pediatric advanced life support guideline recommendation that either lidocaine or amiodarone may be used to treat pediatric patients with shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.