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.

Antiarrhythmic medications are commonly administered during and immediately after a ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest. However, it is unclear whether these medications improve patient outcomes. This 2018 American Heart Association focused update on advanced cardiovascular life support guidelines summarizes the most recent published evidence for and recommendations on the use of antiarrhythmic drugs during and immediately after shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest. This article includes the revised recommendation that providers may consider either amiodarone or lidocaine to treat shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest.

Transradial artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. A growing body of evidence supports adoption of transradial artery access to improve acute coronary syndrome-related outcomes, to improve healthcare quality, and to reduce cost. The purpose of this scientific statement is to propose and support a "radial-first" strategy in the United States for patients with acute coronary syndromes. This document also provides an update to previously published statements on transradial artery access technique and best practices, particularly as they relate to the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

With few notable exceptions, drug development for heart failure (HF) has become progressively more challenging, and there remain no definitively proven therapies for patients with acute HF or HF with preserved ejection fraction. Inspection of temporal trends suggests an increasing rate of disagreement between early-phase and phase III trial end points. Preliminary results from phase II HF trials are frequently promising, but increasingly followed by disappointing phase III results. Given this potential disconnect, it is reasonable to carefully re-evaluate the purpose, design, and execution of phase II HF trials, with particular attention directed toward the surrogate end points commonly used by these studies. In this review, we offer a critical reappraisal of the role of phase II HF trials and surrogate end points, highlighting challenges in their use and interpretation, lessons learned from past experiences, and specific strengths and weaknesses of various surrogate outcomes. We conclude by proposing a series of approaches that should be considered for the goal of optimizing the efficiency of HF drug development. This review is based on discussions between scientists, clinical trialists, industry and government sponsors, and regulators that took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2016.

South Asians (from Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) make up one quarter of the world's population and are one of the fastest-growing ethnic groups in the United States. Although native South Asians share genetic and cultural risk factors with South Asians abroad, South Asians in the United States can differ in socioeconomic status, education, healthcare behaviors, attitudes, and health insurance, which can affect their risk and the treatment and outcomes of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). South Asians have higher proportional mortality rates from ASCVD compared with other Asian groups and non-Hispanic whites, in contrast to the finding that Asian Americans (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese) aggregated as a group are at lower risk of ASCVD, largely because of the lower risk observed in East Asian populations. Literature relevant to South Asian populations regarding demographics and risk factors, health behaviors, and interventions, including physical activity, diet, medications, and community strategies, is summarized. The evidence to date is that the biology of ASCVD is complex but is no different in South Asians than in any other racial/ethnic group. A majority of the risk in South Asians can be explained by the increased prevalence of known risk factors, especially those related to insulin resistance, and no unique risk factors in this population have been found. This scientific statement focuses on how ASCVD risk factors affect the South Asian population in order to make recommendations for clinical strategies to reduce disease and for directions for future research to reduce ASCVD in this population.

Since the 2002 American Heart Association scientific statement "Fish Consumption, Fish Oil, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, and Cardiovascular Disease," evidence from observational and experimental studies and from randomized controlled trials continues to emerge to further substantiate the beneficial effects of seafood long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cardiovascular disease. A recent American Heart Association science advisory addressed the specific effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation on clinical cardiovascular events. This American Heart Association science advisory extends that review and offers further support to include n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from seafood consumption. Several potential mechanisms have been investigated, including antiarrhythmic, anti-inflammatory, hematologic, and endothelial, although for most, longer-term dietary trials of seafood are warranted to substantiate the benefit of seafood as a replacement for other important sources of macronutrients. The present science advisory reviews this evidence and makes a suggestion in the context of the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and in consideration of other constituents of seafood and the impact on sustainability. We conclude that 1 to 2 seafood meals per week be included to reduce the risk of congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and sudden cardiac death, especially when seafood replaces the intake of less healthy foods.

Physical inactivity is one of the most prevalent major health risk factors, with 8 in 10 US adults not meeting aerobic and muscle-strengthening guidelines, and is associated with a high burden of cardiovascular disease. Improving and maintaining recommended levels of physical activity leads to reductions in metabolic, hemodynamic, functional, body composition, and epigenetic risk factors for noncommunicable chronic diseases. Physical activity also has a significant role, in many cases comparable or superior to drug interventions, in the prevention and management of >40 conditions such as diabetes mellitus, cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression, Alzheimer disease, and arthritis. Whereas most of the modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors included in the American Heart Association's My Life Check - Life's Simple 7 are evaluated routinely in clinical practice (glucose and lipid profiles, blood pressure, obesity, and smoking), physical activity is typically not assessed. The purpose of this statement is to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence on the feasibility, validity, and effectiveness of assessing and promoting physical activity in healthcare settings for adult patients. It also adds concrete recommendations for healthcare systems, clinical and community care providers, fitness professionals, the technology industry, and other stakeholders in order to catalyze increased adoption of physical activity assessment and promotion in healthcare settings and to contribute to meeting the American Heart Association's 2020 Impact Goals.

Venous ultrasound is the standard imaging test for patients suspected of having acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT). There is variability and disagreement among authoritative groups regarding the necessary components of the test. Some protocols include scanning the entire lower extremity, whereas others recommend scans limited to the thigh and knee supplemented with serial testing. Some protocols use gray-scale ultrasound alone, whereas others include Doppler interrogation. Point-of-care ultrasound is recommended in some settings, and there is heterogeneity of these protocols as well. Heterogeneity of recommendations can lead to errors including incorrect application of guidelines, confusion among requesting physicians, and incorrect follow-up. In October 2016, the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to evaluate the current evidence to develop recommendations regarding ultrasound protocols for DVT and the terminology used to communicate results to clinicians. Recommendations were made after open discussion and by unanimous consensus.The panel recommends a comprehensive duplex ultrasound protocol from thigh to ankle with Doppler at selected sites rather than a limited or complete compression-only examination. This protocol is currently performed in many facilities and is achievable with standard ultrasound equipment and personnel. The use of these recommendations will increase the diagnosis of calf DVT and provide better data to explain the presenting symptoms. The panel recommends a single point-of-care protocol that minimizes underdiagnoses of proximal DVT.The panel recommends the term chronic postthrombotic change to describe the residual material that persists after the acute presentation of DVT to avoid potential overtreatment of prior thrombus.Adoption of a single standardized comprehensive duplex ultrasound and a single point-of-care examination will enhance patient safety and clinicians' confidence.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) has emerged as an important cause of acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and sudden death, particularly among young women and individuals with few conventional atherosclerotic risk factors. Patient-initiated research has spurred increased awareness of SCAD, and improved diagnostic capabilities and findings from large case series have led to changes in approaches to initial and long-term management and increasing evidence that SCAD not only is more common than previously believed but also must be evaluated and treated differently from atherosclerotic myocardial infarction. High rates of recurrent SCAD; its association with female sex, pregnancy, and physical and emotional stress triggers; and concurrent systemic arteriopathies, particularly fibromuscular dysplasia, highlight the differences in clinical characteristics of SCAD compared with atherosclerotic disease. Recent insights into the causes of, clinical course of, treatment options for, outcomes of, and associated conditions of SCAD and the many persistent knowledge gaps are presented.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a near-continuous review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation science that replaces the previous 5-year cyclic batch-and-queue approach process. This is the first of an annual series of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations summary articles that will include the cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation in the previous year. The review this year includes 5 basic life support and 1 pediatric Consensuses on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Each of these includes a summary of the science and its quality based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force members are provided in Values and Preferences sections. Finally, the task force members have prioritized and listed the top 3 knowledge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question.

This focused update to the American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care follows the Pediatric Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation evidence review. It aligns with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's continuous evidence review process, and updates are published when the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation completes a literature review based on new science. This update provides the evidence review and treatment recommendation for chest compression-only CPR versus CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths for children <18 years of age. Four large database studies were available for review, including 2 published after the "2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care." Two demonstrated worse 30-day outcomes with chest compression-only CPR for children 1 through 18 years of age, whereas 2 studies documented no difference between chest compression-only CPR and CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths. When the results were analyzed for infants <1 year of age, CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths was better than no CPR but was no different from chest compression-only CPR in 1 study, whereas another study observed no differences among chest compression-only CPR, CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths, and no CPR. CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths should be provided for infants and children in cardiac arrest. If bystanders are unwilling or unable to deliver rescue breaths, we recommend that rescuers provide chest compressions for infants and children.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a lifesaving technique for victims of sudden cardiac arrest. Despite advances in resuscitation science, basic life support remains a critical factor in determining outcomes. The American Heart Association recommendations for adult basic life support incorporate the most recently published evidence and serve as the basis for education and training for laypeople and healthcare providers who perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation.