The process of atherosclerosis may begin in youth and continue for decades, leading to both nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death. With primordial and primary prevention, cardiovascular disease is largely preventable. Clinical trial evidence has shown convincingly that pharmacological treatment of risk factors can prevent events. The data are less definitive but also highly suggestive that appropriate public policy and lifestyle interventions aimed at eliminating tobacco use, limiting salt consumption, encouraging physical exercise, and improving diet can prevent events. There has been concern about whether efforts aimed at primordial and primary prevention provide value (ie, whether such interventions are worth what we pay for them). Although questions about the value of therapeutics for acute disease may be addressed by cost-effectiveness analysis, the long time frames involved in evaluating preventive interventions make cost-effectiveness analysis difficult and necessarily flawed. Nonetheless, cost-effectiveness analyses reviewed in this policy statement largely suggest that public policy, community efforts, and pharmacological intervention are all likely to be cost-effective and often cost saving compared with common benchmarks. The high direct medical care and indirect costs of cardiovascular disease-approaching $450 billion a year in 2010 and projected to rise to over $1 trillion a year by 2030-make this a critical medical and societal issue. Prevention of cardiovascular disease will also provide great value in developing a healthier, more productive society.

The rapid increase in the prevalence and severity of obesity in children is likely to lower the age of onset and increase the incidence of cardiovascular disease worldwide. Understanding the pathophysiology and improving the clinical management of cardiovascular disease involve a knowledge of novel risk factors and biomarkers. The clinical and mechanistic roles of these novel biological factors during childhood are currently being investigated. The goals of this scientific statement are to present the existing knowledge and theoretical framework of nontraditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease as they relate to children and adolescents, to describe the relevance and weight of available experimental and clinical evidence and the therapeutic implications pertaining to nontraditional risk factors in the pediatric population, and to stimulate further research with a goal of developing valid and reliable approaches to identify and validate novel risk factors that will aid in the clinical evaluation and perhaps prediction of cardiovascular disease in the pediatric population. Although several biomarkers are promising, substantial research is required before nontraditional risk factors can be used to identify and reduce cardiovascular disease risk in children and adolescents.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is responsible for the hospitalization of >250 000 Americans annually and represents a significant risk for morbidity and mortality. Despite the publication of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to aid in the management of VTE in its acute and chronic forms, the clinician is frequently confronted with manifestations of VTE for which data are sparse and optimal management is unclear. In particular, the optimal use of advanced therapies for acute VTE, including thrombolysis and catheter-based therapies, remains uncertain. This report addresses the management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism (PE), iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (IFDVT),and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). The goal is to provide practical advice to enable the busy clinician to optimize the management of patients with these severe manifestations of VTE. Although this document makes recommendations for management, optimal medical decisions must incorporate other factors, including patient wishes, quality of life, and life expectancy based on age and comorbidities. The appropriateness of these recommendations for a specific patient may vary depending on these factors and will be best judged by the bedside clinician.

In January 2009, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a 28-member multidisciplinary Working Group to update the recommendations of a 2004 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group focused on Guidelines to the Return of Genetic Research Results. Changes in the genetic and societal landscape over the intervening 5 years raise multiple questions and challenges. The group noted the complex issues arising from the fact that technological and bioinformatic progress has made it possible to obtain considerable information on individuals that would not have been possible a decade ago. Although unable to reach consensus on a number of issues, the working group produced 5 recommendations. The working group offers 2 recommendations addressing the criteria necessary to determine when genetic results should and may be returned to study participants, respectively. In addition, it suggests that a time limit be established to limit the duration of obligation of investigators to return genetic research results. The group recommends the creation of a central body, or bodies, to provide guidance on when genetic research results are associated with sufficient risk and have established clinical utility to justify their return to study participants. The final recommendation urges investigators to engage the broader community when dealing with identifiable communities to advise them on the return of aggregate and individual research results. Creation of an entity charged to provide guidance to institutional review boards, investigators, research institutions, and research sponsors would provide rigorous review of available data, promote standardization of study policies regarding return of genetic research results, and enable investigators and study participants to clarify and share expectations for the handling of this increasingly valuable information with appropriate respect for the rights and needs of participants.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical scenarios where cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is frequently considered. The present document is an update to the original CCT/cardiac magnetic resonance appropriateness criteria published in 2006, written to reflect changes in test utilization, to incorporate new clinical data, and to clarify CCT use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Ninety-three clinical scenarios were developed by a writing group and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate appropriate use, inappropriate use, or uncertain use. In general, use of CCT angiography for diagnosis and risk assessment in patients with low or intermediate risk or pretest probability for coronary artery disease was viewed favorably, whereas testing in high-risk patients, routine repeat testing, and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. Use of noncontrast computed tomography for calcium scoring was rated as appropriate within intermediate- and selected low-risk patients. Appropriate applications of CCT are also within the category of cardiac structural and functional evaluation. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making, performance, and reimbursement policy, and that they will help guide future research.