A cluster of risk factors for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus, which occur together more often than by chance alone, have become known as the metabolic syndrome. The risk factors include raised blood pressure, dyslipidemia (raised triglycerides and lowered high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), raised fasting glucose, and central obesity. Various diagnostic criteria have been proposed by different organizations over the past decade. Most recently, these have come from the International Diabetes Federation and the American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The main difference concerns the measure for central obesity, with this being an obligatory component in the International Diabetes Federation definition, lower than in the American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute criteria, and ethnic specific. The present article represents the outcome of a meeting between several major organizations in an attempt to unify criteria. It was agreed that there should not be an obligatory component, but that waist measurement would continue to be a useful preliminary screening tool. Three abnormal findings out of 5 would qualify a person for the metabolic syndrome. A single set of cut points would be used for all components except waist circumference, for which further work is required. In the interim, national or regional cut points for waist circumference can be used.

High intakes of dietary sugars in the setting of a worldwide pandemic of obesity and cardiovascular disease have heightened concerns about the adverse effects of excessive consumption of sugars. In 2001 to 2004, the usual intake of added sugars for Americans was 22.2 teaspoons per day (355 calories per day). Between 1970 and 2005, average annual availability of sugars/added sugars increased by 19%, which added 76 calories to Americans' average daily energy intake. Soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are the primary source of added sugars in Americans' diets. Excessive consumption of sugars has been linked with several metabolic abnormalities and adverse health conditions, as well as shortfalls of essential nutrients. Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. National survey data also indicate that excessive consumption of added sugars is contributing to overconsumption of discretionary calories by Americans. On the basis of the 2005 US Dietary Guidelines, intake of added sugars greatly exceeds discretionary calorie allowances, regardless of energy needs. In view of these considerations, the American Heart Association recommends reductions in the intake of added sugars. A prudent upper limit of intake is half of the discretionary calorie allowance, which for most American women is no more than 100 calories per day and for most American men is no more than 150 calories per day from added sugars.

Obesity is associated with comorbidities that may lead to disability and death. During the past 20 years, the number of individuals with a body mass index >30, 40, and 50 kg/m(2), respectively, has doubled, quadrupled, and quintupled in the United States. The risk of developing comorbid conditions rises with increasing body mass index. Possible cardiac symptoms such as exertional dyspnea and lower-extremity edema occur commonly and are nonspecific in obesity. The physical examination and electrocardiogram often underestimate cardiac dysfunction in obese patients. The risk of an adverse perioperative cardiac event in obese patients is related to the nature and severity of their underlying heart disease, associated comorbidities, and the type of surgery. Severe obesity has not been associated with increased mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery but has been associated with an increased length of hospital stay and with a greater likelihood of renal failure and prolonged assisted ventilation. Comorbidities that influence the preoperative cardiac risk assessment of severely obese patients include the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, systemic hypertension, pulmonary hypertension related to sleep apnea and hypoventilation, cardiac arrhythmias (primarily atrial fibrillation), and deep vein thrombosis. When preoperatively evaluating risk for surgery, the clinician should consider age, gender, cardiorespiratory fitness, electrolyte disorders, and heart failure as independent predictors for surgical morbidity and mortality. An obesity surgery mortality score for gastric bypass has also been proposed. Given the high prevalence of severely obese patients, this scientific advisory was developed to provide cardiologists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other healthcare professionals with recommendations for the preoperative cardiovascular evaluation, intraoperative and perioperative management, and postoperative cardiovascular care of this increasingly prevalent patient population.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical scenarios where cardiac radionuclide imaging (RNI) is frequently considered. This document is a revision of the original Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (SPECT MPI) Appropriateness Criteria, published 4 years earlier, written to reflect changes in test utilization and new clinical data, and to clarify RNI use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine appropriate use criteria (AUC) on a frequent basis. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Sixty-seven 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 cardiac RNI for diagnosis and risk assessment in intermediate- and high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while testing in low-risk patients, routine repeat testing, and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. Additionally, use for perioperative testing was found to be inappropriate except for high selected groups of patients. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making, test performance, and reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

The optimal therapy for prevention of recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale has not been defined. Although numerous observational studies have suggested a strong association between patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke, a causal relationship has not been convincingly established for the majority of affected patients. Treatment choices include medical therapy with antiplatelet agents or vitamin K antagonists, percutaneous device closure, or open surgical repair. Whereas suture closure of an incidental patent foramen ovale is performed routinely during the course of an operation undertaken for another indication, primary surgical repair is rarely advocated in the current era. The choice between medical therapy and percutaneous device closure has been the subject of intense debate over the past several years, albeit one that has not been adequately informed by randomized, prospective clinical trial data to permit an objective comparison of the relative safety and efficacy of these respective approaches. Enrollment in clinical trials has lagged considerably despite frequent calls for participation from the US Food and Drug Administration and major professional societies. Completion and peer review of ongoing trials are critical steps to establish an evidence base from which clinicians can make informed decisions regarding the best therapy for individual patients. The present advisory strongly encourages all clinicians involved in the care of appropriate patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale--cardiologists, neurologists, internists, radiologists, and surgeons--to consider referral for enrollment in these landmark trials to expedite their completion and help resolve the uncertainty regarding optimal care for this condition.

Primary prevention of acute rheumatic fever is accomplished by proper identification and adequate antibiotic treatment of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal (GAS) tonsillopharyngitis. Diagnosis of GAS pharyngitis is best accomplished by combining clinical judgment with diagnostic test results, the criterion standard of which is the throat culture. Penicillin (either oral penicillin V or injectable benzathine penicillin) is the treatment of choice, because it is cost-effective, has a narrow spectrum of activity, and has long-standing proven efficacy, and GAS resistant to penicillin have not been documented. For penicillin-allergic individuals, acceptable alternatives include a narrow-spectrum oral cephalosporin, oral clindamycin, or various oral macrolides or azalides. The individual who has had an attack of rheumatic fever is at very high risk of developing recurrences after subsequent GAS pharyngitis and needs continuous antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent such recurrences (secondary prevention). The recommended duration of prophylaxis depends on the number of previous attacks, the time elapsed since the last attack, the risk of exposure to GAS infections, the age of the patient, and the presence or absence of cardiac involvement. Penicillin is again the agent of choice for secondary prophylaxis, but sulfadiazine or a macrolide or azalide are acceptable alternatives in penicillin-allergic individuals. This report updates the 1995 statement by the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee. It includes new recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of GAS pharyngitis, as well as for the secondary prevention of rheumatic fever, and classifies the strength of the recommendations and level of evidence supporting them.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.