The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have provided leadership in enhancing the quality of cardiovascular care, including the development of clinical performance measures and clinical registries that permit the evaluation of quality of care and stimulate quality improvement. Compliance with ACC/AHA performance measures and metrics encourages the provision of the strongest evidence-based quality of care, including therapies that are life-extending or life-enhancing. Among quality metrics, only a subset should be considered performance measures-that is, those measures specifically suitable for public reporting, external comparisons, and possibly pay-for-performance programs, in addition to quality improvement. These performance measures have been developed using ACC/AHA methodology, often in collaboration with other organizations, and include the process of public comment and peer review. Quality metrics are those measures that have been developed to support self assessment and quality improvement at the provider, hospital, and/or health care system level. These metrics represent valuable tools to aid clinicians and hospitals in improving quality of care and enhancing patient outcomes, but may not meet all specifications of formal performance measures. These quality metrics may also be considered "candidate" measures that with further research or field testing would meet the criteria for formal performance measures in the future. This measure classification is intended to aid providers, hospitals, health systems, and payers in identifying those measures that the ACC and AHA formally endorse as performance measures, while at the same time promoting the broader range of clinical metrics that are useful for quality improvement efforts.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a workshop of cardiologists, cardiac electrophysiologists, cell biophysicists, and computational modelers on August 20 and 21, 2007, in Washington, DC, to advise the NHLBI on new research directions needed to develop integrative approaches to elucidate human cardiac function. The workshop strove to identify limitations in the use of data from nonhuman animal species for elucidation of human electromechanical function/activity and to identify what specific information on ion channel kinetics, calcium handling, and dynamic changes in the intracellular/extracellular milieu is needed from human cardiac tissues to develop more robust computational models of human cardiac electromechanical activity. This article summarizes the workshop discussions and recommendations on the following topics: (1) limitations of animal models and differences from human electrophysiology, (2) modeling ion channel structure/function in the context of whole-cell electrophysiology, (3) excitation-contraction coupling and regulatory pathways, (4) whole-heart simulations of human electromechanical activity, and (5) what human data are currently needed and how to obtain them. The recommendations can be found on the NHLBI Web site at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/workshops/electro.htm.

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.