Background: Some, but not all, large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of marine -3 fatty acids supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks of atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential reasons for disparate findings may be dose-related. Methods: The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for articles and abstracts published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2020, in addition to a meta-analysis of large cardiovascular RCTs published in 2019. RCTs of cardiovascular outcomes of marine -3 fatty acids that reported results for AF, either as a prespecified outcome, an adverse event, or a cause for hospitalization, with a minimum sample size of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year were included. RCTs specifically examining shorter-term effects of -3 fatty acids on recurrent AF in patients with established AF or postoperative AF were not included. The hazard ratio (HR) for the reported AF outcomes within each trial was meta-analyzed using random effects model with Knapp-Hartung adjustment and evaluated a dose-response relationship with a meta-regression model. Results: Of 4049 screened records, 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of those, 5 were already detected in a previous meta-analysis of cardiovascular RCTs. Among the 81 210 patients from 7 trials, 58 939 (72.6%) were enrolled in trials testing <= 1 g/d and 22 271 (27.4%) in trials testing >1 g/d of -3 fatty acids. The mean age was 65 years, and 31 842 (39%) were female. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years. In meta-analysis, the use of marine -3 fatty acid supplements was associated with an increased risk of AF (n=2905; HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07-1.46]; P=0.013). In analyses stratified by dose, the HR was greater in the trials testing >1 g/d (HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.04-2.15]; P=0.042) compared with those testing <= 1 g/d (HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.03-1.22]; P=0.024; P for interaction <0.001). In meta-regression, the HR for AF increased per 1 g higher dosage of -3 fatty acids dosage (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.06-1.15]; P=0.001). Conclusions: In RCTs examining cardiovascular outcomes, marine -3 supplementation was associated with an increased risk of AF. The risk appeared to be greater in trials testing >1 g/d.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with substantial cardiovascular implications. Although infection with SARS-CoV-2 is usually mild in children, some children later develop a severe inflammatory disease that can have manifestations similar to toxic shock syndrome or Kawasaki disease. This syndrome has been defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Although the prevalence is unknown, >600 cases have been reported in the literature. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children appears to be more common in Black and Hispanic children in the United States. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children typically occurs a few weeks after acute infection and the putative etiology is a dysregulated inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Persistent fever and gastrointestinal symptoms are the most common symptoms. Cardiac manifestations are common, including ventricular dysfunction, coronary artery dilation and aneurysms, arrhythmia, and conduction abnormalities. Severe cases can present as vasodilatory or cardiogenic shock requiring fluid resuscitation, inotropic support, and in the most severe cases, mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Empirical treatments have aimed at reversing the inflammatory response using immunomodulatory medications. Intravenous immunoglobulin, steroids, and other immunomodulatory agents have been used frequently. Most patients recover within days to a couple of weeks and mortality is rare, although the medium- and long-term sequelae, particularly cardiovascular complications, are not yet known. This review describes the published data on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, focusing on cardiac complications, and provides clinical considerations for cardiac evaluation and follow-up.

Myocarditis remains a clinical challenge in pediatrics. Originally, it was recognized at autopsy before the application of endomyocardial biopsy, which led to a histopathology-based diagnosis such as in the Dallas criteria. Given the invasive and low-sensitivity nature of endomyocardial biopsy, its diagnostic focus shifted to a reliance on clinical suspicion. With the advances of cardiac magnetic resonance, an examination of the whole heart in vivo has gained acceptance in the pursuit of a diagnosis of myocarditis. The presentation may vary from minimal symptoms to heart failure, life-threatening arrhythmias, or cardiogenic shock. Outcomes span full resolution to chronic heart failure and the need for heart transplantation with inadequate clues to predict the disease trajectory. The American Heart Association commissioned this writing group to explore the current knowledge and management within the field of pediatric myocarditis. This statement highlights advances in our understanding of the immunopathogenesis, new and shifting dominant pathogeneses, modern laboratory testing, and use of mechanical circulatory support, with a special emphasis on innovations in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Despite these strides forward, we struggle without a universally accepted definition of myocarditis, which impedes progress in disease-targeted therapy.

Opioid overdose is the leading cause of death for Americans 25 to 64 years of age, and opioid use disorder affects >2 million Americans. The epidemiology of opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States is changing rapidly, with exponential increases in death resulting from synthetic opioids and linear increases in heroin deaths more than offsetting modest reductions in deaths from prescription opioids. The pathophysiology of polysubstance toxidromes involving opioids, asphyxial death, and prolonged hypoxemia leading to global ischemia (cardiac arrest) differs from that of sudden cardiac arrest. People who use opioids may also develop bacteremia, central nervous system vasculitis and leukoencephalopathy, torsades de pointes, pulmonary vasculopathy, and pulmonary edema. Emergency management of opioid poisoning requires recognition by the lay public or emergency dispatchers, prompt emergency response, and effective ventilation coupled to compressions in the setting of opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Effective ventilation is challenging to teach, whereas naloxone, an opioid antagonist, can be administered by emergency medical personnel, trained laypeople, and the general public with dispatcher instruction to prevent cardiac arrest. Opioid education and naloxone distributions programs have been developed to teach people who are likely to encounter a person with opioid poisoning how to administer naloxone, deliver high-quality compressions, and perform rescue breathing. Current American Heart Association recommendations call for laypeople and others who cannot reliably establish the presence of a pulse to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation in any individual who is unconscious and not breathing normally; if opioid overdose is suspected, naloxone should also be administered. Secondary prevention, including counseling, opioid overdose education with take-home naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder, is important to prevent recurrent opioid overdose.

Cardiovascular disease predominates as the leading health burden among middle-aged and older American adults, but progress in improving cardiovascular health remains slow. Comprehensive, evidenced-based behavioral counseling interventions in primary care are a recommended first-line approach for promoting healthy behaviors and preventing poor cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults with cardiovascular risk factors. Assisting patients to adopt and achieve their health promotion goals and arranging follow-up support are critical tenets of the 5A Model for behavior counseling in primary care. These 2 steps in behavior counseling are considered essential to effectively promote meaningful and lasting behavior change for primary cardiovascular disease prevention. However, adoption and implementation of behavioral counseling interventions in clinical settings can be challenging. The purpose of this scientific statement from the American Heart Association is to guide primary health care professional efforts to offer or refer patients for behavioral counseling, beyond what can be done during brief and infrequent office visits. This scientific statement presents evidence of effective behavioral intervention programs that are feasible for adoption in primary care settings for cardiovascular disease prevention and risk management in middle-aged and older adults. Furthermore, examples are provided of resources available to facilitate the widespread adoption and implementation of behavioral intervention programs in primary care or community-based settings and practical approaches to appropriately engage and refer patients to these programs. In addition, current national models that influence translation of evidence-based behavioral counseling in primary care and community settings are described. Finally, this scientific statement highlights opportunities to enhance the delivery of equitable and preventive care that prioritizes effective behavioral counseling of patients with varying levels of cardiovascular disease risk.

There is growing evidence that people who are transgender and gender diverse (TGD) are impacted by disparities across a variety of cardiovascular risk factors compared with their peers who are cisgender. Prior literature has characterized disparities in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as a result of a higher prevalence of health risk behaviors. Mounting research has revealed that cardiovascular risk factors at the individual level likely do not fully account for increased risk in cardiovascular health disparities among people who are TGD. Excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is hypothesized to be driven in part by psychosocial stressors across the lifespan at multiple levels, including structural violence (eg, discrimination, affordable housing, access to health care). This American Heart Association scientific statement reviews the existing literature on the cardiovascular health of people who are TGD. When applicable, the effects of gender-affirming hormone use on individual cardiovascular risk factors are also reviewed. Informed by a conceptual model building on minority stress theory, this statement identifies research gaps and provides suggestions for improving cardiovascular research and clinical care for people who are TGD, including the role of resilience-promoting factors. Advancing the cardiovascular health of people who are TGD requires a multifaceted approach that integrates best practices into research, health promotion, and cardiovascular care for this understudied population.