E xercise testing remains a remarkably durable and versatile tool that provides valuable diagnostic and prognostic information regarding patients with cardiovascular and pulmonary disease. Exercise testing has been available for more than a half century and, like many other cardiovascular procedures, has evolved in its technology and scope. When combined with exercise testing, adjunctive imaging modalities offer greater diagnostic accuracy, additional information regarding cardiac structure and function, and additional prognostic information. Similarly, the addition of ventilatory gas exchange measurements during exercise testing provides a wide array of unique and clinically useful incremental information that heretofore has been poorly understood and underutilized by the practicing clinician. The reasons for this are many and include the requirement for additional equipment (cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPX] systems), personnel who are proficient in the administration and interpretation of these tests, limited or absence of training of cardiovascular specialists and limited training by pulmonary specialists in this technique, and the lack of understanding of the value of CPX by practicing clinicians.Modern CPX systems allow for the analysis of gas exchange at rest, during exercise, and during recovery and yield breath-by-breath measures of oxygen uptake (V O 2 ), carbon dioxide output (V CO 2 ), and ventilation (V E). These advanced computerized systems provide both simple and complex analyses of these data that are easy to retrieve and store, which makes CPX available for widespread use. These data can be readily integrated with standard variables measured during exercise testing, including heart rate, blood pressure, work rate, electrocardiography findings, and symptoms, to provide a comprehensive assessment of exercise tolerance and exercise responses. CPX can even be performed with adjunctive imaging modalities for additional diagnostic assessment. Hence, CPX offers the clinician the ability to obtain a wealth of information beyond standard exercise electrocardiography testing that when appropriately applied and interpreted can assist in the management of complex cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.

No abstract

Socioeconomic status (SES) has a measurable and significant effect on cardiovascular health. Biological, behavioral, and psychosocial risk factors prevalent in disadvantaged individuals accentuate the link between SES and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Four measures have been consistently associated with CVD in high-income countries: income level, educational attainment, employment status, and neighborhood socioeconomic factors. In addition, disparities based on sex have been shown in several studies. Interventions targeting patients with low SES have predominantly focused on modification of traditional CVD risk factors. Promising approaches are emerging that can be implemented on an individual, community, or population basis to reduce disparities in outcomes. Structured physical activity has demonstrated effectiveness in low-SES populations, and geomapping may be used to identify targets for large-scale programs. Task shifting, the redistribution of healthcare management from physician to nonphysician providers in an effort to improve access to health care, may have a role in select areas. Integration of SES into the traditional CVD risk prediction models may allow improved management of individuals with high risk, but cultural and regional differences in SES make generalized implementation challenging. Future research is required to better understand the underlying mechanisms of CVD risk that affect individuals of low SES and to determine effective interventions for patients with high risk. We review the current state of knowledge on the impact of SES on the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of CVD in high-income societies and suggest future research directions aimed at the elimination of these adverse factors, and the integration of measures of SES into the customization of cardiovascular treatment.

Aim: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The “2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain” provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.