Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics--2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association.

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update*The Statistical Update is a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best national data available on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document*Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited \u3e10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions*In 2011 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ≈1500 times (data from ISI Web of Science)*In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled*For this year\u27s edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year*This year\u27s edition also implements a new chapter organization to reflect the spectrum of cardiovascular health behaviors and health factors and risks, as well as subsequent complicating conditions, disease states, and outcomes*Also, the 2013 Statistical Update contains new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA\u27s 2020 Impact Goals*Below are a few highlights from this year\u27s Update . © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc

Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics--2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association.

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update. The Statistical Update is a critical resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best available national data on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, use of medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document. Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited >10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions. In 2012 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ≈3500 times (data from Google Scholar). In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled. For this year's edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year. This year's edition includes a new chapter on peripheral artery disease, as well as new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA's 2020 Impact Goals. Below are a few highlights from this year's Update. © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc

Does soil pyrogenic carbon determine plant functional traits in Amazon Basin forests?

Amazon forests are fire-sensitive ecosystems and consequently fires affect forest structure and composition. For instance, the legacy of past fire regimes may persist through some species and traits that are found due to past fires. In this study, we tested for relationships between functional traits that are classically presented as the main components of plant ecological strategies and environmental filters related to climate and historical fires among permanent mature forest plots across the range of local and regional environmental gradients that occur in Amazonia. We used percentage surface soil pyrogenic carbon (PyC), a recalcitrant form of carbon that can persist for millennia in soils, as a novel indicator of historical fire in old-growth forests. Five out of the nine functional traits evaluated across all 378 species were correlated with some environmental variables. Although there is more PyC in Amazonian soils than previously reported, the percentage soil PyC indicated no detectable legacy effect of past fires on contemporary functional composition. More species with dry diaspores were found in drier and hotter environments. We also found higher wood density in trees from higher temperature sites. If Amazon forest past burnings were local and without distinguishable attributes of a widespread fire regime, then impacts on biodiversity would have been small and heterogeneous. Alternatively, sufficient time may have passed since the last fire to allow for species replacement. Regardless, as we failed to detect any impact of past fire on present forest functional composition, if our plots are representative then it suggests that mature Amazon forests lack a compositional legacy of past fire

Regular and low-dose aspirin, other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and prospective risk of HER2-defined breast cancer: the California Teachers Study

Abstract Background Regular users of aspirin may have reduced risk of breast cancer. Few studies have addressed whether risk reduction pertains to specific breast cancer subtypes defined jointly by hormone receptor (estrogen and progesterone receptor) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. This study assessed the prospective risk of breast cancer (overall and by subtype) according to use of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) in a cohort of female public school professionals in California. Methods In 1995 − 1996, participants in the California Teachers Study completed a baseline questionnaire on family history of cancer and other conditions, use of NSAIDs, menstrual and reproductive history, self-reported weight and height, living environment, diet, alcohol use, and physical activity. In 2005–2006, 57,164 participants provided some updated information, including use of NSAIDs and 1457 of these participants developed invasive breast cancer before January 2013. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models provided hazard rate ratios (HRR) for the association between NSAID use and risk of invasive breast cancer as well as hormone receptor- and HER2-defined subtypes. Results Developing breast cancer was associated inversely with taking three or more tablets of low-dose aspirin per week (23% of participants). Among women reporting this exposure, the HRR was 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–0.98) compared to those not taking NSAIDs and this was particularly evident in women with the hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative subtype (HRR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.96). Use of three or more tablets of “other” NSAIDs was marginally associated with lower risk of breast cancer (HRR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.62–1.00). Other associations with NSAIDs were generally null. Conclusion Our observation of reduced risk of breast cancer, among participants who took three or more tablets of low-dose aspirin weekly, is consistent with other reports looking at aspirin without differentiation by dose. This is the first report to suggest that the reduction in risk occurs for low-dose aspirin and not for regular-dose aspirin and only among women with the hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative subtype. This preliminary study builds on previous knowledge and further supports the need for formal cancer chemoprevention studies of low-dose aspirin

Assessment of patient navigation programs for breast cancer patients across the city of Boston

PURPOSE: Healthcare systems contribute to disparities in breast cancer outcomes. Patient navigation is a widely cited system-based approach to improve outcomes among populations at risk for delays in care. Patient navigation programs exist in all major Boston hospitals, yet disparities in outcomes persist. The objective of this study was to conduct a baseline assessment of navigation processes at six Boston hospitals that provide breast cancer care in preparation for an implementation trial of standardized navigation across the city. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study in six hospitals that provide treatment to breast cancer patients in Boston. We administered a web-based survey to clinical champions (n = 7) across six sites to collect information about the structure of navigation programs. We then conducted in-person workflow assessments at each site using a semi-structured interview guide to understand site-specific implementation processes for patient navigation programs. The target population included administrators, supervisors, and patient navigators who provided breast cancer treatment-focused care. RESULTS: All sites offered patient navigation services to their patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. We identified wide heterogeneity in terms of how programs were funded/resourced, which patients were targeted for navigation, the type of services provided, and the continuity of those services relative to the patient\u27s cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The operationalization of patient navigation varies widely across hospitals especially in relation to three core principles in patient navigation: providing patient support across the care continuum, targeting services to those patients most likely to experience delays in care, and systematically screening for and addressing patients\u27 health-related social needs. Gaps in navigation across the care continuum present opportunities for intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03514433, 5/2/2018

ACR Appropriateness Criteria

© 2018 American College of Radiology Breast pain is a common complaint. However, in the absence any accompanying suspicious clinical finding (eg, lump or nipple discharge), the association with malignancy is very low (0%-3.0%). When malignancy-related, breast pain tends to be focal (less than one quadrant) and persistent. Pain that is clinically insignificant (nonfocal [greater than one quadrant], diffuse, or cyclical) requires no imaging beyond what is recommended for screening. In cases of pain that is clinically significant (focal and noncyclical), imaging with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and ultrasound are appropriate, depending on the patient\u27s age. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment

ACR Appropriateness Criteria \u3csup\u3e®\u3c/sup\u3e Breast Pain

© 2018 American College of Radiology Breast pain is a common complaint. However, in the absence any accompanying suspicious clinical finding (eg, lump or nipple discharge), the association with malignancy is very low (0%-3.0%). When malignancy-related, breast pain tends to be focal (less than one quadrant) and persistent. Pain that is clinically insignificant (nonfocal [greater than one quadrant], diffuse, or cyclical) requires no imaging beyond what is recommended for screening. In cases of pain that is clinically significant (focal and noncyclical), imaging with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and ultrasound are appropriate, depending on the patient\u27s age. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment