RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the waiting list for elective electrical cardioversion (ECV) for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), focusing on when and why procedures were postponed. We compared the effects of management of the waiting list conducted by physicians versus management by nurse practitioners (NPs) and we evaluated the safety of our anticoagulating policy by means of bleeding or thromboembolic complications during and after ECV. BACKGROUND: Not all patients selected for ECV receive their treatment at the first planned instance due to a variety of reasons. These reasons are still undocumented. METHODS: We evaluated 250 consecutive patients with persistent AF admitted to our clinic for elective ECV. RESULTS: Within 5 to 6 weeks, 186 of 242 patients (77%) received ECV. The main reason for postponing an ECV was an inadequate international normalised ratio (INR); other reasons included spontaneous sinus rhythm and switch to rate control. A total of 23 of the 147 patients (16%) managed by the research physician were postponed due to an inadequate INR at admission versus 4 out of 98 patients (4%) managed by NPs (p = 0.005) CONCLUSION: An inadequate INR is the main reason for postponing an ECV. Management of ECV by NPs is safe and leads to less postponing on admission.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To compare Angio-Seal (AS) and StarClose (SC) and manual compression (MC) on efficacy of hemostasis, complication rate, safety of early mobilization, and patient comfort. BACKGROUND: Closure of the femoral artery after cardiac catheterization can be obtained through different methods. Today, physicians can choose from a number of different devices to achieve arterial closure. METHODS: In a prospective trial 450 patients were randomized to AS, SC, or MC. Patients were mobilized 1 to 2 hr after device placement, and 6 hr after MC. Data were collected during hospital admission and by telephone at one month after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Devices were used in 138/150 allocated to AS and 124/150 allocated to SC patients (92% vs. 83%, P = 0.015) Patients with MC experienced more pain during sheath removal than patients receiving a device, and rated their period of bed rest as less comfortable. Oozing and need for pressure bandage at the puncture site were observed in 37 AS patients and 57 SC patients (25% vs. 38%, P = 0.002). Hematoma occurred in 15 AS patients, in 17 SC patients, and in 14 MC patients (11 vs. 14 vs. 9%, ns). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in safety between the three methods of arterial closure. SC was more often not used or successfully deployed. SC patients more often had continuing oozing. On patient comfort, closure devices performed better than MC. Early ambulation in patients with a closure device is safe. AS is the preferred method of arterial closure after cardiac catheterization.