Atrial fibrillation: prevalence after minimally invasive direct and standard coronary artery bypass.

BACKGROUND: This study identified and compared the prevalence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFIB) following standard coronary artery bypass grafting (SCABG) with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and minimally invasive direct vision coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) without CPB. A further comparison was made between AFIB prevalence in SCABG and MIDCAB subjects with two or fewer bypasses. METHODS: This is a retrospective, comparative survey. Patients with new-onset AFIB who underwent SCABG or MIDCAB alone were identified electronically using a triangulated method (International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9 CM] code; clinical database word search; and pharmacy database drug search). RESULTS: The total sample (n = 814; 94 MIDCAB, 720 SCABG) exhibited a trend toward lower AFIB prevalence in MIDCAB (23.4%) versus SCABG (33.1%) subjects (p = 0.059). AFIB prevalence in the SCABG subset with two or less vessel bypasses (n = 98; n = 18 single vessel, n = 80 double vessels) and MIDCAB subjects (n = 94; n = 90 single vessels, n = 4 double vessels) was almost identical (SCABG subset 24.5% versus MIDCAB 23.4%, p = 0.860). Slightly more than half (56.9%) of new-onset AFIB subjects were identified by ICD-9 CM codes, with the remainder by word search (37.7%) or procainamide query (5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the number of vessels bypassed seemed to have a greater influence on AFIB prevalence than the application of CPB or the surgical approach. Retrospective identification of AFIB cases by ICD-9 CM code grossly underestimated AFIB prevalence.

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: a kinder cut.

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is a promising variation on traditional CABG, avoiding the risks of sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass. This article describes the procedure, patient-selection criteria, and postoperative care.

Hypotension.

Advanced practice nurses are responsible for diagnosing and treating patients with acute onset hypotension. The potential diagnostic hypotheses for hypotension are related to a wide variety of pathophysiologic processes. These processes are represented by the acronym VINDICATE--Vascular (and cardiac), Inflammatory, Neoplastic, Degenerative, Intoxication/Iatrogenic, Congenital, Allergic/Autoimmune, Traumatic, Endocrine/Metabolic However, acute onset hypotension experienced by the adult patient in the hospital is likely to be caused by the vascular (and cardiac) processes of absolute hypovolemia, relative hypovolemia, and pump failure. Developing the differential diagnosis for acute onset hypotension involves making a series of clinical decisions in a stepwise manner. The clinician bases these decisions on information contained in a subjective and objective database and on recognizing patterns in the central findings. However, treatment of hypotension may be necessary before or during the diagnostic process, depending on the severity of the patient's symptoms.

One school's experience with the development of an oncology nurse practitioner curriculum.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe the foundational work and implementation of a nurse practitioner (NP) curriculum geared toward oncology nurses. The study is selective (not comprehensive) and reflective of one school's experience. DATA SOURCE: Journal articles, curriculum guidelines, anecdotal experience, and interviews. DATA SYNTHESIS: The NP is used more frequently in oncology, both as a clinician and for other aspects of advanced practice nursing. NPs must be prepared to fulfill graduate criteria as outlined by definitive sources for curriculum development. CONCLUSIONS: Schools must work with employers, graduates, and patients in conducting outcome evaluations to measure safety issues and role effectiveness of oncology NPs (ONPs), as well as fulfillment of all aspects of the advanced nursing practice role. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: If healthcare employers continue to rely heavily on the use of ONPs, schools of nursing must be prepared to graduate safe clinicians, experts in oncology, and advanced practice nurses, all combined into one graduate. This difficult task requires evaluation of current practices.