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

Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.63). 06/2001; 71(5):1491-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02477-8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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).
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%).
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.

Download full-text


Available from: John Clochesy, Aug 12, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Myocardial revascularization with a minimal-access incision is used in many patients who undergo an elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operation. To evaluate whether this method could be used for patients who undergo an emergent CABG operation, we compared patients in whom emergent minimal-access CABG was used as the method of revascularization with patients who underwent emergent conventional CABG. From June 1996 to April 1998, 63 patients underwent emergent CABG operation due to unstable angina, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty accident, or critical left main lesion. Ten patients received minimal-access CABG via limited left parasternal incision (MI), and 53 patients received conventional CABG via median sternotomy (CS). There were 2 deaths in the MI group and 13 deaths in the CS group. We used the Society of Thoracic Surgery computer program to predict the mortality of both groups. The expected hospital mortality of the MI group was significant higher than that of the CS group. The 24-hour drainage amount in the MI group was significant less than that of the CS group. There were no significant differences in cross-clamping time, the duration of extracorporeal circulation, the intensive care unit stay, or the average hospital stay. Total costs of the MI group were similar to those of the CS group, except that the blood transfusion fee was significantly lower (9,406 +/- 1,259 vs. 12,059+ 3,994 New Taiwan dollars, p = 0.003). This technique combines minimally invasive surgical conditions with the safety and cost standards of emergent CABG surgery. Even emergent and high-risk coronary artery disease can be treated using this approach.
    Chang Gung medical journal 03/2002; 25(2):89-96.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies of resource utilization by patients with new-onset atrialfibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting have addressed only length of stay and bed charges. To compare resource utilization between patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation and patients without atrialfibrillation after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Retrospective review of clinical and administrative electronic databases for 720 subjects who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass in 25 months at one medical center The prevalence of atrial fibrillation was determined, and resource utilization in various hospital cost centers was compared between subjects with and without atrialfibrillation. The prevalence of new-onset atrial fibrillation was 33.1%. Compared with subjects without atrialfibrillation, subjects with atrialfibrillation had a longer stay (5.8 +/- 2.4 vs. 4.4+/-1.2 days, P<.001), more days receiving mechanical ventilation (P =.002) and oxygen therapy (P<.001), and higher rates of readmission to the intensive care unit (4.6% vs. 0.2%, P<.001). Subjects with atrial fibrillation also had more laboratory tests (P<.001) and more days receiving cardiac drugs, heparin, diuretics, and electrolytes. Subjects with atrialfibrillation had higher total postoperative charges ($57261 +/- $17101 vs. $50905 +/- $10062, P = .001), a mean difference of $6356. The mean differences were greatest for bed charges ($1642), laboratory charges ($1215), pharmacy ($989), and respiratory care ($582). The economic impact of atrialfibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting has been underestimated.
    American Journal of Critical Care 06/2002; 11(3):228-38. · 1.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is known to be associated with a systemic inflammatory response, which contributes to the development of postoperative complications including multiple organ dysfunction. Off-pump coronary surgery has been shown to attenuate the inflammatory injury compared to the conventional approach, thereby reducing the incidence of postoperative cardiopulmonary, renal, or neurological dysfunction. It is believed that off-pump experience may greatly impact on improving the outcome of coronary surgery in certain high-risk patients. Moreover, a better understanding of the underlying mechanism would also help to improve our current CPB management. Accumulating evidence to date indicates that a balance between pro- and antiinflammatory responses is crucial in limiting the extent of such systemic inflammatory injury following surgical myocardial revascularization.
    Journal of Cardiac Surgery 11/2002; 17(6):529-35. DOI:10.1046/j.1540-8191.2002.01010.x · 0.89 Impact Factor
Show more