Guidelines for the clinical management of atrial fibrillation: a practical perspective.

Since the management of atrial fibrillation may be difficult in the individual patient, our purpose was to develop simple clinical recommendations to help the general internist manage this common clinical problem. Systematic review of the literature with evaluation of data-related evidence and framing of graded recommendations. Atrial fibrillation affects some 1% of the population in Western countries and is linked to a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. The management of atrial fibrillation requires individualised evaluation of the risks and benefits of therapeutic modalities, relying whenever possible on simple and validated tools. The two main points requiring a decision in clinical management are 1) whether or not to implement thromboembolic prevention therapy, and 2) whether preference should be given to a "rate control" or "rhythm control" strategy. Thromboembolic prophylaxis should be prescribed after individualised risk assessment: for patients at risk, oral anticoagulation with warfarin decreases the rate of embolic complications by 60% and aspirin by 20%, at the expense of an increased incidence of haemorrhagic complications. "Rate control" and "rhythm control" strategies are probably equivalent, and the choice should also be made on an individualised basis. To assist the physician in making his choices for the care of an atrial fibrillation patient we propose specific tables and algorithms, with graded recommendations. On the evidence of data from the literature we propose simple algorithms and tables for the clinical management of atrial fibrillation in the individual patient.

Renal transplantation following aorto-iliac reconstruction is a safe a strategy

Introduction: Renal transplantation is considered the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. However, the association of occlusive aorto-iliac disease and chronic renal failure is frequent and aorto-iliac reconstruction may be necessary prior to renal transplantation. This retrospective study reviews the results of this operative strategy.Material and Methods: Between January 2001 and June 2010, 309 patients underwent renal transplantation at our institution and 8 patients had prior aorto-iliac reconstruction using prosthetic material. There were 6 men and 2 women with a median age of 62 years (range 51-70). Five aorto-bifemoral and 2 aorto-bi-iliac bypasses were performed for stage II (n=5), stage IV (n=1) and aortic aneurysm (n=1). In one patient, iliac kissing stents and an ilio-femoral bypass were implanted. 4 cadaveric and 4 living donor renal transplantations were performed with an interval of 2 months to 10 years after revascularization.The results were analysed with respect of graft and patients survival. Differences between groups were tested by the log rank method.Results: No complications and no death occurred in the post-operative period. All bypasses remained patent during follow-up. The median time of post transplantation follow-up was 46 months for all patients and 27 months for patients with prior revascularization. In the revascularized group and control group, the graft and patient survival at 1 year were respectively 100%/96%, 100%/99% and at 5 years 86%/86%, 86%/94%, without significant differences between both groups.Discussion: Our results suggest that renal transplantation following prior aorto-iliac revascularisation with prosthetic material is safe and effective. Patients with end-stage renal disease and concomitant aorto-iliac disease should therefore be considered for renal transplantation. However, caution in the interpretation of the results is indicated due to the small sample size of our study.

Impact of an intervention to control risk associated with patient transfer.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: Hospitals transferring patients retain responsibility until admission to the new health care facility. We define safe transfer conditions, based on appropriate risk assessment, and evaluate the impact of this strategy as implemented at our institution. METHODS: An algorithm defining transfer categories according to destination, equipment monitoring, and medication was developed and tested prospectively over 6 months. Conformity with algorithm criteria was assessed for every transfer and transfer category. After introduction of a transfer coordination centre with transfer nurses, the algorithm was implemented and the same survey was carried out over 1 year. RESULTS: Over the whole study period, the number of transfers increased by 40%, chiefly by ambulance from the emergency department to other hospitals and private clinics. Transfers to rehabilitation centres and nursing homes were reassigned to conventional vehicles. The percentage of patients requiring equipment during transfer, such as an intravenous line, decreased from 34% to 15%, while oxygen or i.v. drug requirement remained stable. The percentage of transfers considered below theoretical safety decreased from 6% to 4%, while 20% of transfers were considered safer than necessary. A substantial number of planned transfers could be "downgraded" by mutual agreement to a lower degree of supervision, and the system was stable on a short-term basis. CONCLUSION: A coordinated transfer system based on an algorithm determining transfer categories, developed on the basis of simple but valid medical and nursing criteria, reduced unnecessary ambulance transfers and treatment during transfer, and increased adequate supervision.