Clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a modified Delphi study

Aim : To develop clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Background : Numerous studies have reported that nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia is safe. However, the broad scope of existing guidelines for the administration and monitoring of patients who receive sedation during medical procedures without an anaesthetist present means there is a lack of specific guidance regarding optimal nursing practices for the unique circumstances where nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia is used in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Methods : A sequential mixed methods design was used. Initial recommendations were produced from three studies conducted by the authors: an integrative review; a qualitative study; and a cross-sectional survey. The recommendations were revised according to responses from a modified Delphi study. The first Delphi round was completed by nine senior cardiac catheterization laboratory nurses. All but one of the draft recommendations met the predetermined cut-off point for inclusion with 59 responses to the second round. Consensus was reached on all recommendations.

Implications for nursing : The guidelines that were derived from the Delphi study offer 24 recommendations within six domains of nursing practice: Pre-procedural assessment; Pre-procedural patient and family education; Pre-procedural patient comfort; Intra-procedural patient comfort; Intra-procedural patient assessment and monitoring; and Postprocedural patient assessment and monitoring.

Conclusion : These guidelines provide an important foundation towards the delivery of safe, consistent and evidence-based nursing care for the many patients who receive sedation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory setting.

The characteristics and outcome of infective endocarditis involving implantable cardiac devices

Infection of implantable cardiac electronic devices in particular lead endocarditis (cardiac device infective endocarditis (CDIE)) is an emerging problem with significant morbidity, mortality and health care costs. The epidemiology is characterised with advanced age and health care association in cases presenting within 6 months of implantation. Risk factors include those of the patient, the procedure and the device. Staphylococcal species predominate as the causative organisms. Diagnosis is reliably made by blood cultures and transesophageal echocardiography. Complications include pulmonary and systemic emboli, persistent bacteremia and concomitant valvular involvement. Management includes complete device removal and prolonged antimicrobial therapy. With long-term follow-up to 1 year, the mortality of CDIE is as high as 23 %. It is associated with patient co-morbidities and concomitant valvular involvement and may be prevented by device removal during index admission.

Psychosocial risk factors for coronary heart disease: a consensus statement from the National Heart Foundation of Australia

In 2003, the National Heart Foundation of Australia published a position statement on psychosocial risk factors and coronary heart disease (CHD). This consensus statement provides an updated review of the literature on psychosocial stressors, including chronic stressors (in particular, work stress), acute individual stressors and acute population stressors, to guide health professionals based on current evidence. It complements a separate updated statement on depression and CHD.

Perceived chronic job strain and shift work are associated with a small absolute increased risk of developing CHD, but there is limited evidence regarding their effect on the prognosis of CHD. Evidence regarding a relationship between CHD and job (in)security, job satisfaction, working hours, effort-reward imbalance and job loss is inconclusive.

Expert consensus is that workplace programs aimed at weight loss, exercise and other standard cardiovascular risk factors may have positive outcomes for these risk factors, but no evidence is available regarding the effect of such programs on the development of CHD.

Social isolation after myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with an adverse prognosis. Expert consensus is that although measures to reduce social isolation are likely to produce positive psychosocial effects, it is unclear whether this would also improve CHD outcomes. Acute emotional stress may trigger MI or takotsubo ("stress") cardiomyopathy, but the absolute increase in transient risk from an individual stressor is low. Psychosocial stressors have an impact on CHD, but clinical significance and prevention require further study.

Awareness of the potential for increased cardiovascular risk among populations exposed to natural disasters and other conditions of extreme stress may be useful for emergency services response planning. Wider public access to defibrillators should be available where large populations gather, such as sporting venues and airports, and as part of the response to natural and other disasters.