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.
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.
Authors: Paul N Jensen; Karin Johnson; James Floyd; Susan R Heckbert; Ryan Carnahan; Sascha Dublin Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Ren Jie Robert Yao; Jason G Andrade; Marc W Deyell; Heather Jackson; Finlay A McAlister; Nathaniel M Hawkins Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 4.790