NURS 6501N – Advanced Pathophysiology

Week 4 Case Study Analysis: Cardiovascular and Cardiopulmonary Processes

Assessment overview

Write a 1–2 page case study analysis (approximately 500–700 words) that explains the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes underlying a patient’s presenting symptoms in an assigned scenario, addresses relevant racial/ethnic variables, and examines how these processes interact to affect overall health status.

Assessment context

Advanced practice nurses must be able to move from patient symptoms to underlying mechanisms across organ systems, with particular attention to how cardiovascular and pulmonary processes intersect. Case-based analysis is used in graduate pathophysiology courses to develop concise, clinically meaningful explanations that link pathologic changes to assessment findings and diagnostic reasoning.

Assessment instructions

1. Review your assigned case scenario

• Locate your Week 4 case study scenario in the course classroom or weekly resources (for example, a patient with chest pain and dyspnea, heart failure exacerbation, or acute coronary syndrome with respiratory compromise).

• Identify key subjective and objective data, including history, vital signs, physical exam findings, and any initial diagnostic results provided in the scenario.

2. Analyze cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes

i. Explain cardiovascular mechanisms.

• Describe the primary cardiovascular pathophysiologic processes that account for the patient’s symptoms (for example impaired coronary perfusion, altered preload/afterload, decreased contractility, valvular dysfunction, dysrhythmias).

• Link these mechanisms directly to specific findings from the case (for example hypotension, jugular venous distention, edema, chest pain pattern, abnormal heart sounds).

ii. Explain cardiopulmonary interactions.

• Describe cardiopulmonary processes contributing to the presentation (for example pulmonary congestion, ventilation–perfusion mismatch, hypoxemia, compensatory tachypnea).

• Connect these processes to the patient’s respiratory symptoms and exam findings (for example crackles, dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, oxygen saturation changes).

iii. Integrate system interactions.

• Explain how cardiovascular and pulmonary changes interact to worsen or perpetuate the patient’s condition (for example how decreased cardiac output leads to pulmonary congestion, which in turn further impairs gas exchange and increases cardiac workload).

3. Address racial/ethnic variables

i. Identify relevant variables.

• Discuss any racial or ethnic factors that may influence pathophysiology, risk profiles, or clinical presentation for the condition in the case (for example differential prevalence of hypertension, coronary artery disease, or heart failure, variation in endothelial function, or differences in symptom reporting and recognition).

ii. Explain implications.

• Briefly explain how these variables may affect disease progression, response to physiologic stress, or potential complications in the patient’s situation.

4. Synthesize impact on the patient

i. Overall effect on health status.

• Summarize how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary processes together account for the patient’s most important symptoms and current clinical status.

• Highlight key mechanisms that would be priorities for further assessment, monitoring, and diagnostic work-up in an advanced practice context.

5. Academic writing and format requirements

• Length: 1–2 pages (approximately 500–700 words), excluding title page and reference list.

• Format: Use current academic writing standards and APA style for in-text citations and references.

• Sources: Incorporate at least 2–3 current scholarly or authoritative sources (2018–2026) that support your explanation of the pathophysiologic processes for the assigned condition.

• Focus: Maintain a mechanistic focus on pathophysiology rather than treatment planning or detailed management strategies.

Marking criteria (grading rubric)

Criterion 1: Explanation of cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary processes

• Excellent: Accurately and thoroughly explains the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes related to the patient’s symptoms, with clear, detailed reasoning supported by appropriate evidence.

• Proficient: Explains key cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary processes with generally accurate reasoning and some supporting evidence.

• Needs improvement: Provides limited or partially inaccurate explanation of underlying processes, with minimal or absent supporting evidence.

Criterion 2: Integration of racial/ethnic variables

• Excellent: Clearly identifies and explains relevant racial/ethnic variables and convincingly links them to physiological functioning and disease expression in the case.

• Proficient: Identifies at least one relevant racial/ethnic variable and briefly explains its physiological relevance.

• Needs improvement: Mentions racial/ethnic factors without clear linkage to physiology or omits this component.

Criterion 3: Analysis of how processes interact to affect the patient

• Excellent: Provides a coherent, logically sequenced analysis of how cardiovascular and pulmonary processes interact and collectively shape the patient’s presentation and clinical risk.

• Proficient: Describes interactions between systems with reasonable clarity, though some links may be implicit or less developed.

• Needs improvement: Treats processes as isolated or gives little explanation of their interaction and overall impact.

Criterion 4: Use of evidence and scholarly writing

• Excellent: Integrates current, relevant sources to support explanations; writing is well organized, concise, and adheres to APA style with minimal errors.

• Proficient: Uses appropriate sources and generally clear writing; minor errors in organization or APA style do not impede understanding.

• Needs improvement: Limited sourcing, frequent mechanical or APA errors, or disorganized presentation that weakens clarity.

Many strong Week 4 responses start by linking reduced left ventricular contractility and increased afterload to the patient’s low cardiac output, then connect those changes to pulmonary congestion, dyspnea, and hypoxemia through clear stepwise reasoning (Metra & Teerlink 2019). Students often highlight how long-standing uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes in specific racial or ethnic groups accelerates structural remodeling and endothelial dysfunction, which in turn intensifies the hemodynamic burden during acute decompensation. Short, focused paragraphs that move directly from mechanism to symptom pattern tend to score well because they show precise pathophysiologic thinking rather than broad textbook restatement.

References

• Metra, M & Teerlink, JR 2019, ‘Heart failure’, The Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10175, pp. 1699–1712, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31806-1

• Bozkurt, B et al. 2021, ‘Universal definition and classification of heart failure…’, Journal of Cardiac Failure, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 387–413, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.01.022

• Benjamin, EJ et al. 2019, ‘Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2019 update’, Circulation, vol. 139, no. 10, e56–e528, doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000659

• Norris, CM et al. 2020, ‘State of the science in women’s cardiovascular disease…’, Canadian Journal of Cardiology, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1371–1381, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2020.05.030

• Clark, HJ et al. 2022, ‘Racial and ethnic differences in heart failure…’, Current Heart Failure Reports, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 41–52, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-022-00548-y