In-Hospital Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Before and During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

The impact of COVID-19 on hospitalization outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction in the USA

Background/study objective

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic affected health care delivery, as it led to variable outcomes in different disease states including cardiovascular diseases. In this study, we evaluated the impact of coexisting COVID-19 on Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI).

Design/setting

We analyzed discharge records of AMI patients from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in the year 2020.

Main outcome measures

Using propensity score matching, we assessed the impact of COVID-19 infection on the in-hospital outcomes of patients presenting with AMI.

Results

There were 1154 patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection and AMI who were matched with 109,990 patients with AMI and without COVID-19. We found that patients with COVID-19 who had AMI were less likely to have dyslipidemia (64.6 % vs. 70.4 %, p < 0.001), peripheral vascular disease (2.4 % vs. 3.8 % p = 0.0017), smoking history (23.5 % vs. 28.2 % p < 0.0001) and hypertension (37.1 % vs. 40.1 % p = 0.004).COVID-19 was associated with higher hospital mortality rates (Adjusted odds ratio aOR: 2.72, CI: 2.23-3.30, p < 0.001), cardiac arrest (aOR: 1.65, 95 % CI: 1.26-2.15, p < 0.001), cardiogenic shock (aOR:1.36,95 % CI: 1.10-1.68, p = 0.004) and respiratory failure (aOR:1.81, 95 % CI: 1.55-2.11 p < 0.001) compared to AMI patients without COVID-19. There was also a significant association between coexisting COVID-19 and longer duration of hospital stay (Adjusted mean differences:1.40, 95 % CI: 1.31-1.59 p < 0.0001) in AMI patients.

Conclusion

COVID-19 infection is associated with worse in-hospital mortality and cardiorespiratory complications in patients with AMI.

Effect of fibrinolytic therapy on ST-elevation myocardial infarction clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is the result of transmural ischemia of the myocardium and is associated with a high mortality rate. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the recommended first-line treatment strategy for patients with STEMI. The timely delivery of PPCI became extremely challenging for STEMI patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, leading to a projected steep rise in mortality. These delays were overcome by the shift from first-line therapy and the development of modern fibrinolytic-based reperfusion. It is unclear whether fibrinolytic-based reperfusion therapy is effective in improving STEMI endpoints.

AIM

To determine the incidence of fibrinolytic therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on STEMI clinical outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried from January 2020 up to February 2022 to identify studies investigating the effect of fibrinolytic therapy on the prognostic outcome of STEMI patients during the pandemic. Primary outcomes were the incidence of fibrinolysis and the risk of all-cause mortality. Data were meta-analyzed using the random effects model to derive odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals. Quality assessment was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies including 50136 STEMI patients (n = 15142 in the pandemic arm; n = 34994 in the pre-pandemic arm) were included. The mean age was 61 years; 79% were male, 27% had type 2 diabetes, and 47% were smokers. Compared with the pre-pandemic period, there was a significantly increased overall incidence of fibrinolysis during the pandemic period [OR: 1.80 (1.18 to 2.75); I²= 78%; P = 0.00; GRADE: Very low]. The incidence of fibrinolysis was not associated with the risk of all-cause mortality in any setting. The countries with a low-and middle-income status reported a higher incidence of fibrinolysis [OR: 5.16 (2.18 to 12.22); I² = 81%; P = 0.00; GRADE: Very low] and an increased risk of all-cause mortality in STEMI patients [OR: 1.16 (1.03 to 1.30); I² = 0%; P = 0.01; GRADE: Very low]. Meta-regression analysis showed a positive correlation of hyperlipidemia (P = 0.001) and hypertension (P < 0.001) with all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased incidence of fibrinolysis during the pandemic period, but it has no effect on the risk of all-cause mortality. The low- and middle-income status has a significant impact on the all-cause mortality rate and the incidence of fibrinolysis.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock during COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has created challenges in delivering acute cardiovascular care. Quality measures and outcomes of patients presenting with AMICS during COVID-19 in the United States have not been well described.

METHODS

We identified 406 patients from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) with AMICS and divided them into those presenting before (N = 346, 5/9/2016-2/29/2020) and those presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 60, 3/1/2020-11/10/2020). We compared baseline clinical data, admission characteristics, and outcomes.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 64 years, and 23.7% of the group was female. There were no significant differences in age, sex, and medical comorbidities between the two groups. Patients presenting during the pandemic were less likely to be Black compared to those presenting prior. Median door to balloon (90 vs. 88 min, p = 0.38), door to support (88 vs. 78 min, p = 0.13), and the onset of shock to support (74 vs. 62 min, p = 0.15) times were not significantly different between the two groups. Patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction more often during the COVID-19 period (95.0% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.005). In adjusted logistic regression models, COVID-19 period did not significantly associate with survival to discharge (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-2.19, p = 0.81) or with 1-month survival (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42-1.61, p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Care of patients presenting with AMICS has remained robust among hospitals participating in the NCSI during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Non-COVID outcomes associated with the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic effects study (COPES): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, healthcare providers struggle to manage both COVID-19 and non-COVID patients while still providing high-quality care. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with non-COVID illness and on healthcare systems compared to non-pandemic epochs.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/CENTRAL/CINAHL (inception to December 31, 2020). All study types with COVID-pandemic time period (after December 31, 2019) with comparative non-pandemic time periods (prior to December 31, 2019). Data regarding study characteristics/case-mix/interventions/comparators/ outcomes (primary: mortality; secondary: morbidity/hospitalizations/disruptions-to-care. Paired reviewers conducted screening and abstraction, with conflicts resolved by discussion. Effect sizes for specific therapies were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with evidence rating using GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

Of 11,581 citations, 167 studies met eligibility. Our meta-analysis showed an increased mortality of 16% during the COVID pandemic for non-COVID illness compared with 11% mortality during the pre-pandemic period (RR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.28-1.50; absolute risk difference: 5% [95% CI: 4-6%], p<0.00001, very low certainty evidence). Twenty-eight studies (17%) reported significant changes in morbidity (where 93% reported increases), while 30 studies (18%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Thirty-nine studies (23%) reported significant changes in hospitalizations (97% reporting decreases), while 111 studies (66%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Sixty-two studies (37%) reported significant disruptions in standards-to-care (73% reporting increases), while 62 studies (37%) reported no significant change (very low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant increase in mortality during the COVID pandemic compared to pre-pandemic times for non-COVID illnesses. When significant changes were reported, there was increased morbidity, decreased hospitalizations and increased disruptions in standards-of-care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020201256 (Sept 2, 2020).

Frequency and predictors of no-reflow phenomenon in patients with COVID-19 presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

Thrombotic process is triggered in the course of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), which is a global pandemic, and both arterial and venous systems are affected. ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) that may develop in these patients may cause more complicated results with the effect of thrombosis burden. Our aim in this study is to determine the frequency of no-reflow phenomenon in COVID-19 patients with STEMI and to determine the factors that predict this complication.

METHODS

In this study, which is a single-centre, retrospective and observational, a total of 126 patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in our centre due to STEMI between 11 March 2020 and 10 January 2021 were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of COVID-19 infection.

RESULTS

While 62 patients were in the COVID-19 (+) group, 64 patients were evaluated in the COVID-19 (-) group. When the two groups are compared, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, ferritin and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were significantly higher, and the lymphocyte count was significantly lower in the COVID-19 (+) group. No-reflow was numerically higher in patients with COVID-19. In multivariable analysis, D-dimer and NLR were found to be independent predictors of no-reflow phenomenon in COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the no-reflow phenomenon was numerically higher in COVID-19 patients who underwent pPCI due to STEMI compared to the non-COVID group, no statistical difference was found in our study. However, NLR and D-dimer have been identified as independent predictors of no-reflow development risk in COVID-19 patients.

The Spill-Over Impact of the Novel Coronavirus-19 Pandemic on Medical Care and Disease Outcomes in Non-communicable Diseases: A Narrative Review

Objectives: The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed more than 5 million lives worldwide by November 2021. Implementation of lockdown measures, reallocation of medical resources, compounded by the reluctance to seek help, makes it exceptionally challenging for people with non-communicable diseases (NCD) to manage their diseases. This review evaluates the spill-over impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with NCDs including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory disease, chronic kidney disease, dementia, mental health disorders, and musculoskeletal disorders. Methods: Literature published in English was identified from PubMed and medRxiv from January 1, 2019 to November 30, 2020. A total of 119 articles were selected from 6,546 publications found. Results: The reduction of in-person care, screening procedures, delays in diagnosis, treatment, and social distancing policies have unanimously led to undesirable impacts on both physical and psychological health of NCD patients. This is projected to contribute to more excess deaths in the future. Conclusion: The spill-over impact of COVID-19 on patients with NCD is just beginning to unravel, extra efforts must be taken for planning the resumption of NCD healthcare services post-pandemic.

The Global Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on STEMI Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) requiring primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) worldwide. In this review we examine the global effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence of STEMI admissions, and relationship between the pandemic and door to balloon time (D2B), all-cause mortality, and other secondary STEMI outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to primarily compare D2B time and in-hospital mortality of STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI during and before the pandemic. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the influence of geographical region and income status of a country on STEMI care. An online database search included studies that compared the aforementioned outcomes of STEMI patients during and before the pandemic.

RESULTS

In total, 32 articles were analyzed. Overall, 19,140 and 68,662 STEMI patients underwent primary PCI during and before the pandemic, respectively. Significant delay in D2B was observed during the pandemic (weighted mean difference, 8.10 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.90-12.30 minutes; P = 0.0002; I2 = 90%). In-hospital mortality was higher during the pandemic (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09-1.49; P = 0.002; I2 = 36%), however this varied with factors such as geographical location and income status of a country. Subgroup analysis showed that low-middle-income countries observed a higher rate of mortality during the pandemic (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.13-2.05; P = 0.006), with a similar but insignificant trend seen among the high income countries (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.95-1.44; P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with worse STEMI performance metrics and clinical outcome, particularly in the Eastern low-middle-income status countries. Better strategies are needed to address these global trends in STEMI care during the pandemic.

Trends and concerns of potentially inappropriate medication use in patients with cardiovascular diseases

Introduction: The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) is an alarming social risk factor in cardiovascular patients. PIM administration may result in iatrogenic disorders and adverse consequences may be attenuated by limiting PIM intake.Areas covered: The goal of this review article is to discuss the trends, risks, and concerns regarding PIM administration with focus on cardiovascular patients. To find data, we searched literature using electronic databases (Pubmed/Medline 1966-2021 and Web of Science 1975-2021). The data search terms were cardiovascular diseases, potentially inappropriate medication, potentially harmful drug-drug combination, potentially harmful drug-disease combination, drug interaction, deprescribing, and electronic health record.Expert opinion: Drugs for heart diseases are the most commonly prescribed medications in older individuals. Despite the availability of explicit and implicit PIM criteria, the incidence of PIM use in cardiovascular patients remains high ranging from 7 to 85% in different patient categories. Physician-induced disorders often occur when PIM is administered and adverse effects may be reduced by limiting PIM intake. Main strategies promising for addressing PIM use include deprescribing, implementation of systematic electronic records, pharmacist medication review, and collaboration among cardiologists, internists, geriatricians, clinical pharmacologists, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals as basis of multidisciplinary assessment teams.

Impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease Pandemic on the Performance of a Cardiovascular Department in a Non-epidemic Center in Beijing, China

Background: Knowledge of the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the performance of a cardiovascular department in a medical referral hub center from a non-epidemic area of China is limited.

Method: The data on the total number of non-emergency medical cares (including the number of out-patient clinic attendances, the number of patients who were hospitalized in non-intensive care wards, and patients who underwent elective cardiac intervention procedures) and emergency medical cares [including the number of emergency department (ED attendances) and chest pain center (CPC attendances), as well as the number of patients who were hospitalized in coronary care unit (CCU) and the number of patients who underwent emergency cardiac intervention procedures] before and during the pandemic (time before the pandemic: 20th January 2019 to 31st March 2019 and time during the pandemic: 20th January 2020 to 31st March 2020) in the Department of Cardiology and Macrovascular Disease, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University were collected and compared.

Results: Both the non-emergency medical and emergency medical cares were affected by the pandemic. The total number of out-patient clinic attendance decreased by 44.8% and the total number of patients who were hospitalized in non-intensive care wards decreased by 56.4%. Pearson correlation analysis showed that the number of out-patient clinic attendance per day was not associated with the number of new confirmed COVID-19 cases and the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in Beijing (r = −0.080, p = 0.506 and r = −0.071, p = 0.552, respectively). The total number of patients who underwent non-emergency cardiac intervention procedures decreased during the pandemic, although there were no statistically significant differences except for patent foramen ovale (PFO) occlusion (1.7 ± 2.9 vs. 8.3 ± 2.3, p = 0.035). As for the emergency medical cares, the ED attendances decreased by 22.4%, the total number of CPC attendances increased by 10.3%, and the number of patients who were hospitalized in CCU increased by 8.9%: these differences were not statistically significant. During the pandemic, the proportion of hospitalized patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) significantly increased (19.0 vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001; 28.8 vs. 18.0%, p < 0.001, respectively); also, the number of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) increased by 10.3%. There was no significant difference between patients before and during the pandemic regarding the age, gender, baseline and discharge medication therapy, as well as length of stay and in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions: Our preliminary results demonstrate that both the non-emergency and emergency medical cares were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic even in a referral medical center with low cross-infection risk. The number of the out-patient clinic attendances not associated with the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases could be due to different factors, such as the local government contamination measures. The proportion of hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction increased in our center during the pandemic since other hospitals stopped performing primary angioplasty. A hub-and-spoke model could be effective in limiting the collateral damage for patients affected by cardiovascular diseases when the medical system is stressed by disasters, such as COVID-19 pandemic.