Five waves of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results of a national survey evaluating the impact on activities related to arrhythmias, pacing, and electrophysiology promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

BACKGROUND

The subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy had a major impact on cardiac care.

METHODS

A survey to evaluate the dynamic changes in arrhythmia care during the first five waves of COVID-19 in Italy (first: March-May 2020; second: October 2020-January 2021; third: February-May 2021; fourth: June-October 2021; fifth: November 2021-February 2022) was launched.

RESULTS

A total of 127 physicians from arrhythmia centers (34% of Italian centers) took part in the survey. As compared to 2019, a reduction in 40% of elective pacemaker (PM), defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization devices (CRT) implantations, with a 70% reduction for ablations, was reported during the first wave, with a progressive and gradual return to pre-pandemic volumes, generally during the third-fourth waves, slower for ablations. For emergency procedures (PM, ICD, CRT, and ablations), recovery from the initial 10% decline occurred in most cases during the second wave, with some variability. However, acute care for atrial fibrillation, electrical cardioversions, and evaluations for syncope showed a prolonged reduction of activity. The number of patients with devices which started remote monitoring increased by 40% during the first wave, but then the adoption of remote monitoring declined.

CONCLUSIONS

The dramatic and profound derangement in arrhythmia management that characterized the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by a progressive return to the volume of activities of the pre-pandemic periods, even if with different temporal dynamics and some heterogeneity. Remote monitoring was largely implemented during the first wave, but full implementation is needed.

C8 THE CEREBRAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY IN THE DECISION–MAKING PROCESS OF IMPLANTING AN ICD IN OUT–OF–HOSPITAL CARDIAC ARREST SURVIVORS WITH BAD NEUROLOGICAL OUTCOME

Introduction

According to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines secondary prevention ICD implantation is a class I indication only for those patients with an estimated survival > 1 year with a good functional status. However, it is not specified how to assess the functional status and its evaluation could be quite difficult in the case of out–of–hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors with major neurological outcomes. Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) is the most widespread scale to define the neurological and functional outcome of OHCA survivors, but it is not known if it can be used to guide ICD implantation.

Objective

To evaluate whether the presence of a bad neurological outcome (CPC > 2) at discharged could be used as a prognostic index in order to evaluate the implantation of an ICD in OHCA survivors. Materials and Methods. We considered all the patients who had a cardiac arrest from 01/10/2014 to 30/09/2019 presenting a CPC> 2 at discharge. The territory included was that of the Province of Pavia (550000 inhabitants) from 2014 to 2018 and of the Provinces of Pavia, Lodi, Cremona and Mantua (1550000 inhabitants) from 2019. We assessed the survival and the neurological status variation at 1–year.

Results

In the study period, CPR was attempted in 2998 confirmed OHCAs. 227 patients (7.6%) were discharged alive and in 218 of these, CPC was available. 51 patients (23.4%) had a CPC>2 at discharge (22 CPC = 3, 24 CPC = 4 and 5 CPC = A). 1–year follow–up was available in 200 patients: among 158 alive, 12 (7.6%) had CPC>2 (7 CPC = 3 and 5 CPC = 4). 1–year survival of patients with CPC>2 at discharge was significantly lower those discharged with CPC≤2 (39.6% vs 91.6% p < 0.001). Only 19/48 patients discharged with CPC>2 survived at 1 year: a good cerebral performance was recovered in 6 patients (31.6%), while CPC>2 persisted in 11 (58%) and the CPC value was unknown in 2 of them.

Conclusions

Our results highlight that 1–year survival is quite low in patients with CPC>2 at discharge and that an improvement in cerebral performance occurs only in a minority of them. This evidence suggests the need for clinical re–evaluation after the event in order to carefully evaluate whether to implant an ICD in this kind of patients.