ABSTRACT
Background/Introduction: COVID-19 PANDEMIA has significant cardiovascular implications. Patients with acute or latent infection may present with myocardial injury, endothelial dysfunction and thrombotic complications. Health systems in many places have been overwhelmed and prevention has been pushed aside in favor of urgent care. In many cases, the usual activity of heart rehabilitation programmes is affected. Some programmes have stopped, some have managed to perfom e-rehailitation. Our programme stopped during confinement and restarted on face-to-face mode in June 2020 with adjustments (reduction of capacity, reduction of sessions, hygienic measures) Purpose: Our objective is to analyze the main characterisitcs and main results of the patients included on heart rehabilitation programmes inmediately before and inmediately after the beginning of COVID-19 pandemia and check if the changes made to the programme affected the results of the patients Methods: Retrospective descriptive cohort of consecutive patients admitted to cardiac rehabilitation in the second half of 2019 compared with patients who started inmediately after the pandemia beginning in our city (second half of 2020), The selection criteria are: 1) patients who have started rehabilitation within the established periods. 2) complete cardiac rehabilitation programme. Baseline, ergometric and echocardiographic characteristic are analyzed. Results: 131 patients werw included, 59 in second half 2019 group (2019 group) and 72 in the second half 2020 group (2020 group). The mean age of the 2020 group was lower, without reaching statistical significance (65 +/-13 vs 62 +/-10 p=ns). In the “2019 group” 52(88%) males were included vs 58 males (81%) included in the “2020 group”. The initial burden of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipemia, smoking habit) was similar ( see Table 1). The main reason for inclusion in cardiac rehabilitation programme was ischemic heart disease in both groups (49 (83%) VS 57 (79%), p= ns), and the number of vessel affected was similar ( see Table 1). Patients with ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% were similar, too. Initial functional capacity (initial METS) and final functional capacity ( final METS) showed no differences, neither mean BMI. The initial and final lab test parameters analyzed here (LDL-choleterol and HDL-cholesterol) showed no differences between the 2 groups. Conclusion(s): Our group opted to maintain a face-to-face cardiac rehabilitation programme with adaptations (reduction of capacity, reduction of sessions, hygienic measures among others. Despite this adaptation, the baseline characteristics of the patients included, the reason for inclusion on the programme and the main results showed no differences between both groups. (Figure Presented).