Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients Without COVID-19 With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure.

Background Excess mortality from cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic has been reported. The mechanism is unclear but may include delay or deferral of care, or differential treatment during hospitalization because of strains on hospital capacity. Methods and Results We used emergency department and inpatient data from a 12-hospital health system to examine changes in volume, patient age and comorbidities, treatment (right- and left-heart catheterization), and outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with pre-COVID-19 (2018 and 2019), controlling for seasonal variation. We analyzed 27 427 emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Patient volume decreased during COVID-19 for both HF and AMI, but age, race, sex, and medical comorbidities were similar before and during COVID-19 for both groups. Acuity increased for AMI as measured by the proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation. There were no differences in right-heart catheterization for patients with HF or in left heart catheterization for patients with AMI. In-hospital mortality increased for AMI during COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.21-1.76), particularly among the ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction subgroup (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.24-2.96), but was unchanged for HF (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.16). Conclusions Cardiovascular volume decreased during COVID-19. Despite similar patient age and comorbidities and in-hospital treatments during COVID-19, mortality increased for patients with AMI but not patients with HF. Given that AMI is a time-sensitive condition, delay or deferral of care rather than changes in hospital care delivery may have led to worse cardiovascular outcomes during COVID-19.

INCIDENCE OF THROMBOTIC EVENTS WITH DIFFERENT ANTITHROMBOTIC STRATEGIES IN PATIENTS WITH COVID-19

Several studies have compared different antithrombotic regimens in patients with COVID-19 but have not demonstrated a consistent benefit with higher doses of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis or empiric anticoagulation. B Introduction/Hypothesis: b Thrombotic complications occur frequently in patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) despite the use of standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulants. To date, our institution has treated over 1000 COVID-19 patients using a standardized thromboprophylaxis regimen unless the patient had a compelling reason for therapeutic anticoagulation. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Social Media, Confusion, and Small Business During the COVID 19 Crisis

In March 2020, the U.S. economy began a systematic shutdown in response to the COVID 19pandemic. Schools, churches, retail, and service business all closed as states implemented stay at home orders in the name ofpublic safety. Business fell into either essential or non-essential classifications in response to state and local government mandates. Loosely worded guideline created confusion among small business owners and their customers as to what services were available. This study examines the confused state of small business in response to their classification and the methods used by business owners to communicate their status to customers.

Changes In Non-COVID-19 Emergency Department Visits By Acuity And Insurance Status During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

Prior studies suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with decreases in emergency department (ED) volumes, but it is not known whether these decreases varied by visit acuity or by demographic and socioeconomic risk factors. In this study of more than one million non-COVID-19 visits to thirteen EDs in a large St. Louis, Missouri, health system, we observed an overall 35 percent decline in ED visits. The decrease in medical and surgical visits ranged from 40 percent to 52 percent across acuity levels, with no statistically significant differences between higher- and lower-acuity visits after correction for multiple comparisons. Mental health visits saw a smaller decrease (-32 percent), and there was no decrease for visits due to substance use. Medicare patients had the smallest decrease in visits (-31 percent) of the insurance groups; privately insured (-46 percent) and Medicaid (-44 percent) patients saw larger drops. There were no observable differences in ED visit decreases by race. These findings can help inform interventions to ensure that people requiring timely ED care continue to seek it and to improve access to lower-risk alternative settings of care where appropriate.