An Analysis of Telehealth in the Outpatient Management of Atrial Fibrillation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adaption of a telehealth care model. We studied the impact of telehealth on the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) by electrophysiology providers in a large, multisite clinic. Clinical outcomes, quality metrics, and indicators of clinical activity for patients with AF during the 10-week period of March 22, 2020 to May 30, 2020 were compared with those from the 10-week period of March 24, 2019 to June 1, 2019. There were 1946 unique patient visits for AF (1,040 in 2020 and 906 in 2019). During 120 days after each encounter, there was no difference in hospital admissions (11.7% vs 13.5%, p = 0.25) or emergency department visits (10.4% vs 12.5%, p = 0.15) in 2020 compared with 2019. There was a total of 31 deaths within 120 days, with similar rates in 2020 and 2019 (1.8% vs 1.3%, p = 0.38). There was no significant difference in quality metrics. The following clinical activities occurred less frequently in 2020 than in 2019: offering escalation of rhythm control (16.3% vs 23.3%, p <0.001), ambulatory monitoring (29.7% vs 51.7%, p <0.001), and electrocardiogram review for patients on antiarrhythmic drug therapy (22.1% vs 90.2%, p <0.001). Discussions about risk factor modification were more frequent in 2020 compared with 2019 (87.9% vs 74.8%, p <0.001). In conclusion, the use of telehealth in the outpatient management of AF was associated with similar clinical outcomes and quality metrics but differences in clinical activity compared with traditional ambulatory encounters. Longer-term outcomes warrant further investigation.

Hospitalizations for alcoholic liver disease during the COVID-19 pandemic increased more for women, especially young women, compared to men.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) remains one of the major indications for liver transplantation in the United States and continues to place a burden on the national healthcare system. There is evidence of increased alcohol consumption during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and the effect of this on the already burdened health systems remains unknown. AIM: To assess the trends for ALD admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic, and compare it to a similar pre-pandemic period. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed all admissions at a tertiary health care system, which includes four regional hospitals. ALD admissions were identified by querying a multi-hospital health system's electronic database using ICD-10 codes. ALD admissions were compared for two one-year periods; pre-COVID-19 from April 2019 to March 2020, and during-COVID-19 from April 2020 to March 2021. Data were analyzed using a Poisson regression model and admission rates were compared using the annual quarterly average for the two time periods, with stratification by age and gender. Percent increase or decrease in admissions from the Poisson regression model were reported as incident rate ratios. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred and seventy-eight admissions for ALD were included. 80.7% were Caucasian, and 34.3% were female. An increase in the number of admissions for ALD during the COVID-19 pandemic was detected. Among women, a sharp rise (33%) was noted in those below the age of 50 years, and an increase of 22% in those above 50 years. Among men, an increase of 24% was seen for those below 50 years, and a 24% decrease in those above 50 years. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread implications, and an increase in ALD admissions is just one of them. However, given that women are often prone to rapid progression of ALD, this finding has important preventive health implications.

Site-level variability in the processes of care and outcomes over time among patients with COVID-19 and myocardial injury: Insights from the American Heart Association's COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

Background: Elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) levels in patients with COVID-19 has been associated with worse outcomes. Guidelines on best practices of those patients remain uncertain. Methods: We included patients with COVID-19 and cTn above the assay-specific upper limit of normal (ULN) enrolled in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 registry between March 2020-January 2021. Site-level variability in invasive coronary angiography, LVEF assessment, ICU utilization, and inpatient mortality were determined by calculating adjusted median odds ratio (MOR) using hierarchical logistic regression models. Temporal trends were assessed with Cochran-Armitage trend test. Results: Among 32,636 patients, we included 6234 (19.4 %) with cTn above ULN (age 68.7 ± 16.0 years, 56.5 % male, 51.5 % Caucasian), of whom 1365 (21.6 %) had ≥5-fold elevations. Across 55 sites, the median rate of invasive coronary angiography was 0.1 % with adjusted MOR 1.5(1.0,2.3), median LVEF assessment was 25.5 %, MOR 3.0(2.2,3.9), ICU utilization was 41.7 %, MOR 2.2(1.8,2.6), and mortality was 20.9 %, MOR 1.7(1.5,2.0). Over time, we noted a significant increase in invasive coronary angiography (p-trend = 0.001), and LVEF assessment (p-trend<0.001), and reduction in mortality (p-trend<0.001), without significant change in ICU admissions (p-trend = 0.08). Similar variability and temporal trends were seen among patients with ≥5-fold cTn elevation. Conclusions: The use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with COVID-19 and myocardial injury was very low during the early pandemic. We found moderate institutional variability in processes of care with an uptrend in invasive catheterization and LVEF assessment, and downtrend in mortality. Comparative effectiveness studies are needed to examine whether variability in care is associated with differences in outcomes.

Updating the model for Risk-Standardizing survival for In-Hospital cardiac arrest to facilitate hospital comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Risk-standardized survival rates (RSSR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) have been widely used for hospital benchmarking and research. The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a substantial decline in IHCA survival as COVID-19 infection is associated with markedly lower survival. Therefore, there is a need to update the model for computing RSSRs for IHCA given the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Within Get With The Guidelines®-Resuscitation, we identified 53,922 adult patients with IHCA from March, 2020 to December, 2021 (the COVID-19 era). Using hierarchical logistic regression, we derived and validated an updated model for survival to hospital discharge and compared the performance of this updated RSSR model with the previous model. RESULTS: The survival rate was 21.0% and 20.8% for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The model had good discrimination (C-statistic 0.72) and excellent calibration. The updated parsimonious model comprised 13 variables-all 9 predictors in the original model as well as 4 additional predictors, including COVID-19 infection status. When applied to data from the pre-pandemic period of 2018-2019, there was a strong correlation (r = 0.993) between RSSRs obtained from the updated and the previous models. CONCLUSION: We have derived and validated an updated model to risk-standardize hospital rates of survival for IHCA. The updated model yielded RSSRs that were similar to the initial model for IHCAs in the pre-pandemic period and can be used for supporting ongoing efforts to benchmark hospitals and facilitate research that uses data from either before or after the emergence of COVID-19.

Prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration, defined as lasting 28 days or longer, among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We analysed data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey (2 April 2021-15 October 2021) to identify people with SARDs reporting test-confirmed COVID-19. Participants reported COVID-19 severity and symptom duration, sociodemographics and clinical characteristics. We reported the proportion experiencing prolonged symptom duration and investigated associations with baseline characteristics using logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 441 respondents with SARDs and COVID-19 (mean age 48.2 years, 83.7% female, 39.5% rheumatoid arthritis). The median COVID-19 symptom duration was 15 days (IQR 7, 25). Overall, 107 (24.2%) respondents had prolonged symptom duration (≥28 days); 42/429 (9.8%) reported symptoms lasting ≥90 days. Factors associated with higher odds of prolonged symptom duration included: hospitalisation for COVID-19 vs not hospitalised and mild acute symptoms (age-adjusted OR (aOR) 6.49, 95% CI 3.03 to 14.1), comorbidity count (aOR 1.11 per comorbidity, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21) and osteoarthritis (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.27). COVID-19 onset in 2021 vs June 2020 or earlier was associated with lower odds of prolonged symptom duration (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81). CONCLUSION: Most people with SARDs had complete symptom resolution by day 15 after COVID-19 onset. However, about 1 in 4 experienced COVID-19 symptom duration 28 days or longer; 1 in 10 experienced symptoms 90 days or longer. Future studies are needed to investigate the possible relationships between immunomodulating medications, SARD type/flare, vaccine doses and novel viral variants with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms and other postacute sequelae of COVID-19 among people with SARDs.

Preadmission Oral Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter and Death or Thrombotic Events During COVID-19 Admission.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) and COVID-19 are associated with an elevated risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Whether preadmission oral anticoagulation (OAC) for AF reduces the incidence of in-hospital death or thrombotic events among patients with COVID-19 is unknown. We identified 630 patients with pre-existing AF and a hospitalization diagnosis of COVID-19 and stratified them according to preadmission OAC use. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to relate preadmission OAC to composite in-hospital mortality or thrombotic events. Unadjusted composite in-hospital mortality or thrombotic complications occurred less often in those on than not on preadmission OAC (27.1% vs 46.8%, p <0.001). After adjustment, the incidence of composite in-hospital all-cause mortality or thrombotic complications remained lower with preadmission OAC (odds ratio 0.37, confidence interval 0.25 to 0.53, p <0.0001). Secondary outcomes including all-cause mortality (16.3% vs 24.9%, p = 0.007), intensive care unit admission (14.7% vs 29.0%, p <0.001), intubation (6.4% vs 18.6%, p <0.001), and noninvasive ventilation (18.6% vs 27.5%, p = 0.007) occurred less frequently, and length of stay was shorter (6 vs 7 days, p <0.001) in patients on than those not on preadmission OAC. A higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events. In conclusion, among patients with baseline AF who were hospitalized with COVID-19, those on preadmission OAC had lower rates of death, arterial and venous thrombotic events, and less severe COVID-19.

Preadmission Statin Treatment and Outcome in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Preadmission statin therapy is associated with improved outcome in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Whether inhibition of inflammation and myocardial injury are in part responsible for this observation has not been studied. The aim of the present study was to relate preadmission statin usage to markers of inflammation, myocardial injury, and clinical outcome among patients with established atherosclerosis who were admitted with COVID-19. Adult patients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and/or atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease who were hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included. Statin use was related to the primary composite clinical outcome, death, intensive care unit admission, or thrombotic complications in sequential multivariable logistic regression models. Of 3,584 adult patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, 1,360 patients met study inclusion criteria (mean age 73.8 years, 45% women, 68% White). Baseline troponin and C-reactive protein were lower in patients on statins before admission. In an unadjusted model, preadmission statin usage was associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome (42.2% vs 53.7%, odds ratio 0.63 [95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.80], p <0.001). This association remained significant after age, gender, ethnicity, other patient clinical characteristics, and cardiovascular medications were added to the model but became null when troponin and C-reactive protein were also included (odds ratio 0.83 [95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.09] p = 0.18). In conclusion, among patients with established cardiovascular disease who were hospitalized with COVID-19, preadmission statin therapy was associated with improved in-hospital outcome, an association that was negated once inflammation and myocardial injury were considered.

Baseline factors associated with self-reported disease flares following COVID-19 vaccination among adults with systemic rheumatic disease: results from the COVID-19 global rheumatology alliance vaccine survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of, and risk factors for, disease flare following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with systemic rheumatic disease (SRD). METHODS: An international study was conducted from 2 April to 16 August 2021, using an online survey of 5619 adults with SRD for adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including flares of disease requiring a change in treatment. We examined risk factors identified a priori based on published associations with SRD activity and SARS-CoV-2 severity, including demographics, SRD type, comorbidities, vaccine type, cessation of immunosuppressive medications around vaccination and history of reactions to non-COVID-19 vaccines, using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Flares requiring a change in treatment following COVID-19 vaccination were reported by 4.9% of patients. Compared with rheumatoid arthritis, certain SRD, including systemic lupus erythematosus (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03, 2.20), psoriatic arthritis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.20, 3.18) and polymyalgia rheumatica (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.08, 2.48) were associated with higher odds of flare, while idiopathic inflammatory myopathies were associated with lower odds for flare (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96). The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was associated with higher odds of flare relative to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.07, 1.95), as were a prior reaction to a non-COVID-19 vaccine (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76, 3.54) and female sex (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.55, 4.72). CONCLUSION: SRD flares requiring changes in treatment following COVID-19 vaccination were uncommon in this large international study. Several potential risk factors, as well as differences by disease type, warrant further examination in prospective cohorts.

Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with pediatric rheumatic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: The experiences of children with pediatric rheumatic diseases (PRD) during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been well-documented. We sought to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on protective behaviors, healthcare access, medication management, and education among an international cross-sectional parental survey of children with PRDs. METHODS: The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey was distributed online, and parents of children with parental-reported PRD, with or without COVID-19 infection, were eligible to enroll. Respondents described their child's demographics, adoptions of protective behaviors, healthcare access, changes to immunosuppression, and disruptions in schooling. RESULTS: A total of 427 children were included in the analyses. The most common rheumatic disease was juvenile idiopathic arthritis (40.7%), and most children were taking conventional synthetic diseasemodifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (54.6%) and/or biologic DMARDs (51.8%). A diagnosis of COVID-19 was reported in five children (1.2%), none of whom required hospitalization. Seventeen children (4.0%) had stopped or delayed their drugs due to concern for immunosuppression, most commonly glucocorticoids. Almost all families adopted behaviors to protect their children from COVID-19, including quarantining, reported by 96.0% of participants. In addition, 98.3% of full-time students experienced disruptions in their education, including cancelations of classes and transitions to virtual classrooms. CONCLUSION: Despite the low numbers of children with PRDs who developed COVID-19 in this cohort, most experienced significant disruptions in their daily lives, including quarantining and interruptions in their education. The drastic changes to these children's environments on their future mental and physical health and development remain unknown.

In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival in the United States During and After the Initial Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Surge.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports on challenges in resuscitation care at hospitals severely affected by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raise questions about how the pandemic affected outcomes for in-hospital cardiac arrest throughout the United States. METHODS: Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare in-hospital cardiac arrest survival during the presurge (January 1-February 29), surge (March 1-May 15) and immediate postsurge (May 16-June 30) periods in 2020 compared to 2015 to 2019. Monthly COVID-19 mortality rates for each hospital's county were categorized, per 1 000 000 residents, as low (0-10), moderate (11-50), high (51-100), or very high (>100). Using hierarchical regression models, we compared rates of survival to discharge in 2020 versus 2015 to 2019 for each period. RESULTS: Of 61 586 in-hospital cardiac arrests, 21 208 (4309 in 2020), 26 459 (5949 in 2020), and 13 919 (2686 in 2020) occurred in the presurge, surge, and postsurge periods, respectively. During the presurge period, 24.2% survived to discharge in 2020 versus 24.7% in 2015 to 2019 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.02-1.22]). In contrast, during the surge period, 19.6% survived to discharge in 2020 versus 26.0% in 2015 to 2019 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81 [0.75-0.88]). Lower survival was most pronounced in communities with high (28% lower survival) and very high (42% lower survival) monthly COVID-19 mortality rates (interaction P<0.001). Resuscitation times were shorter (median: 22 versus 25 minutes; P<0.001), and delayed epinephrine treatment was more prevalent (11.3% versus 9.9%; P=0.004) during the surge period. Survival was lower even when patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 infection were excluded from analyses. During the postsurge period, survival rates were similar in 2020 versus 2015 to 2019 (22.3% versus 25.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.93 [0.83-1.04]), including communities with high COVID-19 mortality (interaction P=0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Early during the pandemic, rates of survival to discharge for IHCA decreased, even among patients without COVID-19 infection, highlighting the early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-hospital resuscitation.

Association Between COVID-19 Diagnosis and In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

IMPORTANCE: There has been limited research on patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients with STEMI with vs without COVID-19 infection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted between January 2019 and December 2020 (end of follow-up in January 2021) with out-of-hospital or in-hospital STEMI at 509 US centers in the Vizient Clinical Database (N = 80 449). EXPOSURES: Active COVID-19 infection present during the same encounter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Patients were propensity matched on the likelihood of COVID-19 diagnosis. In the main analysis, patients with COVID-19 were compared with those without COVID-19 during the previous calendar year. RESULTS: The out-of-hospital STEMI group included 76 434 patients (551 with COVID-19 vs 2755 without COVID-19 after matching) from 370 centers (64.1% aged 51-74 years; 70.3% men). The in-hospital STEMI group included 4015 patients (252 with COVID-19 vs 756 without COVID-19 after matching) from 353 centers (58.3% aged 51-74 years; 60.7% men). In patients with out-of-hospital STEMI, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention by COVID-19 status; patients with in-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 were significantly less likely to undergo invasive diagnostic or therapeutic coronary procedures than those without COVID-19. Among patients with out-of-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 vs out-of-hospital STEMI without COVID-19, the rates of in-hospital mortality were 15.2% vs 11.2% (absolute difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 1.1%-7.0%]; P = .007). Among patients with in-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 vs in-hospital STEMI without COVID-19, the rates of in-hospital mortality were 78.5% vs 46.1% (absolute difference, 32.4% [95% CI, 29.0%-35.9%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with out-of-hospital or in-hospital STEMI, a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19 was significantly associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality compared with patients without a diagnosis of COVID-19 from the past year. Further research is required to understand the potential mechanisms underlying this association.

Impact of the three COVID-19 surges in 2020 on in-hospital cardiac arrest survival in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported lower survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) during the initial COVID-19 surge. Whether the pandemic reduced IHCA survival during subsequent surges and in areas with lower COVID-19 rates is unknown. METHODS: Within Get-With-The-Guidelines®-Resuscitation, we identified 22,899 and 79,736 IHCAs during March to December in 2020 and 2015-2019, respectively. Using hierarchical regression, we compared risk-adjusted rates of survival to discharge in 2020 vs. 2015-19 during five COVID-19 periods: Surge 1 (March to mid-May), post-Surge 1 (mid-May to June), Surge 2 (July to mid-August), post-Surge 2 (mid-August to mid-October), and Surge 3 (mid-October to December). Monthly COVID-19 mortality rates for each hospital's county were categorized, per 1,000,000 residents, as very low (0-10), low (11-50), moderate (51-100), or high (>100). RESULTS: During each COVID-19 surge period in 2020, rates of survival to discharge for IHCA were lower, as compared with the same period in 2015-2019: Surge 1: adjusted OR: 0.81 (0.75-0.88); Surge 2: adjusted OR: 0.88 (0.79-0.97), Surge 3: adjusted OR: 0.79 (0.73-0.86). Lower survival was most pronounced at hospitals located in counties with moderate to high monthly COVID-19 mortality rates. In contrast, during the two post-surge periods, survival rates were similar in 2020 vs. 2015-2019: post-Surge 1: adjusted OR 0.93 (0.83-1.04) and post-Surge 2: adjusted OR 0.94 (0.86-1.03), even at hospitals with the highest county-level COVID-19 mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: During the three COVID-19 surges in the U.S. during 2020, rates of survival to discharge for IHCA dropped substantially, especially in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality rates.

Immediate effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient health, health-care use, and behaviours: results from an international survey of people with rheumatic diseases.

BACKGROUND: The impact and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease are unclear. We developed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease worldwide. METHODS: Survey questions were developed by key stakeholder groups and disseminated worldwide through social media, websites, and patient support organisations. Questions included demographics, rheumatic disease diagnosis, COVID-19 diagnosis, adoption of protective behaviours to mitigate COVID-19 exposure, medication access and changes, health-care access and communication with rheumatologists, and changes in employment or schooling. Adults age 18 years and older with inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We excluded participants reporting only non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as fibromyalgia or osteoarthritis. FINDINGS: 12 117 responses to the survey were received between April 3 and May 8, 2020, and of these, 10 407 respondents had included appropriate age data. We included complete responses from 9300 adults with rheumatic disease (mean age 46·1 years; 8375 [90·1%] women, 893 [9·6%] men, and 32 [0·3%] participants who identified as non-binary). 6273 (67·5%) of respondents identified as White, 1565 (16·8%) as Latin American, 198 (2·1%) as Black, 190 (2·0%) as Asian, and 42 (0·5%) as Native American or Aboriginal or First Nation. The most common rheumatic disease diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis (3636 [39·1%] of 9300), systemic lupus erythematosus (2882 [31·0%]), and Sjögren's syndrome (1290 [13·9%]). Most respondents (6921 [82·0%] of 8441) continued their antirheumatic medications as prescribed. Almost all (9266 [99·7%] of 9297) respondents adopted protective behaviours to limit SARS-CoV-2 exposure. A change in employment status occurred in 2524 (27·1%) of 9300) of respondents, with a 13·6% decrease in the number in full-time employment (from 4066 to 3514). INTERPRETATION: People with rheumatic disease maintained therapy and followed public health advice to mitigate the risks of COVID-19. Substantial employment status changes occurred, with potential implications for health-care access, medication affordability, mental health, and rheumatic disease activity. FUNDING: American College of Rheumatology.

Outpatient Management of Heart Failure During the COVID-19 Pandemic After Adoption of a Telehealth Model.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether the increased use of telehealth was associated with a difference in outcomes for outpatients with heart failure. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to dramatic changes in the delivery of outpatient care. It is unclear whether increased use of telehealth affected outcomes for outpatients with heart failure. METHODS: In March 2020, a large Midwestern health care system, encompassing 16 cardiology clinics, 16 emergency departments, and 12 hospitals, initiated a telehealth-based model for outpatient care in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. A propensity-matched analysis was performed to compare outcomes between outpatients seen in-person in 2018 and 2019 and via telemedicine in 2020. RESULTS: Among 8,263 unique patients with heart failure with 15,421 clinic visits seen from March 15 to June 15, telehealth was employed in 88.5% of 2020 visits but in none in 2018 or 2019. Despite the pandemic, more outpatients were seen in 2020 (n = 5,224) versus 2018 and 2019 (n = 5,099 per year). Using propensity matching, 4,541 telehealth visits in 2020 were compared with 4,541 in-person visits in 2018 and 2019, and groups were well matched. Mortality was similar for telehealth and in-person visits at both 30 days (0.8% vs 0.7%) and 90 days (2.9% vs 2.4%). Likewise, there was no excess in hospital encounters or need for intensive care with telehealth visits. CONCLUSIONS: A telehealth model for outpatients with heart failure allowed for distanced encounters without increases in subsequent acute care or mortality. As the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic abate, these data suggest that telehealth outpatient visits in patients with heart failure can be safely incorporated into clinical practice.

Early experience of COVID-19 vaccination in adults with systemic rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey.

BACKGROUND: We describe the early experiences of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: From 2 April to 30 April 2021, we conducted an online, international survey of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination. We collected patient-reported data on clinician communication, beliefs and intent about discontinuing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around the time of vaccination, and patient-reported adverse events after vaccination. RESULTS: We analysed 2860 adults with systemic rheumatic diseases who received COVID-19 vaccination (mean age 55.3 years, 86.7% female, 86.3% white). Types of COVID-19 vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (53.2%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (22.6%), Moderna (21.3%), Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (1.7%) and others (1.2%). The most common rheumatic disease was rheumatoid arthritis (42.3%), and 81.2% of respondents were on a DMARD. The majority (81.9%) reported communicating with clinicians about vaccination. Most (66.9%) were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy, although many (44.3%) were concerned about rheumatic disease flares. After vaccination, the most reported patient-reported adverse events were fatigue/somnolence (33.4%), headache (27.7%), muscle/joint pains (22.8%) and fever/chills (19.9%). Rheumatic disease flares that required medication changes occurred in 4.6%. CONCLUSION: Among adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination, patient-reported adverse events were typical of those reported in the general population. Most patients were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy. The relatively low frequency of rheumatic disease flare requiring medications was reassuring.

North American lower-extremity revascularization and amputation during COVID-19: Observations from the Vascular Quality Initiative.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's impact on vascular procedural volumes and outcomes has not been fully characterized. METHODS: Volume and outcome data before (1/2019 - 2/2020), during (3/2020 - 4/2020), and following (5/2020 - 6/2020) the initial pandemic surge were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Volume changes were determined using interrupted Poisson time series regression. Adjusted mortality was estimated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The final cohort comprised 57,181 patients from 147 US and Canadian sites. Overall procedure volumes fell 35.2% (95% CI 31.9%, 38.4%, p < 0.001) during and 19.8% (95% CI 16.8%, 22.9%, p < 0.001) following the surge, compared with presurge months. Procedure volumes fell 71.1% for claudication (95% CI 55.6%, 86.4%, p < 0.001) and 15.9% for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) (95% CI 11.9%, 19.8%, p < 0.001) but remained unchanged for acute limb ischemia (ALI) when comparing surge to presurge months. Adjusted mortality was significantly higher among those with claudication (0.5% vs 0.1%; OR 4.38 [95% CI 1.42, 13.5], p = 0.01) and ALI (6.4% vs 4.4%; OR 2.63 [95% CI 1.39, 4.98], p = 0.003) when comparing postsurge with presurge periods. CONCLUSION: The first North American COVID-19 pandemic surge was associated with a significant and sustained decline in both elective and nonelective lower-extremity vascular procedural volumes. When compared with presurge patients, in-hospital mortality increased for those with claudication and ALI following the surge.