Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on STEMI thrombolysis and Emergency Department's performance in a non-PCI capable tertiary hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Some guidelines had recommended "thrombolysis first" in ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. The impact of COVID-19 solely on STEMI thrombolysis is lacking as most studies reported outcomes related to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) setting. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEMI thrombolysis outcomes and the Emergency Department's performance in a non-PCI capable centre. METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study analysed data on consecutive STEMI patients who received thrombolytic therapy from May 2019 to December 2020 (20 months) in a non-PCI capable tertiary hospital. Total population sampling was used in this study. We compared all patients' characteristics and outcomes ten months before and during the pandemic. Regression models were used to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on door-to-needle time (DNT), mortality, bleeding events, and the number of overnight stays. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We analysed 323 patients with a mean age of 52.9 ± 12.9 years and were predominantly male (n = 280, 88.9%). There was a 12.5% reduction in thrombolysis performed during the pandemic. No significant difference in timing from symptoms onset to thrombolysis and DNT was observed. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.02-4.00, p = 0.044). Bleeding events post thrombolysis remained stable and there was no significant difference in the number of overnight stays during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: STEMI thrombolysis cases were reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an inverse increase in mortality despite the preserved Emergency Department performance in timely thrombolysis.

The outcomes and acceptance of pressurized metered-dose inhaler bronchodilators with venturi mask modified spacer in the outpatient emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Nebulizer use has been suspended in Malaysian public health facilities due to the potential to aggravate COVID-19 nosocomial transmission. Currently, our facility uses the pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) bronchodilator with Venturi mask modified spacer (VMMS) in patients visiting the Emergency Department (ED) for mild to moderate exacerbation of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We sought to assess the outcomes and acceptance of pMDI-VMMS in the outpatient ED of a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. METHODS: We analysed the total visits and discharge rates during periods of using the nebulizer and current pMDI-VMMS methods. The acceptance of pMDI-VMMS by patients and assistant medical officers (AMOs) were assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We analysed 3184 ED visits and responses from 103 patients and 32 AMOs. The direct discharge rate was similar for both nebulizer (n = 2162, 92.5%) and pMDI-VMMS method (n = 768, 90.7%) (p-value = 0.120). Twenty-eight patients (27.2%) favoured the pMDI-VMMS over the nebulizer, whereas 36 patients (35.0%) had no preference for either method. Sixty-four patients (62.1%) felt that the current pMDI-VMMS method was better or at least as effective in relieving their symptoms as a nebulizer. The current method was favoured over the nebulizer by twenty-seven AMOs (84.4%). Twenty-eight (87.5%) AMOs suggested that the current method was more effective than the nebulizer. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The bronchodilator delivered via pMDI-VMMS appeared to be comparable to nebulizer in treating mild to moderate asthma and COPD exacerbations in the outpatient ED. Most patients and AMOs accepted the use of pMDI-VMMS in the outpatient ED during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Venturi mask modified spacer can be a cheap and effective alternative to the commercial spacer in a resource-limited situation.