Impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ST-elevation myocardial infarction admissions and outcomes in a Portuguese primary percutaneous coronary intervention center: Preliminary Data.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant changes in healthcare systems and its impact on the treatment of cardiovascular conditions, such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), is unknown in countries where the healthcare systems were not saturated, as was the case in Portugal. As such, we aimed to assess the effect on STEMI admissions and outcomes in Portuguese centers. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, observational, retrospective study including all patients admitted to our hospital due to STEMI between the date of the first SARS-CoV-2 case diagnosed in Portugal and the end of the state of emergency (March and April 2020). Patient characteristics and outcomes were assessed and compared with the same period of 2019. RESULTS: A total of 104 STEMI patients were assessed, 55 in 2019 and 49 in 2020 (-11%). There were no significant differences between groups regarding age (62±12 vs. 65±14 years, p=0.308), gender (84.8% vs. 77.6% males, p=0.295) or comorbidities. In the 2020 group, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients transported to the hospital in pre-hospital emergency medical transportation (38.2% vs. 20.4%, p=0.038), an increase in system delay (49 [30-110.25] vs. 140 [90-180] minutes, p=0.019), a higher Killip-Kimball class, with a decrease in class I (74.5% vs. 51%) and an increase in class III (1.8% vs. 8.2%) and IV (5.5% vs. 18.4%) (p=0.038), a greater incidence of vasoactive support (3.7% vs. 26.5%, p=0.001), invasive mechanic ventilation usage (3.6% vs. 14.3%, p=0.056), and an increase in severe left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge (3.6% vs. 16.3%, p=0.03). In-hospital mortality was 14.3% in the 2020 group and 7.3% in the 2019 group p=0.200). CONCLUSION: Despite a lack of significant variation in the absolute number of STEMI admissions, there was an increase in STEMI clinical severity and significantly worse outcomes during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. An increase in system delay, impaired pre-hospital care and patient fear of in-hospital infection can partially justify these results and should be the target of future actions in further waves of the pandemic.

INTRODUÇÃO: A doença por coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19) originou alterações significativas nos sistemas de saúde e a sua influência no tratamento da patologia cardiovascular, como no caso do enfarte agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST (EAMcSST), é desconhecida em países onde não ocorreu saturação da capacidade dos sistemas de saúde, como é o caso de Portugal. Assim, o nosso objetivo foi determinar o efeito nas admissões por EAMcSST e no seu prognóstico intra-hospitalar na região Centro de Portugal. MÉTODOS: Realizou-se um estudo unicêntrico, observacional e retrospetivo, incluindo todos os doentes admitidos no nosso hospital por EAMcSST entre a data do primeiro caso de SARS-CoV-2 em Portugal e o término do estado de emergência (março e abril de 2020). Foram avaliadas as características e os resultados dos doentes e foi realizada uma comparação com o período homólogo de 2019. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos 104 doentes com EAMcSST, 55 em 2019 e 49 em 2020 (-11%). Não se verificaram diferenças significativas entre os grupos relativamente à idade (62±12 versus 65±14 anos, p=0,308), género (84,8% mulheres versus 77,6% homens, p=0,295) ou comorbilidades. No grupo de doentes de 2020 verificou-se uma diminuição significativa na proporção de doentes transportados para o hospital pela viatura médica do Instituto Nacional de Emergência Médica (38,2% versus 20,4%, p=0,038), um aumento no atraso do sistema de saúde (49 [30-110,25] versus 140 [90-180] minutos, p=0,019), uma maior classe Killip-Kimball, com uma redução de doentes em classe I (74,5% versus 51%) e um aumento na classe III (1,8% versus 8,2%) e IV (5,5% versus 18,4%) (p=0,038), uma maior incidência de suporte vasoativo (3,7% versus 26,5%, p=0,001), de ventilação mecânica invasiva (3,6% versus 14,3%, p=0,056) e um aumento da proporção de doentes com disfunção ventricular esquerda grave na alta hospitalar (3,6% versus 16,3%, p=0,03). A mortalidade intra-hospitalar foi de 14,3% no grupo de 2020 e de 7,3% no grupo de 2019 (p=0,200). CONCLUSÃO: Apesar de não se ter verificado uma variação significativa no número de admissões por EAMcSST, existiu um aumento da gravidade, com um prognóstico intra-hospitalar significativamente mais adverso durante a pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Um aumento no atraso do sistema de saúde, um compromisso nos serviços pré-hospitalares e o receio por parte dos doentes de contraírem uma eventual infeção hospitalar podem justificar parcialmente estes resultados e devem ser planeadas ações para diminuir o seu efeito em novos surtos pandémicos.

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

Telehealth Opportunities in the COVID-19 Pandemic Early Days: What Happened, Did Not Happen, Should Have Happened, and Must Happen in the Near Future?

The objective of this communication is to offer a better understanding of the value of telemedicine in health care, particularly its role in creating opportunities for continuity of care to patients in a complex and novel setting as were the circumstances of the early COVID-19 pandemic times. Crisis time is also a time for opportunities. With regard to telehealth, all players (providers, staff, and patients) should be informed about its benefits and should also become familiar with the use of the various telehealth options and this will only be achieved through large information campaigns necessary enriched by local teaching and training programs in both public and private institutions. The final aim is to launch the debate and foster ideas useful throughout the pandemic. This article covers the experiences of physicians as well as health professionals in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), to provide a clearer idea of what has happened and how we can improve it with the possibilities provided by telemedicine, while at the same time to put in evidence that public health systems need to be rethought to provide solutions to situations such as that we are experiencing.