The Feasibility, Effectiveness and Acceptance of Virtual Visits as Compared to In-Person Visits among Clinical Electrophysiology Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The feasibility and effectiveness of virtual visits (VVs) for cardiac electrophysiology patients are still unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of VVs as compared to in-person visits, and to describe patient experience with virtual care in clinical electrophysiology. We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled to receive a clinical electrophysiology evaluation, dividing them in two groups: a VV group and an in-person visit group. Outcomes of interest were: (1) improvement in symptoms after the index visit, (2) disappearance of remote monitoring (RM) alerts at follow-up, (3) necessity of urgent hospitalization and (4) patient satisfaction measured by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18). This study included 162 patients in the VV group and 185 in the in-office visit group. As compared to in-person visits, VVs resulted in a similar reduction in RM alerts (51.5% vs. 43.2%, p-value 0.527) and in symptomatic patient rates (73.6% vs. 56.9%, p-value 0.073) at follow-up, without differences in urgent hospitalization rates (p-value 0.849). Patient satisfaction with VVs was higher than with in-person evaluation (p-value < 0.012). VVs proved to be as feasible and as effective as in-person visits, with high patient satisfaction. A hybrid model of care including VVs and in-person visits may become the new standard of care after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

The effects of cardiovascular diseases and treatment on clinical course of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Aims Significant concern has been raised about the effect of pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (CVD), cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and CV therapies on COVID-19 course. On the other hand, COVID-19 could worse pre-existing CVD or trigger the development of new-onset CVD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between pre-existing CVD, CV risk factors, and CV therapy with the clinical course of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods and results Consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients admitted to the Cardiovascular COVID-19 Unit at Policlinico Umberto I of Rome between December 2020 and April 2021 were enrolled. All patients underwent a cardiovascular evaluation including troponin, electrocardiogram (ECG), and echocardiogram. Data on medical history, pre-existing CVD, CV risk factors, and therapy were collected. Admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) or Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU), as well as the development of new-onset CVD, were considered as endpoint of the study. Among n = 229 patients enrolled, 22 (10%) died. Nearly half of patients (112, 49%) were admitted to the ICU/CICU. The presence of prior ischaemic heart disease nearly doubled the probability of hospitalization in the ICU/CICU (HR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.132–3.866, P 0.018). In regards of therapy, beta blockers reduced the likelihood of admission in the ICU/CICU (HR: −1016, 95% CI: 0.192–10.682, P 0.002). However, neither the use of RAAS blockers, heparin or dexamethasone influenced the risk of ICU/CICU admission (respectively, HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.498–1.450, P 0.551;HR: 0.768, 95% CI: 0.435–1.356, P 0.363;HR: 0.861, 95% CI: 0.453–1.635, P 0.647). N = 89 patients (39%) experienced a new onset CVD including arrythmias (18.3%) with nearly half experiencing atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome (10.9%), acute pulmonary embolism (5.3%), heart failure (HF) (3%), and myocarditis and pericarditis (1.3%). A pre-existing diagnosis of HF substantially increased the likelihood of new onset CVD (HR: 2.380, 95% CI: 1.004–5.638, P 0.049). However, treatment with heparin or dexamethasone reduced the risk of new onset CVD (HR: 0.482 95% CI: 0.268–0.867, P 0.015;HR: 0.487, 95% CI: 0.253–0.937, P 0.031, respectively). Conclusions Our study found that hospitalized COVID-19 patients who have at least one CV risk factor or pre-existing CVD had a greater likelihood of being admitted to the ICU/CICU and experiencing new onset CVD.

Management of cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up in COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned during Italian lock down

Aims Remote monitoring (RM) has significantly transformed the standard of care for patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices. It provides easy access to valuable information, such as arrhythmic events, acute decompensation manifestations, and device‐related issues, without the need of in‐person visits. Methods and results Starting 1 March, 332 patients were introduced to an RM programme during the Italian lockdown to limit the risk of in‐hospital exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the modality of RM delivery [home (n = 229) vs. office (n = 103) delivered]. The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of the new follow‐up protocol, assessed as mean RM activation time (AT), and the need for technical support. In addition, patients’ acceptance and anxiety status were quantified via the Home Monitoring Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item scale. AT time was less than 48 h in 93% of patients and 7% of them required further technical support. Despite a higher number of trans‐telephonic technical support in the home‐delivered RM group, mean AT was similar between groups (1.33 ± 0.83 days in home‐delivered vs. 1.28 ± 0.81 days in office‐delivered patients;P = 0.60). A total of 28 (2.5%) urgent/emergent in‐person examinations were required. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached in both groups whereas anxiety status was higher in the office‐delivered group. Conclusions The adoption of RM resulted in high patient satisfaction, regardless of the modality of modem delivery;nonetheless, in‐office modem delivery was associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety symptoms.

The role of virtual visits in cardiology: from the pandemic era to future perspectives

Aims During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in-person visits were reduced to prevent potential risk of exposure. Virtual visits (VVs) represent an innovative model to take care of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of VV in the management of CIED patients. Methods and results We performed a prospective study including all CIED patients who received a VV from July 2020 to July 2021. Blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, and body weight were registered by the patient. Moreover, we sent to the patient a questionnaire to evaluate the patients’ satisfaction about VV. We enrolled 182 patients in the study period. The mean age of patients was 70.2 ± 13.5 years-old and the majority (61.1%) was male. In two cases, VVs were not performed due to technical issues. Overall, 70.9% of patients utilized a smartphone, while 20.1% and 9% used, respectively, a tablet or a personal computer. The mean duration of VV was 27.8 ± 7.8 min. Patients helped by a caregiver were 64 (35.2%). One urgent/emergent in‐person visit was performed in a patient with acute heart failure. Overall, VV was preferred to in-person evaluation. Conclusion VV is a safe and feasible approach to follow-up CIED patients. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached after VV. The use of VV has promising potential and should be implemented beyond COVID-19 period and integrated in the healthcare system as a new model of care.

The role of virtual visits in COVID-19 cardiovascular patients

Aims The outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced a reorganization of the healthcare system. In order to prevent potential risk of exposure, virtual visit (VV) has been implemented in the treatment and follow-up of COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of VV in the management of post COVID-19 cardiovascular patients. Methods and results We enrolled all patients with cardiovascular comorbidities tested negative for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and discharged from our Cardiology Department from January 2021 to June 2021. We scheduled a VV after 30 days from discharge to check the clinical status of the patients, optimize therapy, and establish a Follow-up protocol. Blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate and body weight were registered. To evaluate the patients’ satisfaction of VV, a questionnaire was administered. We performed 25 VVs in the study period;the mean age of patients was 67.5 ± 15.6 and male were 15 (65.2%). The mean duration of VV was 25.9 ± 4.6 min. The caregiver had an active role in nine (36%) cases. No urgent/emergent in‐person examinations were performed. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached and VV was preferred to in-person evaluation. Conclusions VV visit was useful to Follow-up post COVID-19 cardiovascular patients. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached without jeopardizing quality of care.

Follow-up of hospitalized COVID-19 survivors: assessment of short- and long-term cardiovascular sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection

Aims Cardiovascular sequelae in COVID-19 survivors remain largely unclear and can potentially go unrecognized. Reports on follow-up focused on cardiovascular evaluation after hospital discharge are currently scarce. Aim of this prospective study was to assess cardiovascular sequelae in previously hospitalized COVID-19 survivors. Methods and results The study was conducted at ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome—Policlinico ‘Umberto I’. After 2 months from discharge, n = 230 COVID-19 survivors underwent a follow-up visit at a dedicated ‘post-COVID Outpatient Clinic’. A cardiovascular evaluation including electrocardiogram (ECG), Troponin and echocardiography was performed. Further tests were requested when clinically indicated. Medical history, symptoms, arterial-blood gas, blood tests, chest computed tomography, and treatment of both in-hospital and follow-up evaluation were recorded. A 1-year telephone follow-up was performed. A total of 36 (16%) COVID-19 survivors showed persistence or delayed onset of cardiovascular disease at 2-months follow-up visit. Persistent condition was recorded in 62% of survivors who experienced an in-hospital cardiovascular disease. Delayed cardiovascular involvement included: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular disfunction, new onset of systemic hypertension and arrhythmias. At 1-year telephone follow-up, 105 (45%) survivors reported persistent symptoms, with dyspnoea and fatigue being the most frequent. 60% of survivors showed persistent chest CT abnormalities and among those 28% complained of persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms at long term follow-up. Conclusions Our preliminary data showed persistent or delayed onset of cardiovascular involvement (16%) at short-term follow-up and persistent symptoms (45%) at long-term follow-up. These findings suggest the need for monitoring COVID-19 survivors.

Home delivery of the communicator for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices: a multicentre experience during the COVID-19 lockdown

Aims During the COVID-19 pandemic in-person visits for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices should be replaced by remote monitoring (RM), in order to prevent viral transmission. A direct home-delivery service of the RM communicator has been implemented at 49 Italian arrhythmia centres. Methods and results According to individual patient preference or the organizational decision of the centre, patients were assigned to the home-delivery group or the standard in-clinic delivery group. In the former case, patients received telephone training on the activation process and use of the communicator. In June 2020, the centres were asked to reply to an ad hoc questionnaire to describe and evaluate their experience in the previous 3 months. RM was activated in 1324 patients: 821 (62%) received the communicator at home and the communicator was activated remotely. Activation required one additional call in 49% of cases, and the median time needed to complete the activation process was 15 min (25th–75th percentile: 10–20). 753 (92%) patients were able to complete the correct activation of the system. At the time when the questionnaire was completed, 743 (90%) communicators were regularly transmitting data. The service was generally deemed useful (96% of respondents) in facilitating the activation of RM during the COVID-19 pandemic and possibly beyond. Conclusions Home delivery of the communicator proved to be a successful approach to system activation, and received positive feedback from clinicians. The increased use of a RM protocol will reduce risks for both providers and patients, while maintaining high-quality care.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiac Electronic Device Management and Role of Remote Monitoring.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic, patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) refused scheduled follow-up visits because of the risk of infection. In this scenario, different telemedicine strategies have been implemented to ensure continuity of care to CIED patients. Patients can be monitored through dedicated applications, telephone calls, or virtual visits providing easy access to valuable information, such as arrhythmic events, acute decompensation manifestations, and device-related issues, without the need for in-person visits. This review provides a comprehensive description of the many possible applications of telemedicine for CIED patients during the COVID-19 period.