Social determinants of telemedicine utilization in ambulatory cardiovascular patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in the rapid uptake of telemedicine (TM) for routine cardiovascular care. To examine the predictors of TM utilization among ambulatory cardiology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and results: In this single-centre retrospective study, all ambulatory cardiovascular encounters occurring between 16 March and 19 June 2020 were assessed. Baseline characteristics by visit type (in-person, TM phone, TM video) were compared using Chi-square and student t-tests, with statistical significance defined by P-value <0.05. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore the predictors of TM vs. in-person care. A total of 8446 patients [86% Non-Hispanic (NH) White, 42% female, median age 66.8 ± 15.2 years] completed an ambulatory cardiovascular visit during the study period. TM phone (n = 4981, 61.5%) was the primary mode of ambulatory care followed by TM video (n = 2693, 33.2%). NH Black race [odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-0.94; P-value = 0.02], Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29-0.98; P = 0.04), public insurance (Medicaid OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32-0.79; P = 0.003, Medicare OR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47-0.89; P = 0.009), zip-code linked median household income of <$75 000, age >85 years, and patients with a diagnosis of heart failure were associated with reduced access to TM video encounters and a higher likelihood of in-person care. Conclusions: Significant disparities in TM video access for ambulatory cardiovascular care exist among the elderly, lower income, as well as Black and Hispanic racial/ethnic groups.

Virtual multidisciplinary care for heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy devices during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) patients with CRT devices are a vulnerable patient population during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. It is important to develop innovative virtual care models to deliver multidisciplinary care while minimizing the risk of SARS-CoV2 exposure. OBJECTIVE: We aim to provide a description of how HF patients with CRT devices were assessed and managed in our virtual multidisciplinary clinic during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Clinical outcomes between this group of patients seen in virtual clinic and a historical cohort followed by in-person multi-disciplinary clinic prior to the pandemic were compared. METHOD: This is a retrospective cohort study of HF patients with CRT implants who were seen in the virtual multidisciplinary clinic from March 18th, 2020 to May 27th, 2020 (Virtual Visit Group, N = 43). A historical cohort of HF patients with CRT devices seen in the ReACT clinic in person during the same calendar time period in 2019 was used as a control group (In-Person Visit Group, N = 39). Both groups were followed until July 1st of the same calendar year (2020 or 2019) for clinical events. The primary outcome measure was a combined outcome of all-cause mortality and HF- or device-related hospitalizations during follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included patient satisfaction, COVID-19 infection, and other cardiovascular events. RESULTS: In the Virtual-Visit Group, 21 patients (48.8%) had their initial ReACT clinic visit (first visit after CRT implant) as a virtual visit; 22 patients (51.2%) had prior in-person ReACT clinic visits before the first virtual visit. During the virtual visits, 12 patients had either potential cardiac symptoms or significant device interrogation findings that required clinical intervention. In post-virtual clinic patient satisfaction survey, all 22 patients surveyed (100%) reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the overall experience of the virtual clinic, and every patient (100%) said they would like to use telemedicine again. During a median follow-up period of 82 days (interquartile range [IQR] 61-96 days), one patient died from pneumonia of unclear etiology at an outside hospital, without documentation of COVID-19 positivity. No patient was hospitalized for HF- or arrhythmia-related complications. No patient was diagnosed with COVID-19. Compared with the In-Person Visit Group, there was no significant increase in mortality or major cardiovascular events in the Virtual-Visit Group (2.3% versus 5.1%, P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Virtual multidisciplinary care was feasible for HF patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy devices and achieved good patient satisfaction. Virtual care was not associated with short-term increase in adverse events for HF patients with CRT device during the COVID-19 Pandemic. This virtual care model could help promote the adoption of digital health methodology for high-risk patients with multiple cardiac comorbidities.

Modified design of stimulation of the left ventricular endocardium for cardiac resynchronization therapy in nonresponders, previously untreatable and high-risk upgrade patients (SOLVE-CRT) trial.

The WiSE system is a novel, leadless endocardial system that can provide cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients who cannot be treated with a conventional epicardial left ventricular lead. Safety and efficacy were being evaluated in the pivotal, randomized, double-blind SOLVE-CRT Trial (Stimulation of the Left Ventricular Endocardium for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.) The trial was initiated in 2018; however, patient enrollment was significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic necessitating a change in design. This article describes the revised trial and the scientific rationale for the specific changes in the protocol.

Smartwatch Electrocardiogram and Artificial Intelligence for Assessing Cardiac-Rhythm Safety of Drug Therapy in the COVID-19 Pandemic. The QT-logs study.

BACKGROUND: QTc interval monitoring, for the prevention of drug-induced arrhythmias is necessary, especially in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For the provision of widespread use, surrogates for 12­lead ECG QTc assessment may be useful. This prospective observational study compared QTc duration assessed by artificial intelligence (AI-QTc) (Cardiologs®, Paris, France) on smartwatch single­lead electrocardiograms (SW-ECGs) with those measured on 12­lead ECGs, in patients with early stage COVID-19 treated with a hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin regimen. METHODS: Consecutive patients with COVID-19 who needed hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin therapy, received a smartwatch (Withings Move ECG®, Withings, France). At baseline, day-6 and day-10, a 12­lead ECG was recorded, and a SW-ECG was transmitted thereafter. Throughout the drug regimen, a SW-ECG was transmitted every morning at rest. Agreement between manual QTc measurement on a 12­lead ECG and AI-QTc on the corresponding SW-ECG was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: 85 patients (30 men, mean age 38.3 ± 12.2 years) were included in the study. Fair agreement between manual and AI-QTc values was observed, particularly at day-10, where the delay between the 12­lead ECG and the SW-ECG was the shortest (-2.6 ± 64.7 min): 407 ± 26 ms on the 12­lead ECG vs 407 ± 22 ms on SW-ECG, bias -1 ms, limits of agreement -46 ms to +45 ms; the difference between the two measures was <50 ms in 98.2% of patients. CONCLUSION: In real-world epidemic conditions, AI-QTc duration measured by SW-ECG is in fair agreement with manual measurements on 12­lead ECGs. Following further validation, AI-assisted SW-ECGs may be suitable for QTc interval monitoring. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.govNCT04371744.