Deferral of Non-Emergency Cardiovascular Interventions Triggers Increased Cardiac Emergency Admissions-Analysis of the COVID-19 Related Lockdown.

BACKGROUND: Data on the relation between non-emergency and emergency cardiac admission rates during the COVID-19 lockdown and post-lockdown period are sparse. METHODS: Consecutive cardiac patients admitted to our tertiary heart center between 1 January and 30 June 2020 were included. The observation period of 6 months was analyzed in total and divided into three defined time periods: the pre-lockdown (1 January-19 March), lockdown (20 March-19 April), and post-lockdown (20 April-30 June) period. These were compared to the reference periods 2019 and 2022 using daily admission rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Over the observation period from 1 January to 30 June, cardiac admissions (including non-emergency and emergency) were comparable between 2019, 2020, and 2022 (n = 2889, n = 2952, n = 2956; p = 0.845). However, when compared to the reference period 2019, non-emergency admissions decreased in 2020 (1364 vs. 1663; p = 0.02), while emergency admissions significantly increased (1588 vs. 1226; p < 0.001). Further analysis of the lockdown period revealed that non-emergency admissions dropped by 82% (IRR 0.18; 95%-CI 0.14-0.24; p < 0.001) and 42% fewer invasive cardiac interventions were performed (p < 0.001), whereas the post-lockdown period showed a 52% increase of emergency admissions (IRR 1.47; 95%-CI 1.31-1.65; p < 0.001) compared to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a drastic surge of emergency cardiac admissions post-COVID-19 related lockdown suggesting that patients who did not keep their non-emergency appointment had to be admitted as an emergency later on.

Deferral of non-emergency cardiac procedures is associated with increased early emergency cardiovascular hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in anticipation of a demand surge for high-care hospital beds, many hospitals postponed non-emergency interventions of cardiac patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of cardiac patients whose non-emergency interventions had been deferred during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patients whose non-emergency cardiac intervention had been cancelled between March 19th and April 30th, 2020 were included (study group). All patients were considered as deferrable according to current recommendations. Patients' outcomes after 12 months were compared to a seasonal control group who underwent non-emergency interventions in 2019 as scheduled. The primary endpoint was a composite of emergency cardiovascular hospitalization and death. Secondary endpoints were levels of symptoms and cardiac biomarkers. RESULTS: Outcomes of 193 consecutive patients in the study group were assessed and compared to 216 controls. The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in the study group (HR 2.42, 95%CI 1.63-3.61, p < 0.001). This was driven by an increase in hospitalizations. Subgroup analyses showed that especially patients with a deferred transcatheter heart valve intervention experienced early emergency hospitalization (HR 9.55, 95%CI 3.70-24.62, p < 0.001). These findings were accompanied by more pronounced symptoms and higher biomarker levels. CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of non-emergency cardiac interventions to meet the higher demand for hospital beds during the COVID-19 crisis is associated with early emergency cardiovascular hospitalizations. Patients suffering from valvular heart disease especially constitute a vulnerable group. Consequently, our results suggest that current recommendations on the management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic need revision.

The Effect of the Lockdown on Patients With Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic­A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The phenomenon of declining numbers of patients presenting with myocardial infarction was reported from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic onward. It was thought that measures introduced to stem the pandemic, such as the lockdown, contributed to this development. However, the data on hospital admissions, delay times, and mortality are not consistent. METHODS: Our systematic literature review and meta-analysis embraced studies reporting the number of hospital admissions of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and/or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) during lockdown episodes. We also collected data on patient- and system-related delay times and on mortality. RESULTS: Data from 27 studies on a total of 81 163 patients were included in our meta-analysis. We found that the number of hospital admissions of patients with myocardial infarction was significantly lower during the lockdown than before the pandemic (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.516 [0.403; 0.660], I2 = 98%). This was true both for patients with STEMI (IRR = 0.620 [0.514; 0.746], I2 = 96%) and for patients with NSTEMI (IRR = 0.454 [0.354; 0.584], I2 = 96%). However, we found no significant difference in the time from hospital admission to cardiac catheterization, or in mortality, in relation to the time from symptom onset to first medical contact. CONCLUSION: In this study, we have shown that the lockdown due to COVID-19 was associated with a marked decline in the number of hospital admissions of patients with myocardial infarction. As no significant effect on delay times or mortality was observed, it seems that timely medical care continued to be delivered.