The changing spectrum of cardiovascular emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 influenced treatment strategies and behaviors, particularly cardiovascular emergencies, which may have led to cardiovascular collateral damage. This review article covers aspects of the changing spectrum of cardiac emergencies with a focus on acute coronary syndrome rates and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity based on a selected literature review including the most recent comprehensive meta-analyses.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on acute coronary syndromes in Germany during the first wave: the COVID-19 collateral damage study.

BACKGROUND: Reports about the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of hospital admissions and in-hospital mortality during the first wave between March and May 2020 showed conflicting results and are limited by single-center or limited regional multicenter datasets. Aim of this analysis covering all German federal states was the comprehensive description of hospital admissions and in-hospital mortality during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an observational study on hospital routine data (§21 KHEntgG) and included patients with the main diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (ICD 21 and ICD 22). A total of 159 hospitals included 36,329 patients in the database, with 12,497 patients admitted with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 23,832 admitted with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). There was a significant reduction in the number of patients admitted with STEMI (3748 in 2020, 4263 in 2019 and 4486 in 2018; p < 0.01) and NSTEMI (6957 in 2020, 8437 in 2019 and 8438 in 2020; p < 0.01). These reductions were different between the Federal states of Germany. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed more often in 2020 than in 2019 (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.21) and 2018 (odds ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.12-1.29) in NSTEMI and more often than in 2018 (odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.43) in STEMI. The in-hospital mortality did not differ between the years for STEMI and NSTEMI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this large representative sample size of hospitals in Germany, we observed significantly fewer admissions for NSTEMI and STEMI during the first COVID-19 wave, while quality of in-hospital care and in-hospital mortality were not affected. Admissions for STEMI and NSTEMI during the months March to May over 3 years and corresponding in-hospital mortality for patients with STEMI and NSTEMI in 159 German hospitals. (p-value for admissions 2020 versus 2019 and 2018: < 0.01; p-value for mortality: n.s.).

[ECMO support during the first two waves of the corona pandemic-a survey of high case volume centers in Germany]. / ECMO-Unterstützung während der ersten 2 Wellen der Coronapandemie ­ eine Umfrage an Zentren mit hohen Fallzahlen in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: At the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, concerns were raised about sufficiency of available intensive care resources. In many places, routine interventions were postponed and criteria for the allocation of scarce resources were formulated. In Germany, some hospitals were at times seriously burdened during the course of the pandemic. Intensive care units in particular experienced a shortage of resources, which may have led to a restriction of services and a stricter indication setting for resource-intensive measures such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The aim of this work is to provide an overview of how these pressures were managed at large ECMO centers in Germany. METHODS: One representative of each major ECMO referral center in Germany was invited to participate in an online survey in spring 2021. RESULTS: Of 34 invitations that were sent out, the survey was answered by 23 participants. In all centers, routine procedures were postponed during the pandemic. Half of the centers increased the number of beds on which ECMO procedures could be offered. Nevertheless, in one-third of the centers, the start of at least one ECMO support was delayed because of a feared resource shortage. In 17% of centers, at least one patient was denied ECMO that he or she would have most likely received under prepandemic conditions. CONCLUSION: The results of this online survey indicate that the experienced pressures and resource constraints led some centers to be cautious about ECMO indications.

Gender Differences in Takotsubo Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Male sex in takotsubo syndrome (TTS) has a low incidence and it is still not well characterized. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study is to describe TTS sex differences. METHODS: TTS patients enrolled in the international multicenter GEIST (GErman Italian Spanish Takotsubo) registry were analyzed. Comparisons between sexes were performed within the overall cohort and using an adjusted analysis with 1:1 propensity score matching for age, comorbidities, and kind of trigger. RESULTS: In total, 286 (11%) of 2,492 TTS patients were men. Male patients were younger (age 69 ± 13 years vs 71 ± 11 years; P = 0.005), with higher prevalence of comorbid conditions (diabetes mellitus 25% vs 19%; P = 0.01; pulmonary diseases 21% vs 15%; P = 0.006; malignancies 25% vs 13%; P < 0.001) and physical trigger (55 vs 32% P < 0.01). Propensity-score matching yielded 207 patients from each group. After 1:1 propensity matching, male patients had higher rates of cardiogenic shock and in-hospital mortality (16% vs 6% and 8% vs 3%, respectively; both P < 0.05). Long-term mortality rate was 4.3% per patient-year (men 10%, women 3.8%). Survival analysis showed higher mortality rate in men during the acute phase in both cohorts (overall: P < 0.001; matched: P = 0.001); mortality rate after 60 days was higher in men in the overall (P = 0.002) but not in the matched cohort (P = 0.541). Within the overall population, male sex remained independently associated with both in-hospital (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.16-4.40) and long-term mortality (HR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.32-2.52). CONCLUSIONS: Male TTS is featured by a distinct high-risk phenotype requiring close in-hospital monitoring and long-term follow-up.

Utilization of in- and outpatient hospital care in Germany during the Covid-19 pandemic insights from the German-wide Helios hospital network.

BACKGROUND: During the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, reductions of hospital admissions with a focus on emergencies have been observed for several medical and surgical conditions, while trend data during later stages of the pandemic are scarce. Consequently, this study aims to provide up-to-date hospitalization trends for several conditions including cardiovascular, psychiatry, oncology and surgery cases in both the in- and outpatient setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using claims data of 86 Helios hospitals in Germany, consecutive cases with an in- or outpatient hospital admission between March 13, 2020 (the begin of the "protection" stage of the German pandemic plan) and December 10, 2020 (end of study period) were analyzed and compared to a corresponding period covering the same weeks in 2019. Cause-specific hospitalizations were defined based on the primary discharge diagnosis according to International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or German procedure classification codes for cardiovascular, oncology, psychiatry and surgery cases. Cumulative hospitalization deficit was computed as the difference between the expected and observed cumulative admission number for every week in the study period, expressed as a percentage of the cumulative expected number. The expected admission number was defined as the weekly average during the control period. A total of 1,493,915 hospital admissions (723,364 during the study and 770,551 during the control period) were included. At the end of the study period, total cumulative hospitalization deficit was -10% [95% confidence interval -10; -10] for cardiovascular and -9% [-10; -9] for surgical cases, higher than -4% [-4; -3] in psychiatry and 4% [4; 4] in oncology cases. The utilization of inpatient care and subsequent hospitalization deficit was similar in trend with some variation in magnitude between cardiovascular (-12% [-13; -12]), psychiatry (-18% [-19; -17]), oncology (-7% [-8; -7]) and surgery cases (-11% [-11; -11]). Similarly, cardiovascular and surgical outpatient cases had a deficit of -5% [-6; -5] and -3% [-4; -3], respectively. This was in contrast to psychiatry (2% [1; 2]) and oncology cases (21% [20; 21]) that had a surplus in the outpatient sector. While in-hospital mortality, was higher during the Covid-19 pandemic in cardiovascular (3.9 vs. 3.5%, OR 1.10 [95% CI 1.06-1.15], P<0.01) and in oncology cases (4.5 vs. 4.3%, OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.01-1.11], P<0.01), it was similar in surgical (0.9 vs. 0.8%, OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.00-1.13], P = 0.07) and in psychiatry cases (0.4 vs. 0.5%, OR 1.01 [95% CI 0.78-1.31], P<0.95). CONCLUSIONS: There have been varying changes in care pathways and in-hospital mortality in different disciplines during the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany. Despite all the inherent and well-known limitations of claims data use, this data may be used for health care surveillance as the pandemic continues worldwide. While this study provides an up-to-date analysis of utilization of hospital care in the largest German hospital network, short- and long-term consequences are unknown and deserve further studies.

[COVID-19 pandemic : Effects on clinical care of cardiovascular patients in spring 2020]. / COVID-19-Pandemie : Effekte auf die klinische Versorgung von Herz-Kreislauf-Patienten im Frühling 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a focus of acute medical care on the treatment of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and pneumonia with consequences for all other medical specialties. Between March and May 2020 a decline in the number of admissions for elective cardiac procedures as well as for cardiac emergencies was observed. The number of patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction decreased, especially those with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), while time intervals between symptom onset and admission sometimes increased. In some studies an increase in infarct-related mortality was reported. There are multiple possible reasons for these findings, which include fear of patients to become infected with SARS-CoV­2 in hospital, misinterpretation of symptoms and focusing of the healthcare system on the pandemic. In addition, SARS-CoV­2 can lead to a higher proneness to thrombosis and therefore induce more severe courses of myocardial infarction.

Hospitalization deficit of in- and outpatient cases with cardiovascular diseases and utilization of cardiological interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from the German-wide helios hospital network.

BACKGROUND: Treatment numbers of various cardiovascular diseases were reduced throughout the early phase of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Aim of this study was to (a) expand previous study periods to examine the long-term course of hospital admission numbers, (b) provide data for in- and outpatient care pathways, and (c) illustrate changes of numbers of cardiovascular procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Administrative data of patients with ICD-10-encoded primary diagnoses of cardiovascular diseases (heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, valvular heart disease, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease) and in- or outpatient treatment between March, 13th 2020 and September, 10th 2020 were analyzed and compared with 2019 data. Numbers of cardiovascular procedures were calculated using OPS-codes. The cumulative hospital admission deficit (CumAD) was computed as the difference between expected and observed admissions for every week in 2020. In total, 80 hospitals contributed 294 361 patient cases to the database without relevant differences in baseline characteristics between the studied periods. There was a CumAD of -10% to -16% at the end of the study interval in 2020 for all disease groups driven to varying degrees by both reductions of in- and outpatient case numbers. The number of performed interventions was significantly reduced for all examined procedures (catheter ablations: -10%; cardiac electronic device implantations: -7%; percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: -9%; cardiovascular surgery: -15%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides data on the long-term development of cardiovascular patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrating a significant CumAD for several cardiovascular diseases and a concomitant performance deficit of cardiovascular interventions.

Impact of oral anticoagulation on clinical outcomes of COVID-19: a nationwide cohort study of hospitalized patients in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of concomitant long-term medication-with a focus on ACE inhibitors and oral anticoagulation-on clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using claims data of the biggest German health insurance company AOK, covering 26.9 million people all over Germany. In particular, patient-related characteristics and co-medication were evaluated. A multivariable logistic regression model was adopted to identify independent predictors for the primary outcome measure of all-cause mortality or need for invasive or non-invasive ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. RESULTS: 6637 patients in 853 German hospitals were included. The primary outcome occurred in 1826 patients (27.5%). 1372 patients (20.7%) died, 886 patients (13.3%) needed respiratory support, and 53 patients (0.8%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. 34 of these patients survived (64.2%). The multivariable model demonstrated that pre-existing oral anticoagulation therapy with either vitamin-K antagonists OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.40-0.83, p = 0.003) or direct oral anticoagulants OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.56-0.91, p = 0.007)-but not with antiplatelet therapy alone OR 1.10 (95% CI 0.88-1.23, p = 0.66)-was associated with a lower event rate. This finding was confirmed in a propensity match analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In a multivariable analysis, a therapy with both direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin-K antagonists-but not with antiplatelet therapy-was associated with improved clinical outcomes. ACE inhibitors did not impact outcomes. Prospective randomized trials are needed to verify this hypothesis.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak on Acute Admissions at the Emergency and Cardiology Departments Across Europe.

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) pandemic was associated with changes in the pattern of acute cardiovascular admissions across European centers. METHODS: We set-up a multicenter, multinational, pan-European observational registry in 15 centers from 12 countries. All consecutive acute admissions to emergency departments and cardiology departments throughout a 1-month period during the COVID-19 outbreak were compared with an equivalent 1-month period in 2019. The acute admissions to cardiology departments were classified into 5 major categories: acute coronary syndrome, acute heart failure, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, and other. RESULTS: Data from 54,331 patients were collected and analyzed. Nine centers provided data on acute admissions to emergency departments comprising 50,384 patients: 20,226 in 2020 compared with 30,158 in 2019 (incidence rate ratio [IRR] with 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.66 [0.58-0.76]). The risk of death at the emergency departments was higher in 2020 compared to 2019 (odds ratio [OR] with 95% CI: 4.1 [3.0-5.8], P < 0.0001). All 15 centers provided data on acute cardiology departments admissions: 3007 patients in 2020 and 4452 in 2019; IRR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.64-0.71). In 2020, there were fewer admissions with IRR (95% CI): acute coronary syndrome: 0.68 (0.63-0.73); acute heart failure: 0.65 (0.58-0.74); arrhythmia: 0.66 (0.60-0.72); and other: 0.68(0.62-0.76). We found a relatively higher percentage of pulmonary embolism admissions in 2020: odds ratio (95% CI): 1.5 (1.1-2.1), P = 0.02. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, there were fewer admissions with unstable angina: 0.79 (0.66-0.94); non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: 0.56 (0.50-0.64); and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 0.78 (0.68-0.89). CONCLUSION: In the European centers during the COVID-19 outbreak, there were fewer acute cardiovascular admissions. Also, fewer patients were admitted to the emergency departments with 4 times higher death risk at the emergency departments.