Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
European Heart Journal ; 43(SUPPL 1):i120, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1722388


Background: SARS-CoV2 pandemic has caused major impact on patient care worldwide. We experienced a surge of cases beginning March 2020 leading to the government imposing a movement control order, more commonly known as 'lockdown' starting 18th March 2020. As such, various changes were implemented by our center to the clinical pathway for STEMI patients including using thrombolysis as the preferred initial treatment modality. Purpose: We aim to determine the impact of SARS-CoV2 pandemic on the clinical outcome of acute STEMI patients in our center which is a large regional tertiary hospital for cardiology. Methods and results: This is a single center retrospective cross-sectional study from 1st January 2020 until 31st May 2020. We compared clinical outcomes of patients admitted for acute STEMI before (group 1) and after (group 2) 15th March 2020 which is the date our center implemented changes to our STEMI care pathway. A total of 172 cases of acute STEMI was admitted to our center during this period. Admission for STEMI was noticeably lower after the lockdown implementation (group 1, n = 97 vs group 2, n = 75). The median time from symptom to presentation at our center did not differ between the two groups being 4.15h[2.78,7.28] vs 4.42h[2.97,8.01] p = 0.702, suggesting no outof- hospital delays in management. Majority of the patients in group 1 (n = 75, 77.2%) received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs only 17 (22.7%) in group 2. Most in group 2 (n = 54, 72%) received thrombolytic therapy and subsequently underwent coronary intervention within the same admission. This shows a shift in the preferred initial treatment modality for STEMI at our center during this period. The door to balloon time for patients undergoing primary PCI during this period was also numerically higher in group 2 but the difference was not statistically significant at 46min [38,63] vs 59min [45,72], p = 0.063, most likely due to the additional preparation needed in terms of SARS-CoV2 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to the procedure. The primary composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality and cardiogenic shock between the two groups (17.5% vs 24.3%, p = 0.275) did not show any significant difference. The incidence of inhospital mortality and cardiogenic shock were 4.1% vs 6.7% (p = 0.458) and 15.5% vs 21.9% (p = 0.281) respectively. Conclusions: This study suggests that thrombolysis as the preferred initial treatment modality for STEMI could be a reasonable temporary measure during the initial phase of a global pandemic to reduce infection risk of healthcare providers without compromising patient outcomes until adequate PPE and testing modalities are available for primary PCI to be performed safely. A follow-up study is needed to determine the long-term outcome of these patients.