The relevance of specific heart failure outpatient programs in the COVID era: an appropriate model for every disease.

Heart Failure (HF) is characterized by an elevated readmission rate, with almost 50% of events occurring after the first episode over the first 6 months of the post-discharge period. In this context, the vulnerable phase represents the period when patients elapse from a sub-acute to a more stabilized chronic phase. The lack of an accurate approach for each HF subtype is probably the main cause of the inconclusive data in reducing the trend of recurrent hospitalizations. Most care programs are based on the main diagnosis and the HF stages, but a model focused on the specific HF etiology is lacking. The HF clinic route based on the HF etiology and the underlying diseases responsible for HF could become an interesting approach, compared with the traditional programs, mainly based on non-specific HF subtypes and New York Heart Association class, rather than on detailed etiologic and epidemiological data. This type of care may reduce the 30-day readmission rates for HF, increase the use of evidence-based therapies, prevent the exacerbation of each comorbidity, improve patient compliance, and decrease the use of resources. For all these reasons, we propose a dedicated outpatient HF program with a daily practice scenario that could improve the early identification of symptom progression and the quality-of-life evaluation, facilitate the access to diagnostic and laboratory tools and improve the utilization of financial resources, together with optimal medical titration and management.

Reintroduction of elective cardiac interventions in the era of COVID-19: the Barts experience.

BACKGROUND: The response to COVID-19 has required cancellation of all but the most urgent procedures; there is therefore a need for the reintroduction of a safe elective pathway. METHODS: This was a study of a pilot pathway performed at Barts Heart Centre for the admission of patients requiring elective coronary and structural procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic (April-June 2020). All patients on coronary and structural waiting lists were screened for procedural indications, urgency and adverse features for COVID-19 prognosis and discussed at dedicated multidisciplinary teams. Dedicated admission pathways involving preadmission isolation, additional consent, COVID-19 PCR testing and dedicated clean areas were used. RESULTS: 143 patients (101 coronary and 42 structural) underwent procedures (coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, transcatheter aortic valve intervention and MitralClip) during the study period. The average age was 68.2; 74% were male; and over 93% had one or more moderate COVID-19 risk factors. All patients were COVID-19 PCR negative on admission with (8.1%) COVID-19 antibody positive (swab negative). All procedures were performed successfully with low rates of procedural complications (9.8%). At 2-week follow-up, no patients had symptoms or confirmed COVID-19 infection with significant improvements in quality if life and symptoms. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that patients undergoing coronary and structural procedures can be safely admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no patients contracting COVID-19 during their admission. Reassuringly, patients reflective of typical practice, that is, those at moderate or higher risk, were treated successfully. This pilot provides important information applicable to other settings, specialties and areas to reintroduce services safely.

Cardiac teleconsulting in the time of COVID-19 global pandemic: The "Antonio Cardarelli" Hospital project.

Dear Editor, Teleconsulting - defined as real-time consultation between doctors by exploiting video conferencing technology over the Internet network - is exponentially being implemented through the western world lastly triggered by COVID-19 pandemic...

Ambulatory cardiology telemedicine: a large academic pediatric center experience.

We performed a retrospective study of cardiology telemedicine visits at a large academic pediatric center between 2016 and 2019 (pre COVID-19). Telemedicine patient visits were matched to data from their previous in-person visits, to evaluate any significant differences in total charge, insurance compensation, patient payment, percent reimbursement and zero reimbursement. Miles were measured between patient's home and the address of previous visit. We found statistically significant differences in mean charges of telemedicine versus in-person visits (2019US$) (172.95 vs 218.27, p=0.0046), patient payment for telemedicine visits versus in-person visits (2019US$) (11.13 vs 62.83, p≤0.001), insurance reimbursement (2019US$) (65.18 vs 110.85, p≤0.001) and insurance reimbursement rate (43% vs 61%, p=0.0029). Rate of zero reimbursement was not different. Mean distance from cardiology clinic was 35 miles. No adverse outcomes were detected. This small retrospective study showed cost reduction and a decrease in travel time for families participating in telemedicine visits. Future work is needed to enhance compensation for telemedicine visits.

Knowledge, perception, and level of confidence regarding COVID-19 care among healthcare workers involved in cardiovascular medicine: a web-based cross-sectional survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a significant impact on daily practice in cardiovascular medicine. The preparedness of healthcare workers (HCWs) can affect the spread of infection and the maintenance of the healthcare system. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, perception, and level of confidence regarding COVID-19 care among HCWs involved in cardiovascular medicine. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based study about COVID-19 was performed between April 22 and May 7, 2020, among 311 HCWs in cardiovascular departments. The demographic information, COVID-19-related knowledge, and perception and level of confidence toward COVID-19 care were assessed. RESULTS: The median age of the participants was 38 years, and 215 (69.8%) were male. There were 134 (43.1%) physicians and 177 (56.9%) non-physician HCWs. The HCWs, especially non-physician HCWs, had insufficient knowledge about infection-prevention measures for COVID-19, such as how to isolate patients with COVID-19, how to use personal protective equipment, and how to prevent infection during aerosol-generating procedures. Most HCWs showed a low level of confidence toward COVID-19 care, and such poor confidence was associated with the lack of knowledge on optimal infection-prevention measures. CONCLUSIONS: This survey revealed the lack of knowledge about adequate infection-prevention measures for COVID-19. More attention should be paid to the preparedness of HCWs, and educating and supporting HCWs involved in cardiovascular medicine is an urgent need.

Surge-in-Place: Conversion of a Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Into a COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit and Back Again.

In Spring 2020, the United States epicenter of COVID-19 was New York City, in which the borough of the Bronx was particularly affected. This Fall, there has been a resurgence of COVID-19 in Europe and the Midwestern United States. We describe our experience transforming our cardiac catheterization laboratories to accommodate an influx of COVID-19 patients so as to provide other hospitals with a potential blueprint. We transformed our pre/postprocedural patient care areas into COVID-19 intensive care and step-down units and maintained emergent invasive care for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction using existing space and personnel.

Electrophysiology in the time of coronavirus: coping with the great wave.

AIMS: To chart the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the activity of interventional electrophysiology services in affected regions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the electrophysiology laboratory records in three affected cities: Wenzhou in China, Milan in Italy, and London in the UK. We inspected catheter lab records and interviewed electrophysiologists in each centre to gather information on the impact of the pandemic on working patterns and on the health of staff members and patients. There was a striking decline in interventional electrophysiology activity in each of the centres. The decline occurred within a week of the recognition of widespread community transmission of the virus in each region and shows a striking correlation with the national figures for new diagnoses of COVID-19 in each case. During the period of restriction, workflow dropped to <5% of normal, consisting of emergency cases only. In two of three centres, electrophysiologists were redeployed to perform emergency work outside electrophysiology. Among the centres studied, only Wenzhou has seen a recovery from the restrictions in activity. Following an intense nationwide programme of public health interventions, local transmission of COVID-19 ceased to be detectable after 18 February allowing the electrophysiology service to resume with a strict testing regime for all patients. CONCLUSION: Interventional electrophysiology is vulnerable to closure in times of great social difficulty including the COVID-19 pandemic. Intense public health intervention can permit suppression of local disease transmission allowing resumption of some normal activity with stringent precautions.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on Provided Healthcare. Evidence From the Emergency Phase in Italy.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic led to an emergency scenario within all aspects of health care, determining reduction in resources for the treatment of other diseases. A literature review was conducted to identify published evidence, from 1 March to 1 June 2020, regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the care provided to patients affected by other diseases. The research is limited to the Italian NHS. The aim is to provide a snapshot of the COVID-19 impact on the NHS and collect useful elements to improve Italian response models. Data available for oncology and cardiology are reported. National surveys, retrospective analyses, and single-hospital evidence are available. We summarized evidence, keeping in mind the entire clinical pathway, from clinical need to access to care to outcomes. Since the beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduced access to inpatient (-48% for IMA) and outpatient services, with a lower volume of elective surgical procedures (in oncology, from 3.8 to 2.6 median number of procedures/week). Telehealth may plays a key role in this, particularly in oncology. While, for cardiology, evidence on health outcome is already available, in terms of increased fatality rates (for STEMI: 13.7 vs. 4.1%). To better understand the impact of COVID-19 on the health of the population, a broader perspective should be taken. Reasons for reduced access to care must be investigated. Patients fears, misleading communication campaigns, re-arranged clinical pathways could had played a role. In addition, impact on other the status of other patients should be mitigated.

In-Hospital Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Before and During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide. This study sought to share our experiences with in-hospital management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We retrospectively analyzed consecutive AMI patients, including those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI), from February 1, 2020, to April 15, 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic), and from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic), respectively. Fifty-three AMI patients (31 STEMI, 22 NSTEMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic were matched to 53 AMI patients before the pandemic. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the matched patients. STEMI patients during the COVID-19 pandemic had a longer delay time, less primary or remedial PCI and more emergency thrombolysis than those before the pandemic. Less coronary angiography and stenting were performed in AMI patients during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic. There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical outcomes between the matched patients. However, STEMI patients during the COVID-19 pandemic had a 4-fold (12.9% vs. 3.2%) increase in all-cause mortality rate compared with those before the pandemic. AMI combined with COVID-19 infection was associated with higher rates of mortality than AMI alone. This study demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic results in significant reperfusion delays in STEMI patients and has a marked impact on the treatment options selection in AMI patients. The mortality rate of STEMI patients exhibits an increasing trend during the pandemic of COVID-19.

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiac procedure activity in England and associated 30-day mortality.

AIMS: Limited data exist on the impact of COVID-19 on national changes in cardiac procedure activity, including patient characteristics and clinical outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: All major cardiac procedures (n = 374 899) performed between 1 January and 31 May for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 were analysed, stratified by procedure type and time-period (pre-COVID: January-May 2018 and 2019 and January-February 2020 and COVID: March-May 2020). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the odds ratio (OR) of 30-day mortality for procedures performed in the COVID period. Overall, there was a deficit of 45 501 procedures during the COVID period compared to the monthly averages (March-May) in 2018-2019. Cardiac catheterization and device implantations were the most affected in terms of numbers (n = 19 637 and n = 10 453), whereas surgical procedures such as mitral valve replacement, other valve replacement/repair, atrioseptal defect/ventriculoseptal defect repair, and coronary artery bypass grafting were the most affected as a relative percentage difference (Δ) to previous years' averages. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was the least affected (Δ -10.6%). No difference in 30-day mortality was observed between pre-COVID and COVID time-periods for all cardiac procedures except cardiac catheterization [OR 1.25 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.47, P = 0.006] and cardiac device implantation (OR 1.35 95% CI 1.15-1.58, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cardiac procedural activity has significantly declined across England during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a deficit in excess of 45 000 procedures, without an increase in risk of mortality for most cardiac procedures performed during the pandemic. Major restructuring of cardiac services is necessary to deal with this deficit, which would inevitably impact long-term morbidity and mortality.

Monitoring indirect impact of COVID-19 pandemic on services for cardiovascular diseases in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor hospital activity for presentation, diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19) pandemic to inform on indirect effects. METHODS: Retrospective serial cross-sectional study in nine UK hospitals using hospital activity data from 28 October 2019 (pre-COVID-19) to 10 May 2020 (pre-easing of lockdown) and for the same weeks during 2018-2019. We analysed aggregate data for selected cardiovascular diseases before and during the epidemic. We produced an online visualisation tool to enable near real-time monitoring of trends. RESULTS: Across nine hospitals, total admissions and emergency department (ED) attendances decreased after lockdown (23 March 2020) by 57.9% (57.1%-58.6%) and 52.9% (52.2%-53.5%), respectively, compared with the previous year. Activity for cardiac, cerebrovascular and other vascular conditions started to decline 1-2 weeks before lockdown and fell by 31%-88% after lockdown, with the greatest reductions observed for coronary artery bypass grafts, carotid endarterectomy, aortic aneurysm repair and peripheral arterial disease procedures. Compared with before the first UK COVID-19 (31 January 2020), activity declined across diseases and specialties between the first case and lockdown (total ED attendances relative reduction (RR) 0.94, 0.93-0.95; total hospital admissions RR 0.96, 0.95-0.97) and after lockdown (attendances RR 0.63, 0.62-0.64; admissions RR 0.59, 0.57-0.60). There was limited recovery towards usual levels of some activities from mid-April 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reductions in total and cardiovascular activities are likely to contribute to a major burden of indirect effects of the pandemic, suggesting they should be monitored and mitigated urgently.

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.

Characteristics and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Events During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Experience From a New York City Public Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at risk for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). It is unknown whether certain characteristics of cardiac arrest care and outcomes of IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic differed compared with a pre-COVID-19 period. METHODS: All patients who experienced an IHCA at our hospital from March 1, 2020 through May 15, 2020, during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and those who had an IHCA from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 were identified. All patient data were extracted from our hospital's Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, a prospective hospital-based archive of IHCA data. Baseline characteristics of patients, interventions, and overall outcomes of IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared with IHCAs in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: There were 125 IHCAs during a 2.5-month period at our hospital during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with 117 IHCAs in all of 2019. IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred more often on general medicine wards than in intensive care units (46% versus 33%; 19% versus 60% in 2019; P<0.001), were overall shorter in duration (median time of 11 minutes [8.5-26.5] versus 15 minutes [7.0-20.0], P=0.001), led to fewer endotracheal intubations (52% versus 85%, P<0.001), and had overall worse survival rates (3% versus 13%; P=0.007) compared with IHCAs before the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who experienced an IHCA during the COVID-19 pandemic had overall worse survival compared with those who had an IHCA before the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight important differences between these 2 time periods. Further study is needed on cardiac arrest care in patients with COVID-19.