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.

How Did the Number and Type of Injuries in Patients Presenting to a Regional Level I Trauma Center Change During the COVID-19 Pandemic with a Stay-at-home Order?

BACKGROUND: During a pandemic, it is paramount to understand volume changes in Level I trauma so that with appropriate planning and reallocation of resources, these facilities can maintain and even improve life-saving capabilities. Evaluating nonaccidental and accidental trauma can highlight potential areas of improvement in societal behavior and hospital preparedness. These critical questions were proposed to better understand how healthcare leaders might adjust surgeon and team coverage of trauma services as well as prepare from a system standpoint what resources will be needed during a pandemic or similar crisis to maintain services. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How did the total observed number of trauma activations, defined as patients who meet mechanism of injury requirements which trigger the notification and aggregation of the trauma team upon entering the emergency department, change during a pandemic and stay-at-home order? (2) How did the proportion of major mechanisms of traumatic injury change during this time period? (3) How did the proportion and absolute numbers of accidental versus nonaccidental traumatic injury in children and adults change during this time period? METHODS: This was a retrospective study of trauma activations at a Level I trauma center in New Orleans, LA, USA, using trauma registry data of all patients presenting to the trauma center from 2017 to 2020. The number of trauma activations during a government mandated coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) stay-at-home order (from March 20, 2020 to May 14, 2020) was compared with the expected number of activations for the same time period from 2017 to 2019, called "predicted period". The expected number (predicted period) was assumed based on the linear trend of trauma activations seen in the prior 3 years (2017 to 2019) for the same date range (March 20, 2020 to May 14, 2020). To define the total number of traumatic injuries, account for proportion changes, and evaluate fluctuation in accidental verses nonaccidental trauma, variables including type of traumatic injury (blunt, penetrating, and thermal), and mechanism of injury (gunshot wound, fall, knife wound, motor vehicle collision, assault, burns) were collected for each patient. RESULTS: There were fewer total trauma activations during the stay-at-home period than during the predicted period (372 versus 532 [95% CI 77 to 122]; p = 0.016). The proportion of penetrating trauma among total activations was greater during the stay-at-home period than during the predicted period (35% [129 of 372] versus 26% [141 of 532]; p = 0.01), while the proportion of blunt trauma was lower during the stay-at-home period than during the predicted period (63 % [236 of 372] versus 71% [376 of 532]; p = 0.02). The proportion of gunshot wounds in relation to total activations was greater during the stay-at-home period than expected (26% [97 of 372] versus 18% [96 of 532]; p = 0.004). There were fewer motor vehicle collisions in relation to total activations during the stay-at-home period than expected (42% [156 of 372] versus 49% [263 of 532]; p = 0.03). Among total trauma activations, the stay-at-home period had a lower proportion of accidental injuries than the predicted period (55% [203 of 372] versus 61% [326 of 532]; p = 0.05), and there was a greater proportion of nonaccidental injuries than the predicted period (37% [137 of 372] versus 27% [143 of 532]; p < 0.001). In adults, the stay-at-home period had a greater proportion of nonaccidental injuries than the predicted period (38% [123 of 328] versus 26% [123 of 466]; p < 0.001). There was no difference between the stay-at-home period and predicted period in nonaccidental and accidental injuries among children. CONCLUSION: Data from the trauma registry at our region's only Level I trauma center indicate that a stay-at-home order during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a 70% reduction in the number of traumatic injuries, and the types of injuries shifted from more accidental blunt trauma to more nonaccidental penetrating trauma. Non-accidental trauma, including gunshot wounds, increased during this period, which suggest community awareness, crisis de-escalation strategies, and programs need to be created to address violence in the community. Understanding these changes allows for adjustments in staffing schedules. Surgeons and trauma teams could allow for longer shifts between changeover, decreasing viral exposure because the volume of work would be lower. Understanding the shift in injury could also lead to a change in specialists covering call. With the often limited availability of orthopaedic trauma-trained surgeons who can perform life-saving pelvis and acetabular surgery, this data may be used to mitigate exposure of these surgeons during pandemic situations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Cardiac surgery in North America and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Regional variability in burden and impact.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in an increase in hospital resource utilization and the need to defer nonurgent cardiac surgery procedures. The present study aims to report the regional variations of North American adult cardiac surgical case volume and case mix through the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A survey was sent to recruit participating adult cardiac surgery centers in North America. Data in regard to changes in institutional and regional cardiac surgical case volume and mix were analyzed. RESULTS: Our study comprises 67 adult cardiac surgery institutions with diverse geographic distribution across North America, representing annualized case volumes of 60,452 in 2019. Nonurgent surgery was stopped during the month of March 2020 in the majority of centers (96%), resulting in a decline to 45% of baseline with significant regional variation. Hospitals with a high burden of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrated similar trends of decline in total volume as centers in low burden areas. As a proportion of total surgical volume, there was a relative increase of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (high +7.2% vs low +4.2%, P = .550), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (high +2.5% vs low 0.4%, P = .328), and heart transplantation (high +2.7% vs low 0.4%, P = .090), and decline in valvular cases (high -7.6% vs low -2.6%, P = .195). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates the impact of COVID-19 on North American cardiac surgery institutions as well as helps associate region and COVID-19 burden with the impact on cardiac surgery volumes and case mix.

Collateral damage - Impact of a pandemic on stroke emergency services.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on stroke care is two-fold direct impact of the infection and indirect impact on non-COVID-19 diseases. Anecdotal evidence and clinical observation suggest that there is a decrease in the number of patients presenting with stroke during the pandemic. We aim to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the utilization of stroke emergency services on a single comprehensive stroke center (CSC). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database and compared all emergency department (ED) encounters, acute stroke admissions (including TIA), and thrombectomy cases admitted in March 2017-2019 to patients admitted in March 2020 at a comprehensive stroke center. RESULTS: Number of total ED encounters (22%, p=0.005), acute ischemic strokes (40%, p=0.001), and TIAs (60%, p=0.163) decreased between March of 2017-2019 compared to March of 2020. The number of patients undergoing EVT in March 2020 was comparable to March 2017-2019 (p=0.430). CONCLUSION: A pandemic-related stay-at-home policy reduces the utilization of stroke emergency services at a CSC. This effect appears to be more prominent for ED encounters, all stroke admissions and TIAs, and less impactful for severe strokes. Given the relatively low prevalence of COVID-19 cases in our region, this decrement is likely related to healthcare seeking behavior rather than capacity saturation.

31 days of COVID-19-cardiac events during restriction of public life-a comparative study.

AIMS: The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 outbreak led to the most recent pandemic of the twenty-first century. To contain spread of the virus, many nations introduced a public lockdown. How the pandemic itself and measures of social restriction affect hospital admissions due to acute cardiac events has rarely been evaluated yet. METHODS AND RESULTS: German public authorities announced measures of social restriction between March 21st and April 20th, 2020. During this period, all patients suffering from an acute cardiac event admitted to our hospital (N = 94) were assessed and incidence rate ratios (IRR) of admissions for acute cardiac events estimated, and compared with those during the same period in the previous three years (2017-2019, N = 361). Admissions due to cardiac events were reduced by 22% as compared to the previous years (n = 94 vs. an average of n = 120 per year for 2017-2019). Whereas IRR for STEMI 1.20 (95% CI 0.67-2.14) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest IRR 0.82 (95% CI 0.33-2.02) remained similar, overall admissions with an IRR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.62-0.98) and IRR for NSTEMI with 0.46 (95% CI 0.27-0.78) were significantly lower. In STEMI patients, plasma concentrations of high-sensitivity troponin T at admission were significantly higher (644 ng/l, IQR 372-2388) compared to 2017-2019 (195 ng/l, IQR 84-1134; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and concomitant social restrictions are associated with reduced cardiac events admissions to our tertiary care center. From a public health perspective, strategies have to be developed to assure patients are seeking and getting medical care and treatment in time during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.