Smartphone-Based Screening for Cardiovascular Diseases: A Trend?

Abstract Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the world. People living in vulnerable and poor places such as slums, rural areas and remote locations have difficulty in accessing medical care and diagnostic tests. In addition, given the COVID-19 pandemic, we are witnessing an increase in the use of telemedicine and non-invasive tools for monitoring vital signs. These questions motivate us to write this point of view and to describe some of the main innovations used for non-invasive screening of heart diseases. Smartphones are widely used by the population and are perfect tools for screening cardiovascular diseases. They are equipped with camera, flashlight, microphone, processor, and internet connection, which allow optical, electrical, and acoustic analysis of cardiovascular phenomena. Thus, when using signal processing and artificial intelligence approaches, smartphones may have predictive power for cardiovascular diseases. Here we present different smartphone approaches to analyze signals obtained from various methods including photoplethysmography, phonocardiograph, and electrocardiography to estimate heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart murmurs and electrical conduction. Our objective is to present innovations in non-invasive diagnostics using the smartphone and to reflect on these trending approaches. These could help to improve health access and the screening of cardiovascular diseases for millions of people, particularly those living in needy areas.

Triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was previously unknown, and we are learning about it day by day, but pandemic-associated ethical dilemmas have been studied and discussed for years. Triage means not only ranking in terms of importance (prioritisation) but also allocation of limited medical resources. Survival, post epidemic-quality of life, and consumption of medical resources required to achieve the set goal are crucial for making triage decisions. The pandemic triage decisions should be based on a protocol, considering the need for medical measures and therapy benefits. The first step is to consider the exclusion criteria and the risk of death. The next step is sequential clinical assessment, repeatable at defined intervals. It seems that the preferable solution is to triage all the patients and give priority to those who would benefit more. A prerequisite for allocating insufficient medical resources is public trust in the criteria for allocation.

Patient Perceptions of Drive-through Medical Treatment Facilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The cumulative burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the United States' healthcare system is substantial. To help mitigate this burden, novel solutions including telehealth and dedicated screening facilities have been used. However, there is limited data on the efficacy of such models and none assessing patient comfort levels with these changes in healthcare delivery. The aim of our study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of a drive-through medical treatment system in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Patients presenting to a drive-through COVID-19 medical treatment facility were surveyed about their experience following their visit. An anonymous questionnaire consisting of five questions, using a five-point Likert scale was distributed via electronic tablet. RESULTS: We obtained 827 responses over two months. Three quarters of respondents believed care received was similar to that in a traditional emergency department (ED). Overall positive impression of the drive-through was 86.6%, and 95% believed that it was more convenient. CONCLUSION: Overall, the drive-through medical system was perceived as more convenient than the ED and was viewed as a positive experience. While representing a dramatic change in the delivery model of medical care, if such systems can provide comparable levels of care, they may be a viable option for sustained and surge healthcare delivery.

Implementation of Drive-Through Testing for COVID-19 Using an External Emergency Department Triage.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare systems in many regions of the country were being overwhelmed by large numbers of patients needing care. In this paper, we discuss use of an external emergency department (ED) site by a hospital system based in Charlotte, North Carolina to address concerns of a local surge similar to those seen around the country. OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate how expansion of ED facilities can increase efficiency of care for patients while also improving safety for clinicians, staff, and non-infected patients. METHODS: We describe development and implementation of our external ED drive-through testing sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected data from three external ED sites in the Atrium Health system between March 15th and April 15th, 2020. Patients were included if they were seen at one of the sites and tested for COVID-19. There were no exclusion criteria. We analyzed the data to identify any differences in patient demographics between sites. RESULTS: We saw 580 patients across the three sites, 302 of whom met criteria for COVID-19 testing. The majority of patients tested were Caucasian females. The majority who tested positive, however, were males. Thirteen patients were redirected into the hospital ED for further medical evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: External expansion of the ED is an important strategy that can allow hospitals to accommodate potentially infectious patients while maintaining appropriate isolation and rapid throughput. Proper implementation of the right system to meet hospital-specific needs can prove effective for the healthcare system.

Preliminary Assessment of a Telehealth Approach to Evaluating, Treating, and Discharging Low-Acuity Patients With Suspected COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is uniquely positioned to address challenges posed to emergency departments (EDs) by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. By reducing in-person contact, it should decrease provider risk of infection and preserve personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the early results of a novel telehealth workflow in which remote providers collaborate with in-person nursing to evaluate and discharge well-appearing, low-risk ED patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was completed 3 weeks after implementation. Metrics include the number of patients evaluated, number of patients discharged without in-person contact, telehealth wait time and duration, collection of testing, ED length of stay (ED-LOS), 72-h return, number of in-person health care provider contacts, and associated PPE use. RESULTS: Among 302 patients evaluated by telehealth, 153 patients were evaluated and discharged by a telehealth provider with reductions in ED-LOS, PPE use, and close contact with health care personnel. These patients had a 62.5% shorter ED-LOS compared with other Emergency Severity Index level 4 patients seen over the same time period. Telehealth use for these 153 patients saved 413 sets of PPE. We observed a 3.9% 72-h revisit rate. One patient discharged after telehealth evaluation was hospitalized on a return visit 9 days later. CONCLUSION: Telehealth can be safely and efficiently used to evaluate, treat, test, and discharge ED patients suspected to have COVID-19. This workflow reduces infection risks to health care providers, PPE use, and ED-LOS. Additionally, it allows quarantined but otherwise well clinicians to continue working.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgery delays and survival in breast, lung and colon cancers: Implication for surgical triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of cancer surgeries were delayed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines if surgical delays impact survival for breast, lung and colon cancers. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Articles evaluating the relationship between delays in surgery and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) were included. RESULTS: Of the 14,422 articles screened, 25 were included in the review and 18 (totaling 2,533,355 patients) were pooled for meta-analyses. Delaying surgery for 12 weeks may decrease OS in breast (HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.28-1.65), lung (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.02-1.06) and colon (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.12-1.38) cancers. When breast cancers were analyzed by stage, OS was decreased in stages I (HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.16-1.40) and II (HR 1.13, 95%CI 1.02-1.24) but not in stage III (HR 1.20, 95%CI 0.94-1.53). CONCLUSION: Delaying breast, lung and colon cancer surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic may decrease survival.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on an academic vascular practice and a multidisciplinary limb preservation program.

With the aggressive resource conservation necessary to face the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, vascular surgeons have faced unique challenges in managing the health of their high-risk patients. An early analysis of patient outcomes after pandemic-related practice changes suggested that patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia have been presenting with more severe foot infections and are more likely to require major limb amputation compared with 6 months previously. As our society and health care system adapt to the new changes required in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 era, it is critical that we pay special attention to the most vulnerable subsets of patients with vascular disease, particularly those with chronic limb threatening ischemia and limited access to care.

The COVID-19 epidemic and reorganisation of triage, an observational study.

Recent studies have suggested different organisational strategies, modifying Emergency Departments (EDs) during the COVID-19 epidemic. However, real data on the practical application of these strategies are not yet available. The objective of this study is to evaluate the inclusion of pre-triage during the COVID-19 outbreak. In March 2020, the structure of the ED at Merano General Hospital (Italy) was modified, with the introduction of a pre-triage protocol to divide patients according to the risk of infection. The performance of pre-triage was evaluated for sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV). From 4th to 31st March, 2,279 patients were successively evaluated at the pre-triage stage. Of these, 257 were discharged directly from pre-triage by triage out or home quarantine and none has subsequently been hospitalised. Of the 2022 patients admitted to ED, 182 were allocated to an infected area and 1840 to a clean area. The proportion of patients who tested COVID-19 positive was 5% and, of these, 91.1% were allocated to the infected area. The pre-triage protocol demonstrated sensitivity of 91.1%, specificity of 95.3% and NPV of 99.5%. In addition, none of the healthcare workers was infected during the study period. Pre-triage can be a useful tool that, if standardised and associated with a change in the structure of the ED, can limit the spread of infection within the ED, optimise ED resources and protect healthcare workers.

Global change of surgical and oncological clinical practice in urology during early COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic captures healthcare resources worldwide, data on the impact of prioritization strategies in urology during pandemic are absent. We aimed to quantitatively assess the global change in surgical and oncological clinical practice in the early COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational study, we designed a 12-item online survey on the global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice in urology. Demographic survey data, change of clinical practice, current performance of procedures, and current commencement of treatment for 5 conditions in medical urological oncology were evaluated. RESULTS: 235 urologists from 44 countries responded. Out of them, 93% indicated a change of clinical practice due to COVID-19. In a 4-tiered surgery down-escalation scheme, 44% reported to make first cancellations, 23% secondary cancellations, 20% last cancellations and 13% emergency cases only. Oncological surgeries had low cancellation rates (%): transurethral resection of bladder tumor (27%), radical cystectomy (21-24%), nephroureterectomy (21%), radical nephrectomy (18%), and radical orchiectomy (8%). (Neo)adjuvant/palliative treatment is currently not started by more than half of the urologists. COVID-19 high-risk-countries had higher total cancellation rates for non-oncological procedures (78% vs. 68%, p = 0.01) and were performing oncological treatment for metastatic diseases at a lower rate (35% vs. 48%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical practice of 93% of urologists worldwide. The impact of implementing surgical prioritization protocols with moderate cancellation rates for oncological surgeries and delay or reduction in (neo)adjuvant/palliative treatment will have to be evaluated after the pandemic.

Not just little adults: preparing a children's emergency department for COVID-19.

COVID-19 presented unique challenges in preparing our stand-alone children's emergency department for the pandemic and has demonstrated well the paediatric adage, 'children aren't little adults'.

Prioritizing elective cardiovascular procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: The cardiovascular medically necessary, time-sensitive procedure scorecard.

BACKGROUND: Following the surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, government regulations, and recommendations from professional societies have conditioned the resumption of elective surgical and cardiovascular (CV) procedures on having strategies to prioritize cases because of concerns regarding the availability of sufficient resources and the risk of COVID-19 transmission. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the use of a scoring system for standardized triage of elective CV procedures. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of patients scheduled for elective CV procedures that were prioritized ad hoc to be either performed or deferred when New Jersey state orders limited the performance of elective procedures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients in both groups were scored using our proposed CV medically necessary, time-sensitive (MeNTS) procedure scorecard, designed to stratify procedures based on a composite measure of hospital resource utilization, risk of COVID-19 exposure, and time sensitivity. RESULTS: A total of 109 scheduled elective procedures were either deferred (n = 58) or performed (n = 51). The median and mean cumulative CV MeNTS scores for the group of performed cases were significantly lower than for the deferred group (26 (interquartile range (IQR) 22-31) vs. 33 (IQR 28-39), p < .001, and 26.4 (SE 0.34) vs. 32.9 (SE 0.35), p < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The CV MeNTS procedure score was able to stratify elective cases that were either performed or deferred using an ad hoc strategy. Our findings suggest that the CV MeNTS procedure scorecard may be useful for the fair triage of elective CV cases during the time when available capacity may be limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic.