RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was associated with a higher risk of arrhythmia in infected patients. However, there are no reports about the effect of the ongoing pandemic on arrhythmias in the non-infected population. We measured the arrhythmia burden in a non-infected population with cardiac implantable devices. METHODS: The arrhythmia burden during the COVID-19 pandemic was compared to a 6-month interval in the pre-COVID-19 period. The COVID-19 pandemic was divided into high-risk (17 January 2020 to 16 March 2020) and low-risk periods (17 March 2020 to 17 July 2020) according to whether there were locally infected patients. Arrhythmia burdens were compared among the pre-COVID-19, high-risk, and low-risk periods. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients with 1859 episodes were included. We observed a larger proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) during the COVID-19 pandemic (38.36% vs 26.03%, p = 0.006). There was not significantly more ventricular arrhythmia during the COVID period than the pre-COVID-19 period (p > 0.05). During the high-risk period, daily frequency of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) (0.0172, 0.0475 vs 0.0109, 0.0164, p < 0.05), atrial tachycardia (AT) (0.0345, 0.0518 vs 0.0164, 0.0219 p < 0.05) and AF (0.0345, 0.0432 vs 0.0164, 0.0186, p < 0.05) and daily duration of NSVT (0.1982, 0.2845 vs 0.0538, 0.1640 p < 0.05) were higher and longer than those in the pre-COVID-19 period. Regression modeling showed that the impact of COVID-19 pandemic lead to an increased onset of AF (odds ratio 2.465; p < 0.01). Patients with paroxysmal AF who had undergone a previous radiofrequency ablation had a lower burden of AF (incidence 21.43% vs 55.00%, P = 0.049, daily frequency 0.0000, 0.0027 vs 0.0000, 241.7978, P = 0.020) during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to a higher burden of arrhythmias in non-infected patients. Patients would experience a lower burden of AF following radiofrequency ablation treatment, and this effect persisted during the pandemic.
RESUMEN
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.