RESUMEN
Aims: Multiparametric remote monitoring of patients with heart failure (HF) has the potential to mitigate the health risks of lockdowns for COVID-19. We aimed to compare healthcare use, physiological variables, and HF decompensations during 1 month before and during the first month of the first French national lockdown for COVID-19 among patients undergoing remote monitoring. Methods and results: Transmitted vital parameters and data from cardiac implantable electronic devices were analysed in 51 patients. Medical contact was defined as the sum of visits and days of hospitalization. The lockdown was associated with a marked decrease in cardiology medical contact (118 days before vs. 26 days during, -77%, P = 0.003) and overall medical contact (180 days before vs. 79 days during, -58%, P = 0.005). Patient adherence with remote monitoring was 84 ± 21% before and 87 ± 19% during lockdown. The lockdown was not associated with significant changes in various parameters, including physical activity (2 ± 1 to 2 ± 1 h/day), weight (83 ± 16 to 83 ± 16 kg), systolic blood pressure (121 ± 19 to 121 ± 18 mmHg), heart rate (68 ± 10 to 67 ± 10 b.p.m.), heart rate variability (89 ± 44 to 78 ± 46 ms, P = 0.05), atrial fibrillation burden (84 ± 146 vs. 86 ± 146 h/month), or thoracic impedance (66 ± 8 to 66 ± 9 Ω). Seven cases of HF decompensations were observed before lockdown, all but one of which required hospitalization, vs. six during lockdown, all but one of which were managed remotely. Conclusions: The lockdown restrictions caused a marked decrease in healthcare use but no significant change in the clinical status of HF patients under multiparametric remote monitoring.
RESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.