Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on STEMI undergoing primary PCI treatment in Beijing, China.

OBJECTIVE: Strict control measures under the COVID epidemic have brought an inevitable impact on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)'s emergency treatment. We investigated the impact of the COVID on the treatment of patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. METHODS: In this single center cohort study, we selected a time frame of 6 month after declaration of COVID-19 infection (Jan 24-July 24, 2020); a group of STEMI patients in the same period of 2019 was used as control. Finally, a total of 246 STEMI patients, who were underwent primary PCI, were enrolled into the study (136 non COVID-19 outbreak periods and 110 COVID-19 outbreak periods). The impact of COVID on the time of symptom onset to the first medical contact (symptom-to-FMC) and door to balloon (D-to-B) was investigated. Moreover, the primary outcome was in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, heart failure and malignant arrhythmia. RESULTS: Compared with the same period in 2019, there was a 19% decrease in the total number of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI at the peak of the pandemic in 2020. The delay in symptom-to-FMC was significantly longer in COVID Outbreak period (180 [68.75, 342] vs 120 [60,240] min, P = 0.003), and the D-to-B times increased significantly (148 [115-190] vs 84 [70-120] min, P < 0.001). However, among patients with STEMI, MACE was similar in both time periods (18.3% vs 25.7%, p = 0.168). On multivariable analysis, COVID was not independently associated with MACE; the history of diabetes, left main disease and age>65 years were the strongest predictors of MACE in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID pandemic was not independently associated with MACE; suggesting that active primary PCI treatment preserved high-quality standards even when challenged by a severe epidemic. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://ClinicalTrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT04427735.

Respiratory support after delayed cord clamping: a prospective cohort study of at-risk births at ≥35+0 weeks gestation.

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors associated with delivery room respiratory support in at-risk infants who are initially vigorous and received delayed cord clamping (DCC). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two perinatal centres in Melbourne, Australia. PATIENTS: At-risk infants born at ≥35+0 weeks gestation with a paediatric doctor in attendance who were initially vigorous and received DCC for >60 s. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Delivery room respiratory support defined as facemask positive pressure ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure and/or supplemental oxygen within 10 min of birth. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-eight infants born at a median (IQR) gestational age of 39+3 (38+2-40+2) weeks were included. Cord clamping occurred at a median (IQR) of 128 (123-145) s. Forty-four (15%) infants received respiratory support at a median of 214 (IQR 156-326) s after birth. Neonatal unit admission for respiratory distress occurred in 32% of infants receiving delivery room respiratory support vs 1% of infants who did not receive delivery room respiratory support (p<0.001). Risk factors independently associated with delivery room respiratory support were average heart rate (HR) at 90-120 s after birth (determined using three-lead ECG), mode of birth and time to establish regular cries. Decision tree analysis identified that infants at highest risk had an average HR of <165 beats per minute at 90-120 s after birth following caesarean section (risk of 39%). Infants with an average HR of ≥165 beats per minute at 90-120 s after birth were at low risk (5%). CONCLUSIONS: We present a clinical decision pathway for at-risk infants who may benefit from close observation following DCC. Our findings provide a novel perspective of HR beyond the traditional threshold of 100 beats per minute.

The Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome: should patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen be included?

The 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) provided validated support for three levels of initial arterial hypoxaemia that correlated with mortality in patients receiving ventilatory support. Since 2015, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has become widely used as an effective therapeutic support for acute respiratory failure, most recently in patients with severe COVID-19. We propose that the Berlin definition of ARDS be broadened to include patients treated with HFNO of at least 30 L/min who fulfil the other criteria for the Berlin definition of ARDS. An expanded definition would make the diagnosis of ARDS more widely applicable, allowing patients at an earlier stage of the syndrome to be recognised, independent of the need for endotracheal intubation or positive-pressure ventilation, with benefits for the testing of early interventions and the study of factors associated with the course of ARDS. We identify key questions that could be addressed in refining an expanded definition of ARDS, the implementation of which could lead to improvements in clinical practice and clinical outcomes for patients.

Optimized delay of the second COVID-19 vaccine dose reduces ICU admissions.

Slower than anticipated, COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution have impaired efforts to curtail the current pandemic. The standard administration schedule for most COVID-19 vaccines currently approved is two doses administered 3 to 4 wk apart. To increase the number of individuals with partial protection, some governments are considering delaying the second vaccine dose. However, the delay duration must take into account crucial factors, such as the degree of protection conferred by a single dose, the anticipated vaccine supply pipeline, and the potential emergence of more virulent COVID-19 variants. To help guide decision-making, we propose here an optimization model based on extended susceptible, exposed, infectious, and removed (SEIR) dynamics that determines the optimal delay duration between the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses. The model assumes lenient social distancing and uses intensive care unit (ICU) admission as a key metric while selecting the optimal duration between doses vs. the standard 4-wk delay. While epistemic uncertainties apply to the interpretation of simulation outputs, we found that the delay is dependent on the vaccine mechanism of action and first-dose efficacy. For infection-blocking vaccines with first-dose efficacy ≥50%, the model predicts that the second dose can be delayed by ≥8 wk (half of the maximal delay), whereas for symptom-alleviating vaccines, the same delay is recommended only if the first-dose efficacy is ≥70%. Our model predicts that a 12-wk second-dose delay of an infection-blocking vaccine with a first-dose efficacy ≥70% could reduce ICU admissions by 400 people per million over 200 d.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency medical service response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Taiwan: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical service (EMS) personnel have high COVID-19 risk during resuscitation. The resuscitation protocol for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) was modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, how the adjustments in the EMS system affected patients with OHCA remains unclear. METHODS: We analysed data from the Taichung OHCA registry system. We compared OHCA outcomes and rescue records for 622 cases during the COVID-19 outbreak period (1 February to 30 April 2020) with those recorded for 570 cases during the same period in 2019. RESULTS: The two periods did not differ significantly with respect to patient age, patient sex, the presence of witnesses or OHCA location. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation with automated external defibrillators were more common in 2020 (52.81% vs 65.76%, p<0.001%, and 23.51% vs 31.67%, p=0.001, respectively). The EMS response time was longer during the COVID-19 pandemic (445.8±210.2 s in 2020 vs 389.7±201.8 s in 2019, p<0.001). The rate of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation was lower in 2020 (6.49% vs 2.57%, p=0.001); 2019 and 2020 had similar rates of survival discharge (5.96% vs 4.98%). However, significantly fewer cases had favourable neurological function in 2020 (4.21% vs 2.09%, p=0.035). CONCLUSION: EMS response time for patients with OHCA was prolonged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early advanced life support by EMS personnel remains crucial for patients with OHCA.

Increased time from physiological derangement to critical care admission associates with mortality.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response systems aim to achieve a timely response to the deteriorating patient; however, the existing literature varies on whether timing of escalation directly affects patient outcomes. Prior studies have been limited to using 'decision to admit' to critical care, or arrival in the emergency department as 'time zero', rather than the onset of physiological deterioration. The aim of this study is to establish if duration of abnormal physiology prior to critical care admission ['Score to Door' (STD) time] impacts on patient outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of data from pooled electronic medical records from a multi-site academic hospital was performed. All unplanned adult admissions to critical care from the ward with persistent physiological derangement [defined as sustained high National Early Warning Score (NEWS) > / = 7 that did not decrease below 5] were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was critical care mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of critical care admission and hospital mortality. The impact of STD time was adjusted for patient factors (demographics, sickness severity, frailty, and co-morbidity) and logistic factors (timing of high NEWS, and out of hours status) utilising logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-two patients were included over the 4-year study period, 16.3% died in critical care. STD time demonstrated a small but significant association with critical care mortality [adjusted odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 1.0-1.04, p = 0.01)]. It was also associated with hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.0-1.04, p = 0.026), and critical care length of stay. Each hour from onset of physiological derangement increased critical care length of stay by 1.2%. STD time was influenced by the initial NEWS, but not by logistic factors such as out-of-hours status, or pre-existing patient factors such as co-morbidity or frailty. CONCLUSION: In a strictly defined population of high NEWS patients, the time from onset of sustained physiological derangement to critical care admission was associated with increased critical care and hospital mortality. If corroborated in further studies, this cohort definition could be utilised alongside the 'Score to Door' concept as a clinical indicator within rapid response systems.

Flattening the other curve: Reducing emergency department STEMI delays during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) reperfusion delays despite reduced emergency department (ED) volumes. However, little is known about ED contributions to these delays. We sought to measure STEMI delays and ED quality benchmarks over the course of the first two waves of the pandemic. STUDY: This study was a multi-centre, retrospective chart review from two urban, academic medical centres. We obtained ED volumes, COVID-19 tests and COVID-19 cases from the hospital databases and ED Code STEMIs with culprit lesions from the cath lab. We measured door-to-ECG (DTE) time and ECG-to-Activation (ETA) time during the phases of the pandemic in our jurisdiction: pre-first wave (Jan-Mar 2020), first wave (Apr-June 2020), post-first wave (July-Nov 2020), and second wave (Dec 2020 to Feb 2021). We calculated median DTE and ETA times and compared them to the 2019 baseline using Wilcox rank-sum test. We calculated the percentages of DTE ≤10 min and of ETA ≤10 min and compared them to baseline using chi-square test. We also utilized Statistical Process Control (SPC) Xbar-R charts to assess for special cause variation. RESULTS: COVID-19 cases began during the pre-wave phase, but there was no change in ED volumes or STEMI quality metrics. During the first wave ED volumes fell by 40%, DTE tripled (10.0 to 29.5 min, p = 0.016), ETA doubled (8.5 to 17.0 min, p = 0.04), and percentages for both DTE ≤10 min and ETA ≤10 min fell by three-quarters (each from more than 50%, to both 12.5%, both p < 0.05). After the first wave all STEMI quality benchmarks returned to baseline and did not significantly change during the second wave. A brief period of special cause variation was noted for DTE during the first wave. CONCLUSIONS: Both DTE and ETA metrics worsened during the first wave of the pandemic, revealing how it negatively impacted the triage and diagnosis of STEMI patients. But these normalized after the first wave and were unaffected by the second wave, indicating that nurses and physicians adapted to the pandemic to maintain STEMI quality of care. DTE and ETA metrics can help EDs identify delays to reperfusion during the pandemic and beyond.

Use of Simulation-Based Medical Education for Advanced Resuscitation of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients With Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19.

Cardiac arrest is common in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with poor survival. Simulation is frequently used to evaluate and train code teams with the goal of improving outcomes. All participants engaged in training on donning and doffing of personal protective equipment for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. Thereafter, simulations of in-hospital cardiac arrest of patients with COVID-19, so-called protected code blue, were conducted at a quaternary academic centre. The primary endpoint was the mean time-to-defibrillation. A total of 114 patients participated in 33 "protected code blue" simulations over 8 weeks: 10 were senior residents, 17 were attending physicians, 86 were nurses, and 5 were respiratory therapists. Mean time-to-defibrillation was 4.38 minutes. Mean time-to-room entry, time-to-intubation, time-to-first-chest compression and time-to-epinephrine were 2.77, 5.74, 6.31, and 6.20 minutes, respectively; 92.84% of the 16 criteria evaluating the proper management of patients with COVID-19 and cardiac arrest were met. Mean time-to-defibrillation was longer than guidelines-expected time during protected code blue simulations. Although adherence to the modified advanced cardiovascular life-support protocol was high, breaches that carry additional infectious risk and reduce the efficacy of the resuscitation team were observed.

Early versus deferred anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in patients admitted for COVID-19: A randomized phase II clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19-2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04375098.

Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: A Perspective from Central Europe.

BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to register changes determined by the COVID-19 pandemic on pancreatic surgery in a specific geographic area (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) to evaluate the impact of the pandemic and obtain interesting cues for the future. METHODS: An online survey was designed using Google Forms focusing on the local impact of the pandemic on pancreatic surgery. The survey was conducted at 2 different time points, during and after the lockdown. RESULTS: Twenty-five respondents (25/56) completed the survey. Many aspects of oncological care have been affected with restrictions and delays: staging, tumor board, treatment selection, postoperative course, adjuvant treatments, outpatient care, and follow-up. Overall, 60% of respondents have prioritized pancreatic cancer patients according to stage, age, and comorbidities, and 40% opted not to operate high-risk patients. However, for 96% of participants, the standards of care were guaranteed. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had an important impact on pancreatic cancer surgery in central Europe. Guidelines for prompt interventions and prevention of the spread of viral infections in the surgical environment are needed to avoid a deterioration of care in cancer patients in the event of a second wave or a new pandemic. High-volume centers for pancreatic surgery should be preferred and their activity maintained. Virtual conferences have proven to be efficient during this pandemic and should be implemented in the near future.

Assessment of Time-to-Treatment Initiation and Survival in a Cohort of Patients With Common Cancers.

Importance: Resource limitations because of pandemic or other stresses on infrastructure necessitate the triage of time-sensitive care, including cancer treatments. Optimal time to treatment is underexplored, so recommendations for which cancer treatments can be deferred are often based on expert opinion. Objective: To evaluate the association between increased time to definitive therapy and mortality as a function of cancer type and stage for the 4 most prevalent cancers in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed treatment and outcome information from patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, non-small cell lung (NSCLC), and colon cancers from 2004 to 2015, with data analyzed January to March 2020. Data on outcomes associated with appropriate curative-intent surgical, radiation, or medical therapy were gathered from the National Cancer Database. Exposures: Time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), the interval between diagnosis and therapy, using intervals of 8 to 60, 61 to 120, 121 to 180, and greater than 180 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: 5-year and 10-year predicted all-cause mortality. Results: This study included 2 241 706 patients (mean [SD] age 63 [11.9] years, 1 268 794 [56.6%] women, 1 880 317 [83.9%] White): 1 165 585 (52.0%) with breast cancer, 853 030 (38.1%) with prostate cancer, 130 597 (5.8%) with NSCLC, and 92 494 (4.1%) with colon cancer. Median (interquartile range) TTI by cancer was 32 (21-48) days for breast, 79 (55-117) days for prostate, 41 (27-62) days for NSCLC, and 26 (16-40) days for colon. Across all cancers, a general increase in the 5-year and 10-year predicted mortality was associated with increasing TTI. The most pronounced mortality association was for colon cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage III: TTI 61-120 d, 38.9% vs. 181-365 d, 47.8%), followed by stage I NSCLC (5 y predicted mortality: TTI 61-120 d, 47.4% vs 181-365 d, 47.6%), while survival for prostate cancer was least associated (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, high risk: TTI 61-120 d, 12.8% vs 181-365 d, 14.1%), followed by breast cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage I: TTI 61-120 d, 11.0% vs. 181-365 d, 15.2%). A nonsignificant difference in treatment delays and worsened survival was observed for stage II lung cancer patients-who had the highest all-cause mortality for any TTI regardless of treatment timing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, for all studied cancers there was evidence that shorter TTI was associated with lower mortality, suggesting an indirect association between treatment deferral and mortality that may not become evident for years. In contrast to current pandemic-related guidelines, these findings support more timely definitive treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer.

Periprocedural complications in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to those without infection: A nationwide propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reports on emergency surgery performed soon after a COVID-19 infection that are not controlled for premorbid risk-factors show increased 30-day mortality and pulmonary complications. This contributed to a virtual cessation of elective surgery during the pandemic surge. To inform evidence-based guidance on the decisions for surgery during the recovery phase of the pandemic, we compare 30-day outcomes in patients testing positive for COVID-19 before their operation, to contemporary propensity-matched COVID-19 negative patients undergoing the same procedures. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study included all patients undergoing surgery at 170 Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals across the United States. COVID-19 positive patients were propensity matched to COVID-19 negative patients on demographic and procedural factors. We compared 30-day outcomes between COVID-19 positive and negative patients, and the effect of time from testing positive to the date of procedure (≤10 days, 11-30 days and >30 days) on outcomes. RESULTS: Between March 1 and August 15, 2020, 449 COVID-19 positive and 51,238 negative patients met inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 432 COVID-19 positive and 1256 negative patients among whom half underwent elective surgery. Infected patients had longer hospital stays (median seven days), higher rates of pneumonia (20.6%), ventilator requirement (7.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 17.1%), septic shock (13.7%), and ischemic stroke (5.8%), while mortality, reoperations and readmissions were not significantly different. Higher odds for ventilation and stroke persisted even when surgery was delayed 11-30 days, and for pneumonia, ARDS, and septic shock >30 days after a positive test. DISCUSSION: 30-day pulmonary, septic, and ischaemic complications are increased in COVID-19 positive, compared to propensity score matched negative patients. Odds for several complications persist despite a delay beyond ten days after testing positive. Individualized risk-stratification by pulmonary and atherosclerotic comorbidities should be considered when making decisions for delaying surgery in infected patients.

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.

Radiotherapy management of rectal cancer in the backdrop of the COVID pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 outbreak was declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Over the last 3 months, the pandemic has challenged the diagnosis and treatment of all cancer, including rectal cancer. Constraints in resources call for a change in the treatment strategy without compromising efficacy. RECENT FINDINGS: Delivery of shorter treatment schedules for radiotherapy offers advantages like short overall treatment time, improved throughput on the machine, improved compliance and reduced risk of transmission of COVID 19. Other strategies include delaying surgery, reducing the intensity of chemotherapy and adoption of organ preservation approach. CONCLUSION: The curative treatment of rectal cancer should not be hindered during the COVID pandemic, and modifications in the multi-modality treatment will help achieve quality care.

Management of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer During a Pandemic: Impact of Treatment Delay on Survival Outcomes for Patients Treated With Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making to ensure that the benefit of early intervention for muscle-invasive bladder cancer exceeds the risk of contracting COVID-19 in the clinical setting. It is unknown whether treatment delays for patients eligible for curative chemoradiation (CRT) compromise long-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Data Base to investigate whether there is an association between a ≥ 90-day delay from transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in initiating CRT and overall survival. We included patients with cT2-4N0M0 muscle-invasive bladder cancer from 2004 to 2015 who underwent TURBT and curative-intent concurrent CRT. Patients were grouped on the basis of timing of CRT: ≤ 89 days after TURBT (earlier) vs. ≥ 90 and < 180 days after TURBT (delayed). RESULTS: A total of 1387 (87.5%) received earlier CRT (median, 45 days after TURBT; interquartile range, 34-59 days), and 197 (12.5%) received delayed CRT (median, 111 days after TURBT; interquartile range, 98-130 days). Median overall survival was 29.0 months (95% CI, 26.0-32.0) versus 27.0 months (95% CI, 19.75-34.24) for earlier and delayed CRT (P = .94). On multivariable analysis, delayed CRT was not associated with an overall survival difference (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P = .60). CONCLUSION: Although these results are limited and require validation, short, strategic treatment delays during a pandemic can be considered on the basis of clinician judgment.