Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Indian Heart J ; 75(4): 243-250, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37230465

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To find out differences in the presentation, management and outcomes of COVID-19 infected STEMI patients compared to age and sex-matched non-infected STEMI patients treated during the same period. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre observational registry in which we collected data of COVID-19 positive STEMI patients from selected tertiary care hospitals across India. For every COVID-19 positive STEMI patient, two age and sex-matched COVID-19 negative STEMI patients were enrolled as control. The primary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital mortality, re-infarction, heart failure, and stroke. RESULTS: 410 COVID-19 positive STEMI cases were compared with 799 COVID-19 negative STEMI cases. The composite of death/reinfarction/stroke/heart failure was significantly higher among the COVID-19 positive STEMI patients compared with COVID-19 negative STEMI cases (27.1% vs 20.7% p value = 0.01); though mortality rate did not differ significantly (8.0% vs 5.8% p value = 0.13). Significantly lower proportion of COVID-19 positive STEMI patients received reperfusion treatment and primary PCI (60.7% vs 71.1% p value=< 0.001 and 15.4% vs 23.4% p value = 0.001 respectively). Rate of systematic early PCI (pharmaco-invasive treatment) was significantly lower in the COVID-19 positive group compared with COVID-19 negative group. There was no difference in the prevalence of high thrombus burden (14.5% and 12.0% p value = 0.55 among COVID-19 positive and negative patients respectively) CONCLUSIONS: In this large registry of STEMI patients, we did not find significant excess in in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 co-infected patients compared with non-infected patients despite lower rate of primary PCI and reperfusion treatment, though composite of in-hospital mortality, re-infarction, stroke and heart failure was higher.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction , Stroke , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Heart Failure/etiology , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Stroke/etiology , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective Studies
2.
Indian Heart J ; 73(4): 413-423, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34474751

ABSTRACT

AIM: Studies on the changes in the presentation and management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic from low- and middle-income countries are limited. We sought to determine the changes in the number of admissions, management practices, and outcomes of AMI during the pandemic period in India. METHODS & RESULTS: In this two-timepoint cross-sectional study involving 187 hospitals across India, patients admitted with AMI between 15th March to 15th June in 2020 were compared with those admitted during the corresponding period of 2019. We included 41,832 consecutive adults with AMI. Admissions during the pandemic period (n = 16414) decreased by 35·4% as compared to the corresponding period in 2019 (n = 25418). We observed significant heterogeneity in this decline across India. The weekly average decrease in AMI admissions in 2020 correlated negatively with the number of COVID cases (r = -0·48; r2 = 0·2), but strongly correlated with the stringency of lockdown index (r = 0·95; r2 = 0·90). On a multi-level logistic regression, admissions were lower in 2020 with older age categories, tier 1 cities, and centers with high patient volume. Adjusted utilization rate of coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention decreased by 11·3%, and 5·9% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of reduction in AMI admissions across India was not uniform. The nature, time course, and the patient demographics were different compared to reports from other countries, suggesting a significant impact due to the lockdown. These findings have important implications in managing AMI during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Myocardial Infarction , Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , India/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Pandemics , Stroke Volume , Ventricular Function, Left
3.
Indian Heart J ; 72(6): 541-546, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33357642

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic has affected around 20million patients worldwide and 2.0 million cases from India. The lockdown was employed to delay the pandemic. However, it had an unintentional impact on acute cardiovascular care, especially acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Observational studies have shown a decrease in hospital admissions for AMI in several developed countries during the pandemic period. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the AMI admissions patterns across India. METHODS: In this multicentric, retrospective, cross-sectional study, we included all AMI cases admitted to participating hospitals during the study period 15th March to 15th June 2020 and compared them using a historical control of all cases of AMI admitted during the corresponding period in the year 2019. Major objective of the study is to analyze the changes inthe number of hospital admissions for AMI in hospitals across India. In addition, we intend to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the weekly AMI admission rates, and other performance measures like rates of thrombolysis/primary percutaneous interventions (PCI), window period, door to balloon time, and door to needle time. Other objectives include evaluation of changes in the major complications and mortality rates of AMI and its predictors during COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This CSI-AMI study will provide scientific evidence about the impact of COVID-19 on AMI care in India. Based on this study, we may be able to suggest appropriate changes to the existing MI guidelines and to educate the public regarding emergency care for AMI during COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Pandemics , Patient Admission/trends , Societies, Medical , Adult , Comorbidity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , India/epidemiology , Male , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 9(12): e014968, 2020 06 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32476563

ABSTRACT

Background There are limited data to inform policy mandating primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) volume benchmarks for catheterization laboratories in low- and middle-income countries. Methods and Results This prospective state-wide registry included ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with symptoms of <12 hours, or with ongoing ischemia at 12 to 24 hours, reperfused with PPCI. From June 2013 to March 2016, we recruited 5560 consecutive patients. We categorized hospitals on the basis of annual PPCI volumes into low, medium, and high volume (<100, 100-199, and ≥200 PPCIs per year, respectively). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were used to examine the association between PPCI volume and 1-year mortality. Among 42 recruiting hospitals, there were 24 (57.2%) low-volume, 8 (19%) medium-volume, and 10 (23.8%) high-volume hospitals. The median (25th-75th percentile) TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction risk score was 3 (2-5). Cardiac arrest before admission occurred in 4.2%, 2.1%, and 2.9% of cases at low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P=0.02). Total ischemic time differed significantly among low-volume (median [25th-75th percentile], 3.5 [2.4-5.5] hours), medium-volume (median, 3.8 [25th-75th percentile, 2.58-6.05] hours), and high-volume hospitals (median, 4.16 [25th-75th percentile 2.8-6.3] hours) (P=0.01). Vascular access was radial in 61.5%, 71.3%, and 63.2% of cases at low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P=0.01). The observed 1-year mortality rate was 6.5%, 3.4%, and 8.6% at low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P<0.01), and the difference did not attenuate after multivariate adjustment (low versus medium: hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.80 [1.12-2.90]; high versus medium: hazard ratio [95% CI], 2.53 [1.78-3.58]) (P<0.01). Conclusions Low- and middle-income countries, like India, may have a nonlinear relationship between institutional PPCI volume and outcomes, partly driven by procedural variations and inequalities in access to care.


Subject(s)
Healthcare Disparities/trends , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/trends , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/trends , Quality Indicators, Health Care/trends , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Adult , Aged , Benchmarking/trends , Female , Hospitals, High-Volume/trends , Hospitals, Low-Volume/trends , Humans , India , Male , Middle Aged , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/mortality , Prospective Studies , Registries , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...