ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We sought to study the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation delay, severity, patterns of care, and reasons for delay among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in a non-hot-spot region. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic has significantly reduced the activations for STEMI in epicenters like Spain. METHODS: From January 1, 2020, to April 15, 2020, 143 STEMIs were identified across our integrated 18-hospital system. Pre- and post-COVID-19 cohorts were based on March 23rd, 2020, whenstay-at-home orders were initiated in Ohio. We used presenting heart rate, blood pressure, troponin, new Q-wave, and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) to assess severity. Duration of intensive care unit stay, total length of stay, door-to-balloon (D2B) time, and radial versus femoral access were used to assess patterns of care. RESULTS: Post-COVID-19 presentation was associated with a lower admission LVEF (45 vs. 50%, p = .015), new Q-wave, and higher initial troponin; however, these did not reach statistical significance. Among post-COVID-19 patients, those with >12-hr delay in presentation 31(%) had a longer average D2B time (88 vs. 53 min, p = .033) and higher peak troponin (58 vs. 8.5 ng/ml, p = .03). Of these, 27% avoided the hospital due to fear of COVID-19, 18% believed symptoms were COVID-19 related, and 9% did not want to burden the hospital during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has remarkably affected STEMI presentation and care. Patients' fear and confusion about symptoms are integral parts of this emerging public health crisis.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Aged , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Ohio , Retrospective Studies , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Survival Rate , Time-to-Treatment , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a powerful predictor of adverse events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis rates compared with bare metal stents; however, controversy remains regarding which drug-eluting stents provides greater benefit in patients with diabetes. Accordingly, we compared the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) among diabetic patients in a contemporary registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, we evaluated 2-year outcomes of diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions with SES (n=677) and PES (n=328). Clinical and demographic characteristics, including age, body mass index, insulin use, left ventricular function, and aspirin/clopidogrel use postprocedure, did not differ significantly between the groups except that PES-treated patients had a greater frequency of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. At the 2-year follow-up, no significant differences were observed between PES and SES with regard to safety or efficacy end points. PES- and SES-treated patients had similar rates of death (10.7% versus 8.2%, P=0.20), death and myocardial infarction (14.9% versus 13.6%, P=0.55), repeat revascularization (14.8% versus 17.8%, P=0.36), and stent thrombosis (1.3% versus 1.3%, P=0.95). After adjustment, no significant differences between the 2 stent types in any outcome were observed. CONCLUSIONS: PES and SES are equally efficacious and have similar safety profiles in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in clinical practice.
