Dataset Information

An international survey in Latin America on the practice of interventional cardiology during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a particular focus on myocardial infarction.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

A reduction in the number of interventional cardiology procedures has emerged as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey was performed to quantify this decrease and the impact on the management of myocardial infarction in Latin America.

Methods

A telematic survey was conducted for all countries in Latin America. Diagnostic catheterisations, coronary and structural interventions, as well as the incidence and delay to reperfusion therapy of myocardial infarction (STEMI), were recorded. Two periods were compared: from 24 February to 8 March 2020 (pre-COVID-19) and another 2‑week period that varied according to country (COVID-19).

Results

Responses were obtained from 79 centres in 20 countries. There was a significant decrease in the number of diagnostic procedures (-65.2%), coronary interventions (-59.4%), structural therapeutics (-86.1%) and STEMI care (-51.2%). A decrease was noted in the incidence of STEMI, but also a delay in the time to STEMI reperfusion. While there was a variation in activity in interventional cardiology between countries, patient behaviour was rather homogeneous.

Conclusions

A significant reduction in healthcare activity has been noted during the COVID-19 pandemic, including STEMI care, with the risk of increased mortality and/or morbidity following STEMI. Healthcare providers should encourage patients with suspected symptoms of STEMI to call for emergency care to ensure rapid diagnosis and timely reperfusion treatment.

SUBMITTER: Mayol J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7325476 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous research has found that patients with acute cardiovascular conditions treated in teaching hospitals have lower 30-day mortality during dates of national cardiology meetings. METHODS AND RESULTS:We analyzed 30-day mortality among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (overall, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction) from January 1, 2007, to November 31, 2012, in major teaching hospitals during dates of a major annual interventional cardiology meeting (Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics) compared with identical nonmeeting days in the ±5 weeks. Treatment differences were assessed. We used a database of US physicians to compare interventional cardiologists who practiced and did not practice during meeting dates ("stayers" and "attendees," respectively) in terms of demographic characteristics and clinical and research productivity. Unadjusted and adjusted 30-day mortality rates were lower among patients admitted during meeting versus nonmeeting dates (unadjusted, 15.3% [482/3153] versus 16.7% [5208/31 556] [P=0.04]; adjusted, 15.4% versus 16.7%; difference -1.3% [95% confidence interval, -2.7% to -0.1%] [P=0.05]). Rates of interventional cardiologist involvement were similar between dates (59.5% versus 59.8% of hospitalizations; P=0.88), as were percutaneous coronary intervention rates (30.2% versus 29.1%; P=0.20). Mortality reductions were largest among patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction not receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (16.9% versus 19.5% adjusted 30-day mortality; P=0.008). Compared with stayers, attendees were of similar age and sex, but had greater publications (18.9 versus 6.3; P<0.001), probability of National Institutes of Health funding (5.3% versus 0.4%; P<0.001), and clinical trial leadership (10.3% versus 3.9%; P<0.001), and they performed more percutaneous coronary interventions annually (85.6 versus 63.3; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Hospitalization with acute myocardial infarction during Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics meeting dates was associated with lower 30-day mortality, predominantly among patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who were medically managed.

Project description:BackgroundIntensive care medicine is a relatively young discipline that has rapidly grown into a full-fledged medical subspecialty. Intensivists are responsible for managing an ever-increasing number of patients with complex, life-threatening diseases. Several factors may influence their performance, including age, training, experience, workload, and socioeconomic context. The aim of this study was to examine individual- and work-related aspects of the Latin American intensivist workforce, mainly with academic appointments, which might influence the quality of care provided. In consequence, we conducted a cross-sectional study of intensivists at public and private academic and nonacademic Latin American intensive care units (ICUs) through a web-based electronic survey submitted by email. Questions about personal aspects, work-related topics, and general clinical workflow were incorporated.ResultsOur study comprised 735 survey respondents (53% return rate) with the following country-specific breakdown: Brazil (29%); Argentina (19%); Chile (17%); Uruguay (12%); Ecuador (9%); Mexico (7%); Colombia (5%); and Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, and Paraguay combined (2%). Latin American intensivists were predominantly male (68%) young adults (median age, 40 [IQR, 35-48] years) with a median clinical ICU experience of 10 (IQR, 5-20) years. The median weekly workload was 60 (IQR, 47-70) h. ICU formal training was between 2 and 4 years. Only 63% of academic ICUs performed multidisciplinary rounds. Most intensivists (85%) reported adequate conditions to manage patients with septic shock in their units. Unsatisfactory conditions were attributed to insufficient technology (11%), laboratory support (5%), imaging resources (5%), and drug shortages (5%). Seventy percent of intensivists participated in research, and 54% read scientific studies regularly, whereas 32% read no more than one scientific study per month. Research grants and pharmaceutical sponsorship are unusual funding sources in Latin America. Although Latin American intensivists are mostly unsatisfied with their income (81%), only a minority (27%) considered changing to another specialty before retirement.ConclusionsLatin American intensivists constitute a predominantly young adult workforce, mostly formally trained, have a high workload, and most are interested in research. They are under important limitations owing to resource constraints and overt dissatisfaction. Latin America may be representative of other world areas with similar challenges for intensivists. Specific initiatives aimed at addressing these situations need to be devised to improve the quality of critical care delivery in Latin America.