Dataset Information

Cardiac operations and interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a decline in hospitalizations for non-COVID-19-related conditions. We explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac operations and interventions undertaken in England.

Methods and results

An administrative database covering hospital activity for England, the Health Episodes Statistics, was used to assess a total of 286 697 hospitalizations for cardiac operations and interventions, as well as 227 257 hospitalizations for myocardial infarction (MI) and 453 799 for heart failure (HF) from 7 January 2019 to 26 July 2020. Over the 3 months of 'lockdown', total numbers and mean reductions in weekly rates [n (-%)], compared with the same time period in 2019, were: coronary artery bypass grafting [-2507 (-64%)]; percutaneous coronary intervention [-5245 (-28%)]; surgical [-1324 (-41%)] and transcatheter [-284 (-21%)] aortic valve replacement; mitral valve replacement; implantation of pacemakers [-6450 (-44%)], cardiac resynchronization therapy with [-356 (-42%)] or without [-491 (-46%)] defibrillation devices, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators [-501 (-45%)]; atrial fibrillation ablation [-1902 (-83%)], and other ablations [-1712 (-64%)] (all P < 0.001). Over this period, there were 21 038 fewer procedures than in the reference period in 2019 (P < 0.001). These changes paralleled reductions in hospitalizations for MI [-10 794 (-27%)] and HF [-63 058 (-28%)] (both P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to substantial reductions in the number of cardiac operations and interventions undertaken. An alternative strategy for healthcare delivery to patients with cardiac conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic is urgently needed.

SUBMITTER: Leyva F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8083650 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted maternity services worldwide and imposed restrictions on societal behaviours. This national study aimed to compare obstetric intervention and pregnancy outcome rates in England during the pandemic and corresponding pre-pandemic calendar periods, and to assess whether differences in these rates varied according to ethnic and socioeconomic background.Methods and findingsWe conducted a national study of singleton births in English National Health Service hospitals. We compared births during the COVID-19 pandemic period (23 March 2020 to 22 February 2021) with births during the corresponding calendar period 1 year earlier. The Hospital Episode Statistics database provided administrative hospital data about maternal characteristics, obstetric inventions (induction of labour, elective or emergency cesarean section, and instrumental birth), and outcomes (stillbirth, preterm birth, small for gestational age [SGA; birthweight < 10th centile], prolonged maternal length of stay (≥3 days), and maternal 42-day readmission). Multi-level logistic regression models were used to compare intervention and outcome rates between the corresponding pre-pandemic and pandemic calendar periods and to test for interactions between pandemic period and ethnic and socioeconomic background. All models were adjusted for maternal characteristics including age, obstetric history, comorbidities, and COVID-19 status at birth. The study included 948,020 singleton births (maternal characteristics: median age 30 years, 41.6% primiparous, 8.3% with gestational diabetes, 2.4% with preeclampsia, and 1.6% with pre-existing diabetes or hypertension); 451,727 births occurred during the defined pandemic period. Maternal characteristics were similar in the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, stillbirth rates remained similar (0.36% pandemic versus 0.37% pre-pandemic, p = 0.16). Preterm birth and SGA birth rates were slightly lower during the pandemic (6.0% versus 6.1% for preterm births, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.97; 5.6% versus 5.8% for SGA births, aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.96; both p < 0.001). Slightly higher rates of obstetric intervention were observed during the pandemic (40.4% versus 39.1% for induction of labour, aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05; 13.9% versus 12.9% for elective cesarean section, aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11-1.14; 18.4% versus 17.0% for emergency cesarean section, aOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.08; all p < 0.001). Lower rates of prolonged maternal length of stay (16.7% versus 20.2%, aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.76-0.78, p < 0.001) and maternal readmission (3.0% versus 3.3%, aOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.86-0.90, p < 0.001) were observed during the pandemic period. There was some evidence that differences in the rates of preterm birth, emergency cesarean section, and unassisted vaginal birth varied according to the mother's ethnic background but not according to her socioeconomic background. A key limitation is that multiple comparisons were made, increasing the chance of false-positive results.ConclusionsIn this study, we found very small decreases in preterm birth and SGA birth rates and very small increases in induction of labour and elective and emergency cesarean section during the COVID-19 pandemic, with some evidence of a slightly different pattern of results in women from ethnic minority backgrounds. These changes in obstetric intervention rates and pregnancy outcomes may be linked to women's behaviour, environmental exposure, changes in maternity practice, or reduced staffing levels.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid and expansive roll out of telehealth applications as a mode of intervention delivery. The effectiveness of this model of care is currently unclear.ObjectiveA cross-sectional observational study evaluating the Irish physiotherapist's experience of telehealth.MethodIrish Physiotherapists completed an online survey, distributed by the Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists (ISCP), exploring considerations and barriers to commencing telehealth, advantages and disadvantages to telehealth, overall experience of telehealth, and their opinion on the future of telehealth. A descriptive approach and conceptual content analysis were used to analysis the data to derive determinants for the continuation of telehealth.ResultsIn total, 205 physiotherapists completed the survey. Seventy-eight per cent were female. Participant's mean age range was 36 to 45 years with 17 years of physiotherapy experience. Eighty-three per cent had no experience with telehealth pre COVID-19. Considerations to commencing telehealth included service user's suitability, adequate technical and organisational resources, physiotherapist's professional conduct, physiotherapist's skills and COVID-19 restrictions. No outstanding barrier to telehealth was identified. Respondents identify that telehealth offered a reduction in travel time for the service user (82%), offer flexibility in the delivery of physiotherapy (81%) and avoid contact with a potential COVID-19 spreader (92%). The limited scope of the physical examination (86%) via telehealth is the significant disadvantage. Telehealth is considered a temporary stop-gap during the COVID-19 pandemic by forty per cent of physiotherapists while sixty per cent consider telehealth as a sustainable alternative mode of health care delivery.ConclusionAt present, health care providers have not universally accepted telehealth as a mode of health care delivery. Our study's findings identify key areas to address to encourage acceptance.