Dataset Information

Implantation of cardiac electronic devices in active COVID-19 patients: Results from an international survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates as well as the clinical and procedural characteristics and outcomes in patients with known active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are unknown.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding CIED procedures during active COVID-19, performed with personal protective equipment, based on an international survey.

Methods

Fifty-three centers from 13 countries across 4 continents provided information on 166 patients with known active COVID-19 who underwent a CIED procedure.

Results

The CIED procedure rate in 133,655 hospitalized COVID-19 patients ranged from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 patients (P <.001). Most devices were implanted due to high-degree/complete atrioventricular block (112 [67.5%]) or sick sinus syndrome (31 [18.7%]). Of the 166 patients in the study survey, the 30-day complication rate was 13.9% and the 180-day mortality rate was 9.6%. One patient had a fatal outcome as a direct result of the procedure. Differences in patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were found between Europe and North America. An older population (76.6 vs 66 years; P <.001) with a nonsignificant higher complication rate (16.5% vs 7.7%; P = .2) was observed in Europe vs North America, whereas higher rates of critically ill patients (33.3% vs 3.3%; P <.001) and mortality (26.9% vs 5%; P = .002) were observed in North America vs Europe.

Conclusion

CIED procedure rates during known active COVID-19 disease varied greatly, from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients worldwide. Patients with active COVID-19 infection who underwent CIED implantation had high complication and mortality rates. Operators should take these risks into consideration before proceeding with CIED implantation in active COVID-19 patients.

SUBMITTER: Tovia-Brodie O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8547796 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Children have been mostly excluded from COVID-19 clinical trials, and, as a result, most medicines approved for COVID-19 have no pediatric indication. In addition, access to COVID-19 therapeutics remains limited. Collecting physicians' experiences with off-label use of therapeutics is important to inform global prioritization processes and better target pediatric research and development. A standardized questionnaire was designed to explore the use of therapeutics used to treat COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in pediatric patients globally. Seventy-three physicians from 29 countries participated. For COVID-19, steroids were used by 75.6% of respondents; remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies were prescribed by 48.6% and 27.1% of respondents, respectively. For MIS-C, steroids were prescribed by 79.1% of respondents and intravenous immunoglobulins by 69.6%. The use of these products depended on their pediatric approval and the limited availability of antivirals and most monoclonal antibodies in Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe. Off-label prescription resulted widespread due to the paucity of clinical trials in young children at the time of the survey; though, based on our survey results, it was generally safe and led to clinical benefits. Conclusion: This survey provides a snapshot of current practice for treating pediatric COVID-19 worldwide, informing global prioritization efforts to better target pediatric research and development for COVID-19 therapeutics. Off-label use of such medicines is widespread for the paucity of clinical trials under 12 years and 40 kg, though appears to be safe and generally results in clinical benefits, even in young children. However, access to care, including medicine availability, differs widely globally. Clinical development of COVID-19 antivirals and monoclonal antibodies requires acceleration to ensure pediatric indication and allow worldwide availability of therapeutics that will enable more equitable access to COVID-19 treatment. What is Known: • Children have been mostly excluded from COVID-19 clinical trials, and, as a result, most medicines approved for COVID-19 have no pediatric indication. • Access to care differs widely globally, so because of the diversity of national healthcare systems; the unequal availability of medicines for COVID-19 treatment represents an obstacle to the pediatric population's universal right to health care. What is New: • Off-label COVID-19 drug prescription is widespread due to the lack of clinical trials in children younger than 12 years and weighing less than 40 kg, but relatively safe and generally leading to clinical benefit. • The application of the GAP-f framework to COVID-19 medicines is crucial, ensuring widespread access to all safe and effective drugs, enabling the rapid development of age-appropriate formulations, and developing specific access plans (including stability, storage, packaging, and labeling) for distribution in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Antivirals and monoclonal antibodies may benefit from the acceleration to reach widespread and equal diffusion.

Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in international communications and travel for academic global health programs (AGHPs) in both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the importance of international travel and communication to AGHPs, the pandemic has likely had considerable impact on the education, research, and administrative components of these programs. To date, no substantive study has determined the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on AGHPs in HICs and LMICs. This study assessed the impacts and resultant adaptations of AGHPs to pandemic realities with the goal of sharing strategies and approaches. Methods: This study applied a mixed methods sequential explanatory design to survey AGHPs in HICs and LMICs about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on three program domains: education, research, and administration. First, we surveyed a range of AGHP stakeholders to capture quantitative data on the pandemic’s impact. Subsequently we conducted semi-structured interviews with select survey participants to gather qualitative data expanding on specific survey responses. Data from both phases were then compared and interpreted together to develop conclusions and suggest adaptive/innovative approaches for AGHPs. Results: AGHPs in both HICs and LMICs were significantly impacted by the pandemic in all three domains, though in different ways. While education initiatives managed to adapt by pivoting towards virtual learning, research programs were impacted more negatively by the disruptions in communication and international travel. The impact of the pandemic on scholarly output as well as on funding for education and research was quite variable, although LMIC programs were more negatively impacted. Administratively, AGHPs implemented a range of safety and risk mitigation strategies and showed a low risk tolerance for international travel. The pandemic posed many challenges but also revealed opportunities for AGHPs. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted AGHPs in HICs and LMICs in expected and unexpected ways. Programs noted some unanticipated reductions in education program funding, negative impacts on research programs, and reduced scholarly output. Many programs reported well-coordinated adaptive responses to the pandemic including, for instance, virtual (in place of in-person) collaboration in research. The pandemic will likely have lasting impacts with regard to education, research collaborations, and administration of programs.