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: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.

Project description:With most global healthcare resources focused on COVID-19, altered resource allocation is disrupting the continuum of care for chronic endocrine conditions, including acromegaly. In order to assess the effects of COVID-19 on care of patients with acromegaly, we conducted an international online survey of endocrinologists. The questionnaire was drafted by a Steering Committee of acromegaly experts and covered both respondent demographics, contact and communication with patients, and patient care. Respondent awareness was generated through social media campaigns and the survey completed online using Google forms. The majority of endocrinologists who responded (N = 84) were based in Europe (67.9%) and were female (58.3%). Slightly more than half of respondents worked in a specialized pituitary center (52.4%) and a large minority cared for more than 50 acromegaly patients (47.6%). Most respondents (85.7%) indicated surgery was their first-line treatment, with only 14.3% indicating medical therapy as a first-choice treatment option. One-third (33.3%) of respondents reported having delayed a planned surgery due to a lack of COVID-19 testing provision and 54.8% due to a lack of surgical provision; 19.1% indicated that a lack of personal protective equipment had reduced their ability to treat patients with acromegaly. Just 21.4% of respondents reported no negative effects from the pandemic on diagnostic practice patterns, and just 19.1% reported no negative effect on patient follow-up practices. Many respondents (55.9%) indicated that remote methods had improved their ability to communicate with their patients and 69.0% indicated that they would continue to use methods of consultation necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data suggest the COVID-19 pandemic is substantially affecting the care of acromegaly. However, these results also suggest that endocrinologists are embracing aspects of the 'new normal' to create a novel continuum of care better suited to the presumed post-COVID-19 environment. The goal of these changes must be both to improve care while shielding patients from more severe involvement in concomitant acute illnesses such COVID-19.

Project description:Background: Since the COVID-19 outbreak several manuscripts regarding neurosurgical practice during this pandemic have been published. Qualitative studies on how the pandemic affected neurosurgeons, with additional focus on their practice, are still scarce. This study's objective was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of the professional and private life of a homogeneous group of international neurosurgeons affiliated to the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). Methods: Neurosurgeons from Europe and abroad were invited to participate in an online survey endorsed by the Individual Membership Committee of the EANS. The survey captured a subjective snapshot of the impact of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on EANS members and was advertised through its Institutional website. In addition to departmental data, personal feeling of safety, financial security, local precautions, number of surgeries performed, changes in daily routine, and other practice-related information were inquired. Differences among practice types were closely reviewed. Results: The survey was distributed between April and May 2020: 204 neurosurgeons participated. Participants were typically active EANS members (73%), consultants (57.9%), from university hospitals (64.5%). Elective surgical practice was still ongoing only for 15% of responders, whereas 18.7% of them had already transitioned to COVID-19 and emergency medical services. While 65.7% of participants thought their institutions were adequately prepared, lack of testing for SARS-CoV-2, and scarcity of personal protective equipment were still a matter of concern for most of them. Overall surgical activity dropped by 68% (cranial by 54%, spine by 71%), and even emergencies decreased by 35%. COVID-19 prompted changes in communication in 74% of departments, 44% increased telemedicine by >50%. While most neurosurgeons had concerns about personal and families' health, financial outlook appeared to be gloomy only for private practitioners. Conclusion: The lockdown imposed in many countries by the COVID-19 outbreak called for immediate modification of working routine and resulted in a dramatic decrease of elective surgical procedures. Neurosurgeons share common concerns but were not equally exposed to the personal health and financial dangers of the ongoing pandemic.