Search

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way patients seek medical attention and how medical services are provided. We sought to compare characteristics, clinical course, and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the pandemic compared with before it. This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of consecutive COVID-19 negative patients with AMI in Lithuania from March 11, 2020 to April 20, 2020 compared with patients admitted with the same diagnosis during the same period in 2019. All patients underwent angiography. Six-month follow-up was obtained for all patients. A total of 269 patients were included in this study, 107 (40.8%) of whom presented during the pandemic. Median pain-to-door times were significantly longer (858 [quartile 1=360, quartile 3 = 2,600] vs 385.5 [200, 745] minutes, p

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has had a major impact on the behavior of patients, as well as on the delivery of healthcare services. With older and more medically vulnerable people tending to stay at home to avoid contracting the virus, it is unclear how the behavior of people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has changed. The aim of this study was to determine if delays in presentation and healthcare service delivery for AMI exist during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period a year prior. Methods: In this single-center, retrospective study, we evaluated patients admitted with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) during early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2020 to April 20, 2020) compared to patients admitted with same diagnosis during the same period a year prior. Results: There were 30 and 62 patients who presented with NSTEMI in the pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively. The median pain-to-door time was significantly larger during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era (1,885 (880, 5,732) vs. 606 (388, 944) min, P < 0.0001). There was a significant delay in door-to-reperfusion time during the pandemic with a median time of 332 (182, 581) vs. 194 (92, 329) min (P = 0.0371). There were 24 (80%) and 25 (42%) patients who presented after 12 h of pain onset in pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively (P = 0.0006). There were 47 and 60 patients who presented with STEMI during the pandemic timeframe of study and pre-pandemic timeframe, respectively. The median pain-to-door time during the pandemic was significantly larger than that of the pre-pandemic (620 (255, 1,500) vs. 349 (146, 659) min, P = 0.0141). There were 22 (47%) and 14 (24%) patients who presented after 12 h of pain onset in the pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively (P = 0.0127). There was not a significant delay in door-to-reperfusion time (P = 0.9833). There were no differences in in-hospital death, stroke, or length of hospitalization between early and late presenters, as well as between pandemic and pre-pandemic eras. Conclusions: In conclusion, this study found that patients waited significantly longer during the pandemic to seek medical treatment for AMI compared to before the pandemic, and that pandemic-specific protocols may delay revascularization for NSTEMI patients. These findings resulted in more than a threefold increase from the onset of symptoms to revascularization increasing the risks for future complications such as left ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular death. Efforts should be made to increase patients’ awareness regarding consequences of delayed presentation, and to find a balance between hospital evaluation strategies and goals of minimizing total ischemic time. Cardiol Res. 2020;11(6):386-391 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1175