172
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Visits — United States, January 1, 2019–May 30, 2020

      research-article
      , PhD 1 , 2 , , , MS 1 , 2 , , MS 1 , 2 , , MPH 1 , 2 , , PhD 1 , 3 , , PhD 1 , 2 , , MD, PhD 1 , 4 , National Syndromic Surveillance Program Community of Practice
      Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As the number of persons hospitalized with COVID-19 increased, early reports from Austria ( 1 ), Hong Kong ( 2 ), Italy ( 3 ), and California ( 4 ) suggested sharp drops in the numbers of persons seeking emergency medical care for other reasons. To quantify the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. emergency department (ED) visits, CDC compared the volume of ED visits during four weeks early in the pandemic March 29–April 25, 2020 (weeks 14 to 17; the early pandemic period) to that during March 31–April 27, 2019 (the comparison period). During the early pandemic period, the total number of U.S. ED visits was 42% lower than during the same period a year earlier, with the largest declines in visits in persons aged ≤14 years, females, and the Northeast region. Health messages that reinforce the importance of immediately seeking care for symptoms of serious conditions, such as myocardial infarction, are needed. To minimize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, transmission risk and address public concerns about visiting the ED during the pandemic, CDC recommends continued use of virtual visits and triage help lines and adherence to CDC infection control guidance. To assess trends in ED visits during the pandemic, CDC analyzed data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), a collaborative network developed and maintained by CDC, state and local health departments, and academic and private sector health partners to collect electronic health data in real time. The national data in NSSP includes ED visits from a subset of hospitals in 47 states (all but Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming), capturing approximately 73% of ED visits in the United States able to be analyzed at the national level. During the most recent week, 3,552 EDs reported data. Total ED visit volume, as well as patient age, sex, region, and reason for visit were analyzed. Weekly number of ED visits were examined during January 1, 2019–May 30, 2020. In addition, ED visits during two 4-week periods were compared using mean differences and ratios. The change in mean visits per week during the early pandemic period and the comparison period was calculated as the mean difference in total visits in a diagnostic category between the two periods, divided by 4 weeks ([visits in diagnostic category {early pandemic period} – visits in diagnostic category {comparison period}]/4). The visit prevalence ratio (PR) was calculated for each diagnostic category as the proportion of ED visits during the early pandemic period divided by the proportion of visits during the comparison period ([visits in category {early pandemic period}/all visits {early pandemic period}]/[visits in category {comparison period}/all visits {comparison period}]). All analyses were conducted using R software (version 3.6.0; R Foundation). Reason for visit was analyzed using a subset of records that had at least one specific, billable International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code. In addition to Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming, four states (Florida, Louisiana, New York outside New York City, and Oklahoma), two California counties reporting to the NSSP (Santa Cruz and Solano), and the District of Columbia were also excluded from the diagnostic code analysis because they did not report diagnostic codes during both periods or had differences in completeness of codes between 2019 and 2020. Among eligible visits for the diagnostic code analysis, 20.3% without a valid ICD-10-CM code were excluded. ED visits were categorized using the Clinical Classifications Software Refined tool (version 2020.2; Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project), which combines ICD-10-CM codes into clinically meaningful groups ( 5 ). A visit with multiple ICD-10-CM codes could be included in multiple categories; for example, a visit by a patient with diabetes and hypertension would be included in the category for diabetes and the category for hypertension. Because COVID-19 is not yet classified in this tool, a custom category, defined as any visit with the ICD-10-CM code for confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (U07.1), was created ( 6 ). The analysis was limited to the top 200 diagnostic categories during each period. The lowest number of visits reported to NSSP occurred during April 12–18, 2020 (week 16). Although visits have increased since the nadir, the most recent complete week (May 24–30, week 22) remained 26% below the corresponding week in 2019 (Figure 1). The number of ED visits decreased 42%, from a mean of 2,099,734 per week during March 31–April 27, 2019, to a mean of 1,220,211 per week during the early pandemic period of March 29–April 25, 2020. Visits declined for every age group (Figure 2), with the largest proportional declines in visits by children aged ≤10 years (72%) and 11–14 years (71%). Declines in ED visits varied by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services region,* with the largest declines in the Northeast (Region 1, 49%) and in the region that includes New Jersey and New York (Region 2, 48%) (Figure 2). Visits declined 37% among males and 45% among females across all NSSP EDs between the comparison and early pandemic periods. FIGURE 1 Weekly number of emergency department (ED) visits — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States,* January 1, 2019– May 30, 2020† * Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming are not included. † Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of the 4-week coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early pandemic period (March 29–April 25, 2020) and the comparison period (March 31–April 27, 2019). The figure is a line graph showing the weekly number of emergency department visits, using data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program, in the United States, during January 1, 2019–May 30, 2020. FIGURE 2 Emergency department (ED) visits, by age group (A) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) region* (B) — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States,† March 31–April 27, 2019 (comparison period) and March 29–April 25, 2020 (early pandemic period) * Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Region 2: New Jersey and New York; Region 3: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska; Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah; Region 9: Arizona, California, and Nevada; Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. † Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming are not included. The figure is a bar chart showing the emergency department visits, by age group and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services region, using data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program, in the United States, during March 31–April 27, 2019 (comparison period) and March 29–April 25, 2020 (pandemic period). Among all ages, an increase of >100 mean visits per week from the comparison period to the early pandemic period occurred in eight of the top 200 diagnostic categories (Table). These included 1) exposure, encounters, screening, or contact with infectious disease (mean increase 18,834 visits per week); 2) COVID-19 (17,774); 3) other general signs and symptoms (4,532); 4) pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (3,911); 5) other specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease (1,506); 6) respiratory failure, insufficiency, or arrest (776); 7) cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (472); and 8) socioeconomic or psychosocial factors (354). The largest declines were in visits for abdominal pain and other digestive or abdomen signs and symptoms (–66,456), musculoskeletal pain excluding low back pain (–52,150), essential hypertension (–45,184), nausea and vomiting (–38,536), other specified upper respiratory infections (–36,189), sprains and strains (–33,709), and superficial injuries (–30,918). Visits for nonspecific chest pain were also among the top 20 diagnostic categories for which visits decreased (–24,258). Although not in the top 20 declining diagnoses, visits for acute myocardial infarction also declined (–1,156). TABLE Differences in mean weekly numbers of emergency department (ED) visits* for diagnostic categories with the largest increases or decreases† and prevalence ratios§ comparing the proportion of ED visits in each diagnostic category, for categories with the highest and lowest ratios — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States,¶ March 31–April 27, 2019 (comparison period) and March 29–April 25, 2020 (early pandemic period) Diagnostic category Change in mean no. of weekly ED visits* Prevalence ratio (95% CI)§ All categories with higher visit counts during the early pandemic period Exposure, encounters, screening, or contact with infectious disease** 18,834 3.79 (3.76–3.83) COVID-19 17,774 — Other general signs and symptoms** 4,532 1.87 (1.86–1.89) Pneumonia (except that caused by tuberculosis)** 3,911 1.91 (1.90–1.93) Other specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease** 1,506 1.99 (1.96–2.02) Respiratory failure, insufficiency, arrest** 776 1.76 (1.74–1.78) Cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation** 472 1.98 (1.93–2.03) Socioeconomic or psychosocial factors** 354 1.78 (1.75–1.81) Other top 10 highest prevalence ratios Mental and substance use disorders, in remission** 6 1.69 (1.64–1.75) Other specified encounters and counseling** 22 1.69 (1.67–1.72) Stimulant-related disorders** −189 1.65 (1.62–1.67) Top 20 categories with lower visit counts during the early pandemic period Abdominal pain and other digestive or abdomen signs and symptoms −66,456 0.93 (0.93–0.93) Musculoskeletal pain, not low back pain −52,150 0.81 (0.81–0.82) Essential hypertension −45,184 1.11 (1.10–1.11) Nausea and vomiting −38,536 0.85 (0.84–0.85) Other specified upper respiratory infections −36,189 0.82 (0.81–0.82) Sprains and strains, initial encounter †† −33,709 0.61 (0.61–0.62) Superficial injury; contusion, initial encounter −30,918 0.85 (0.84–0.85) Personal or family history of disease −28,734 1.21 (1.20–1.22) Headache, including migraine −27,458 0.85 (0.84–0.85) Other unspecified injury −25,974 0.84 (0.83–0.84) Nonspecific chest pain −24,258 1.20 (1.20–1.21) Tobacco-related disorders −23,657 1.19 (1.18–1.19) Urinary tract infections −23,346 1.02 (1.02–1.03) Asthma −20,660 0.91 (0.90–0.91) Disorders of lipid metabolism −20,145 1.12 (1.11–1.13) Spondylopathies/Spondyloarthropathy (including infective) −19,441 0.78 (0.77–0.79) Otitis media †† −17,852 0.35 (0.34–0.36) Diabetes mellitus without complication −15,893 1.10 (1.10–1.11) Skin and subcutaneous tissue infections −15,598 1.01 (1.00–1.02) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis −15,520 1.05 (1.04–1.06) Other top 10 lowest prevalence ratios Influenza †† −12,094 0.16 (0.15–0.16) No immunization or underimmunization †† −1,895 0.28 (0.27–0.30) Neoplasm-related encounters †† −1,926 0.40 (0.39–0.42) Intestinal infection †† −5,310 0.52 (0.51–0.54) Cornea and external disease †† −9,096 0.54 (0.53–0.55) Sinusitis †† −7,283 0.55 (0.54–0.56) Acute bronchitis †† −15,470 0.59 (0.58–0.60) Noninfectious gastroenteritis †† −11,572 0.63 (0.62–0.64) Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * The change in visits per week during the early pandemic and comparison periods was calculated as the difference in total visits between the two periods, divided by 4 weeks ([visits in diagnostic category, {early pandemic period} – visits in diagnostic category, {comparison period}] / 4). † Analysis is limited to the 200 most common diagnostic categories. All eight diagnostic categories with an increase of >100 in the mean number of visits nationwide in the early pandemic period are shown. The top 20 categories with decreasing visit counts are shown. § Ratio calculated as the proportion of all ED visits in each diagnostic category during the early pandemic period, divided by the proportion of all ED visits in that category during the comparison period ([visits in category {early pandemic period}/all visits {early pandemic period})/(visits in category {comparison period}/all visits {comparison period}]). Ratios >1 indicate a higher proportion of visits in that category during the early pandemic period than the comparison period; ratios <1 indicate a lower proportion during the early pandemic than during the comparison period. Analysis is limited to the 200 most common diagnostic categories. The 10 categories with the highest and lowest ratios are shown. ¶ Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, New York outside of New York City, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming, Santa Cruz and Solano counties in California, and the District of Columbia are not included. ** Top 10 highest prevalence ratios; higher proportion of visits in the early pandemic period than the comparison period. †† Top 10 lowest prevalence ratios; lower proportion of visits in the early pandemic period than the comparison period. During the early pandemic period, the proportion of ED visits for exposure, encounters, screening, or contact with infectious disease compared with total visits was nearly four times as large as during the comparison period (Table) (prevalence ratio [PR] = 3.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.76–3.83). The other diagnostic categories with the highest proportions of visits during the early pandemic compared with the comparison period were other specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease, which did not include influenza, pneumonia, asthma, or bronchitis (PR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.96–2.02), cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (PR = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.93–2.03), and pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (PR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.90–1.93). Diagnostic categories that were recorded less commonly during the early pandemic period included influenza (PR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.15–0.16), no immunization or underimmunization (PR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.27–0.30), otitis media (PR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.34–0.36), and neoplasm-related encounters (PR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.39–0.42). In the 2019 comparison period, 12% of all ED visits were in children aged ≤10 years old, compared with 6% during the early pandemic period. Among children aged ≤10 years, the largest declines were in visits for influenza (97% decrease), otitis media (85%), other specified upper respiratory conditions (84%), nausea and vomiting (84%), asthma (84%), viral infection (79%), respiratory signs and symptoms (78%), abdominal pain and other digestive or abdomen symptoms (78%), and fever (72%). Mean weekly visits with confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and screening for infectious disease during the early pandemic period were lower among children than among adults. Among all ages, the diagnostic categories with the largest changes (abdominal pain and other digestive or abdomen signs and symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, and essential hypertension) were the same in males and females, but declines in those categories were larger in females than males. Females also had large declines in visits for urinary tract infections (–19,833 mean weekly visits). Discussion During an early 4-week interval in the COVID-19 pandemic, ED visits were substantially lower than during the same 4-week period during the previous year; these decreases were especially pronounced for children and females and in the Northeast. In addition to diagnoses associated with lower respiratory disease, pneumonia, and difficulty breathing, the number and ratio of visits (early pandemic period versus comparison period) for cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation increased. The number of visits for conditions including nonspecific chest pain and acute myocardial infarction decreased, suggesting that some persons could be delaying care for conditions that might result in additional mortality if left untreated. Some declines were in categories including otitis media, superficial injuries, and sprains and strains that can often be managed through primary or urgent care. Future analyses will help clarify the proportion of the decline in ED visits that were not preventable or avoidable such as those for life-threatening conditions, those that were manageable through primary care, and those that represented actual reductions in injuries or illness attributable to changing activity patterns during the pandemic (such as lower risks for occupational and motor vehicle injuries or other infectious diseases). The striking decline in ED visits nationwide, with the highest declines in regions where the pandemic was most severe in April 2020, suggests that the pandemic has altered the use of the ED by the public. Persons who use the ED as a safety net because they lack access to primary care and telemedicine might be disproportionately affected if they avoid seeking care because of concerns about the infection risk in the ED. Syndromic surveillance has important strengths, including automated electronic reporting and the ability to track outbreaks in real time ( 7 ). Among all visits, 74% are reported within 24 hours, with 75% of discharge diagnoses typically added to the record within 1 week. The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, hospitals reporting to NSSP change over time as facilities are added, and more rarely, as they close ( 8 ). An average of 3,173 hospitals reported to NSSP nationally in April 2019, representing an estimated 66% of U.S. ED visits, and an average of 3,467 reported in April 2020, representing 73% of ED visits. Second, diagnostic categories rely on the use of specific codes, which were missing in 20% of visits and might be used inconsistently across hospitals and providers, which could result in misclassification. The COVID-19 diagnosis code was introduced recently (April 1, 2020) and timing of uptake might have differed across hospitals ( 6 ). Third, NSSP coverage is not uniform across or within all states; in some states nearly all hospitals report, whereas in others, a lower proportion statewide or only those in certain counties report. Finally, because this analysis is limited to ED visit data, the proportion of persons who did not visit EDs but received treatment elsewhere is not captured. Health care systems should continue to address public concern about exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the ED through adherence to CDC infection control recommendations, such as immediately screening every person for fever and symptoms of COVID-19, and maintaining separate, well-ventilated triage areas for patients with and without signs and symptoms of COVID-19 ( 9 ). Wider access is needed to health messages that reinforce the importance of immediately seeking care for serious conditions for which ED visits cannot be avoided, such as symptoms of myocardial infarction. Expanded access to triage telephone lines that help persons rapidly decide whether they need to go to an ED for symptoms of possible COVID-19 infection and other urgent conditions is also needed. For conditions that do not require immediate care or in-person treatment, health care systems should continue to expand the use of virtual visits during the pandemic ( 10 ). Summary What is already known about this topic? The National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) collects electronic health data in real time. What is added by this report? NSSP found that emergency department (ED) visits declined 42% during the early COVID-19 pandemic, from a mean of 2.1 million per week (March 31–April 27, 2019) to 1.2 million (March 29–April 25, 2020), with the steepest decreases in persons aged ≤14 years, females, and the Northeast. The proportion of infectious disease–related visits was four times higher during the early pandemic period. What are the implications for public health practice? To minimize SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk and address public concerns about visiting the ED during the pandemic, CDC recommends continued use of virtual visits and triage help lines and adherence to CDC infection control guidance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak on ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Care in Hong Kong, China

          Acute ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a disease of high mortality and morbidity, and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the typical recommended therapy. 1,2 Systems of care have been established to expedite PPCI workflow to minimize ischemic time from symptom onset to definitive treatment in the catheterization laboratory. Little is known about the impact of public health emergencies like a community outbreak of infectious disease on STEMI systems of care. Since December 2019, the emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, has evolved into a regional epidemic, including in Hong Kong, a city in Southern China. We describe the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on STEMI care in Hong Kong through a handful of recent cases of patients with STEMI who underwent PPCI at a single center. We included patients with STEMI admitted via the Accident and Emergency Department and in whom PPCI was performed. We focus on the time period since January 25, 2020, when hospitals in the city started to institute emergency infection protocols to contain COVID-19. This required hospitals to suspend all nonessential visits and adjust clinical in-patient and out-patient services. Indications for PPCI were according to the international guidelines. 1,2 Study exclusion criteria included inpatient STEMI (n=1), STEMI with unknown symptom onset time (n=3), and cardiac arrest patients (n=2). Our hospital has offered 24/7 PPCI service to all eligible patients presenting with acute STEMI since 2010 per standard Accident and Emergency Department protocol. When STEMI is diagnosed, a PPCI team is activated after cardiology evaluation. Data on key time points in STEMI care are recorded in a clinical registry. Symptom-onset-to-first-medical-contact time is defined as the time from patient-reported chest discomfort onset time to the time of first medical contact. Door-to-device time is defined as the time from Accident and Emergency Department arrival to successful wire crossing time during PPCI. Catheterization laboratory arrival-to-device time is defined as the time from patient arrival in the catheterization laboratory to successful wire crossing time. From January 25, 2020, to February 10, 2020, we observed changes in time components of STEMI care among the aggregate group of 7 consecutive patients who underwent PPCI. We compared these with data from 108 patients with STEMI treated with PPCI in the prior year from February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019 (N=108). These 7 patients did not suffer from COVID-19 infection, and 6 out of 7 presented to our hospital during regular work hours (8 am–8 pm weekdays, excluding public holidays). The Table shows numerically longer median times in all components when compared with historical data from the prior year. The largest time difference was in the time from symptom onset to first medical contact. Table. Time Components of STEMI Care Before and After COVID-19 Outbreak The extent to which a community outbreak of infection like COVID-19 stresses other parts of healthcare system like STEMI care is largely unknown. Contemporary COVID-19 infection affects respiratory tract and is capable of human-to-human transmission presumably via droplets. 3,4 Given these concerns, Hong Kong hospitals implemented stringent infection control measures starting in late January 2020, including but not limited to universal masking, full personal protective equipment (N95 respirator, goggles/face shield, isolated gown, disposable gloves) for aerosol-generating procedures, frequent environmental disinfection, suspension of ward visit, volunteer service, and clinical attachment. Of course, these protocols are essential for limiting the spread of infections like COVID-19 but also may impact healthcare systems in unexpected ways. Most visibly, we found large delays in the small number of patients with STEMI seeking medical help after institution of these infection control measures. It is understandable that people are reluctant to go to a hospital during the COVID-19 outbreak, which explains the potential delays in seeking care. Another concern that we are unable to evaluate is whether some patients with STEMI did not seek care at all. Delays in seeking care or not seeking care could have a detrimental impact on outcomes. We also found delays in evaluating patients with STEMI after hospital arrival that could be explained by several reasons. For example, catheterization laboratories generally have positive pressure ventilation so COVID-19 infection inside these rooms can theoretically cause widespread contamination of the surrounding environment. Precautions such as detailed travel and contact history, symptomatology, and chest X-ray, therefore, are taken before transferring patients to the catheterization laboratory at our hospital. Although these are essential measures for containing COVID-19 infection, this could increase delays in diagnosis, staff activation and transfer if healthcare systems are not prepared. Similarly, even after patients arrived in the catheterization laboratory, staff may need more time to wear protective gear to prepare the patients and interventional cardiologists may not be used to performing PPCI while in full protective gear, leading to longer treatment. This is a preliminary report, and our study should be considered in the context of the following limitations. We describe a single hospital’s experience in STEMI care after instituting emergency infection protocols in a handful of patients. It is possible that patients and staff improve over time as their experiences with these measures mature. Although we cannot make meaningful statistical complications, our description allows for an early examination into how public health emergencies can indirectly affect unrelated hospital areas. In modern society, infectious agents like the COVID-19 outbreak can spread quickly and evolve into a pandemic. Hospitals not only need to consider methods for containing and treating these infections but how infection outbreaks may affect systems of care beyond the immediate infection. Acknowledgment We would like to thank all healthcare workers who have sacrificed themselves in the current coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak. Disclosures None.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Decline of acute coronary syndrome admissions in Austria since the outbreak of COVID-19: the pandemic response causes cardiac collateral damage

            We conducted a nationwide retrospective survey on the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and treatment of acute cornary syndrome (ACS) from 2 to 29 March in Austria. Of the 19 public primary percutaneous coronary (PCI) centres contacted, 17 (90%) provided the number of admitted patients. During the study period, we observed a significant decline in the number of patients admitted to hospital due to ACS (Figure 1 ). Comparing the first and last calendar week, there was a relative reduction of 39.4% in admissions for ACS. In detail, from calendar week 10 to calendar week 13, the number of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients admitted to all hospitals was 94, 101, 89, and 70, respectively. The number of non-STEMI patients declined even more markedly from 132 to 110, to 62, and to 67. Figure 1 Decline of acute coronary syndrome admissions in Austria since the outbreak of COVID-19. The absolute numbers of all ACS (blue bars), STEMI (orange bars), and NSTEMI (grey bars) admissions in Austria from calendar week 10 to calendar week 13 are shown. Abbreviations: STEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; NSTEMI, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The main finding of our retrospective observational study is an unexpected major decline in hospital admissions and thus treatment for all subtypes of ACS with the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in Austria and subsequent large-scale public health measures such as social distancing, self-isolation, and quarantining. Several factors might explain this important observation. The rigorous public health measures, which are undoubtedly critical for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, may unintentionally affect established integrated care systems. Amongst others, patient-related factors could mean that infarct-related symptoms such as chest discomfort and dyspnoea could be misinterpreted as being related to an acute respiratory infection. Moreover, the strict instructions to stay at home as well as the fear of infection in a medical facility may have further prevented patients with an ACS from going to a hospital. Irrespective of the causes, the lower rate of admitted and therefore treated patients with ACS is worrisome and we are concerned that this might be accompanied by a substantial increase in early and late infarct-related morbidity and mortality. Our study does not provide data on mortality; however, considering the annual incidence of ACS in Austria (200/100 000/year = 17 600/year in 8.8 million habitants) 1 and taking into consideration sudden cardiac deaths and silent infarctions (one-third), there will remain ∼1000 ACS cases a month. The difference between the assumed number of ACS patients and the observed number in our study, i.e. 725 ACS patients in calendar weeks 10–13 is 275. According to these assumptions, 275 patients were not treated in March 2020. Based on data showing that the cardiovascular mortality of untreated ACS patients might be as high as 40% (as it was in the 1950s), 2 we can theoretically estimate 110 ACS deaths during this time frame. The number of deaths associated with this unintentional undersupply of guideline-directed ACS management is very alarming, particularly when considering that the official number of COVID-related deaths in Austria was 86 on 29 March. In conclusion, it seems likely that the COVID-19 outbreak is associated with a significantly lower rate of hospital admissions and thus, albeit unintended, treatment of ACS patients, which is most likely explained by several patient- and system-related factors. Every effort should be undertaken by the cardiology community to minimize the possible cardiac collateral damage caused by COVID-19.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Journal
              MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
              MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep
              WR
              Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
              Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
              0149-2195
              1545-861X
              12 June 2020
              12 June 2020
              : 69
              : 23
              : 699-704
              Affiliations
              Innovation, Technology, and Analytics Task Force, CDC COVID-19 Response Team; Division of Health Informatics and Surveillance, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, CDC; Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC; Public Health Informatics Office, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, CDC.
              Author notes
              Corresponding author: Kathleen Hartnett, KHartnett@ 123456cdc.gov ; 404-718-6790.
              Article
              mm6923e1
              10.15585/mmwr.mm6923e1
              7315789
              32525856
              1662ace6-3c7a-4897-a459-2a5345f8501a

              All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.

              History
              Categories
              Full Report

              Comments

              Comment on this article