19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Potential Indirect Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Use of Emergency Departments for Acute Life-Threatening Conditions — United States, January–May 2020

      research-article

      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 in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Subsequently, states enacted stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and reduce the burden on the U.S. health care system. CDC* and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) † recommended that health care systems prioritize urgent visits and delay elective care to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in health care settings. By May 2020, national syndromic surveillance data found that emergency department (ED) visits had declined 42% during the early months of the pandemic ( 1 ). This report describes trends in ED visits for three acute life-threatening health conditions (myocardial infarction [MI, also known as heart attack], stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis), immediately before and after declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic as a national emergency. These conditions represent acute events that always necessitate immediate emergency care, even during a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 10 weeks following the emergency declaration (March 15–May 23, 2020), ED visits declined 23% for MI, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis, compared with the preceding 10-week period (January 5–March 14, 2020). EDs play a critical role in diagnosing and treating life-threatening conditions that might result in serious disability or death. Persons experiencing signs or symptoms of serious illness, such as severe chest pain, sudden or partial loss of motor function, altered mental state, signs of extreme hyperglycemia, or other life-threatening issues, should seek immediate emergency care, regardless of the pandemic. Clear, frequent, highly visible communication from public health and health care professionals is needed to reinforce the importance of timely care for medical emergencies and to assure the public that EDs are implementing infection prevention and control guidelines that help ensure the safety of their patients and health care personnel. CDC used data from its National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) to assess trends in ED visits from week 1, 2019 through week 21, 2020 for three life-threatening health conditions: MI, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis. NSSP is a collaboration among CDC, federal partners, local and state health departments, and academic and private sector partners to collect, analyze, and share electronic patient encounter data received from emergency departments, urgent and ambulatory care centers, inpatient health care settings, and laboratories for public health action. § NSSP includes ED visits from a subset of hospitals in 47 states (all but Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia, capturing approximately 73% of ED visits nationwide. These analyses were limited to EDs with consistent ≥90% completeness for patient discharge diagnosis to ensure data quality (1,670 EDs). ¶ The three conditions were defined using the following International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes: MI = I21–I22; stroke = I60–I61 (hemorrhagic stroke) or I63 (ischemic stroke); and hyperglycemic crisis = E10.1, E11.1, or E13.1 (diabetic ketoacidosis) or E11.0, E13.0, or E10.65 and E10.69 (hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome). Weekly numbers of ED visits for each of the three conditions were compared for two 10-week periods: January 5–March 14, 2020 (weeks 2–11, prepandemic) and March 15–May 23, 2020 (weeks 12–21, early pandemic). The absolute differences and percentage change in number of visits from pre- to early pandemic periods were tabulated, overall and within age-sex strata. Analyses were conducted using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute). Trends in number of ED visits for MI and stroke were relatively stable during the first half of 2019, increased slightly in the second half of 2019, and then stabilized during the first few weeks of 2020, remaining stable throughout the prepandemic period (Figure 1). The number of ED visits for MI and stroke declined sharply starting at week 10 (corresponding to the week beginning March 1, 2020) and reaching the lowest level during weeks 13–14 (weeks beginning March 22 for MI and March 29 for stroke), coinciding with the early weeks after the declaration of the COVID-19 national emergency. Since the nadir, ED visits for MI and stroke have gradually increased but remain below prepandemic levels. Compared with the prepandemic period, the number of ED visits during the early pandemic period was 23% lower for MI and 20% lower for stroke (Table). The number of ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis followed similar, albeit less pronounced, trends to those observed for MI and stroke; the number of ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis was 10% lower during the early pandemic than during the prepandemic period, with the lowest level occurring at week 14. The reduction in visits for all three conditions during the early pandemic was similar in males and females. FIGURE 1 Number of emergency department (ED) visits for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis* — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States, week 1, 2019–week 21, 2020 † Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Includes diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome. † Week 1, 2019 (week ending January 5, 2019) to week 21, 2020 (week ending May 23, 2020). The figure is a line chart showing the number of emergency department visits for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis, in the United States, during week 1, 2019–week 21, 2020. TABLE Number of emergency department visits and percentage change for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis immediately before and during the early COVID-19 pandemic, by sex and age group — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States, 2020 Sex/Age Myocardial infarction Stroke Hyperglycemic crisis Prepandemic* Early pandemic† % Change Prepandemic Early pandemic % Change Prepandemic Early pandemic % Change Total 56,565 43,545 −23 57,490 46,066 −20 22,766 20,561 −10 Males 33,263 26,176 −21 28,729 23,715 −17 11,842 11,070 −7 Age group (yrs) <18 10 5 −50 169 180 7 895 779 −13 18–44 2,101 1,805 −14 1,984 1,765 −11 5,236 4,817 −8 45–54 4,510 3,669 −19 3,256 2,665 −18 2,025 1,958 −3 55–64 8,228 6,780 −18 6,488 5,518 −15 1,887 1,854 −2 65–74 8,965 6,851 −24 7,532 6,126 −19 1,120 1,042 −7 75–84 6,218 4,736 −24 6,083 4,998 −18 526 490 −7 ≥85 3,231 2,330 −28 3,217 2,463 −23 153 130 −15 Females 23,017 17,128 −26 28,666 22,260 −22 10,888 9,469 −13 Age group (yrs) <18 8 0 −100 137 100 −27 902 685 −24 18–44 1,168 882 −24 1,787 1,428 −20 4,775 4,000 −16 45–54 2,131 1,632 −23 2,625 2,050 −22 1,613 1,503 −7 55–64 4,396 3,372 −23 4,683 3,850 −18 1,689 1,509 −11 65–74 5,782 4,323 −25 6,625 5,056 −24 1,173 1,038 −12 75–84 5,379 3,924 −27 7,006 5,364 −23 536 540 1 ≥85 4,153 2,995 −28 5,803 4,412 −24 200 194 −3 Sex unknown 285 241 −15 95 91 −4 36 22 −39 Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Prepandemic (weeks 2–11) corresponds to January 5–March 14, 2020. † Early pandemic (weeks 12–21) corresponds to March 15–May 23, 2020. The relative decline in the number of ED visits between the prepandemic and early pandemic periods was similar across age groups for MI and stroke, whereas the decline in ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis tended to be larger among younger age groups, particularly for females (Table). The absolute decrease in ED visits for MI was largest among persons aged 65–74 years for both men (2,114-visit decrease) and women (1,459) (Figure 2). The absolute decrease in ED visits for stroke was largest among men aged 65–74 years (1,406-visit decrease) and women aged 75–84 years (1,642). The absolute decrease in ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis was largest in younger adults aged 18–44 years (419-visit decrease for men, 775 for women). FIGURE 2 Absolute decreases in number of emergency department (ED) visits for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis between COVID-19 prepandemic* and early pandemic periods, † by sex and age group § — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States, 2020 Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Prepandemic (weeks 2–11) corresponds to January 5–March 14, 2020. † Early pandemic (weeks 12–21) corresponds to March 15–May 23, 2020. § There was a slight absolute increase in ED visits for stroke among males aged 0–17 years and for hyperglycemic crisis among females aged 75–84 years. The figure is a bar chart showing the absolute decreases in number of emergency department visits for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis between COVID-19 prepandemic and early pandemic periods, by sex and age group, in the United States in 2020. Discussion In the weeks following the declaration of COVID-19 as a national emergency on March 13, 2020, NSSP identified substantial reductions in numbers of ED visits by males and females in all age groups for three potentially life-threatening conditions: MI (23% decrease), stroke (20%), and hyperglycemic crisis (10%). These estimates are consistent with, but smaller in relative magnitude than, the 42% overall decline in ED visits observed during the early pandemic period ( 1 ). The largest absolute differences were observed in adults aged ≥65 years for MI and stroke, and adults aged 18–44 years and persons aged <18 years for hyperglycemic crisis. The substantial reduction in ED visits for these life-threatening conditions might be explained by many pandemic-related factors including fear of exposure to COVID-19, unintended consequences of public health recommendations to minimize nonurgent health care, stay-at-home orders, or other reasons. A short-term decline of this magnitude in the incidence of these conditions is biologically implausible for MI and stroke, especially for older adults, and unlikely for hyperglycemic crisis, and the finding suggests that patients with these conditions either could not access care or were delaying or avoiding seeking care during the early pandemic period. There have been reports of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic wherein deaths not associated with confirmed or probable COVID-19 might have been directly or indirectly attributed to the pandemic.** The striking decline in ED visits for acute life-threatening conditions might partially explain observed excess mortality not associated with COVID-19. Previous studies have also reported significant reductions in hospital admissions for MI and stroke during the COVID-19 pandemic ( 2 – 7 ). For example, a study of nine high-volume U.S. cardiac catheterization laboratories found a 38% decrease in activations for heart attacks during March 2020 compared with the 14 months before the pandemic ( 2 ). Further, large hospital systems in California, Massachusetts, and New York City have reported 43%–50% reductions in admissions for MI and other acute cardiovascular conditions during the pandemic ( 3 – 5 ), and neuroimaging data from approximately 850 U.S. hospitals indicate a 39% reduction in the number of patients who were evaluated for signs of stroke ( 7 ). Decreases in ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis might be less striking because patient recognition of this crisis is typically augmented by home glucose monitoring and not reliant upon symptoms alone, as is the case for MI and stroke. The decrease in visits for hyperglycemic crisis merits further study because there are few published reports on this topic. MI, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis are common life-threatening conditions that require urgent attention to reduce associated morbidity and mortality. Heart disease is the leading cause of death, and stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States †† : someone in the United States has a heart attack every 40 seconds, §§ and approximately 795,000 persons have a stroke annually. ¶¶ Diabetes affects 34 million Americans,*** and uncontrolled hyperglycemia (high blood glucose), can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis or a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, life-threatening but preventable metabolic complications of diabetes ( 8 ). It is important for all persons to know the warning signs of MI, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis ††† and understand that immediate medical attention for these acute issues can prevent serious heart or brain damage, metabolic complications of diabetes, or death. The sooner emergency care begins, the better are the chances for survival. Even in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency care can and should be accessed and provided without delay. The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, NSSP coverage is not uniform across or within states, and hospitals reporting to NSSP change over time; however, NSSP captures approximately 73% of the ED data analyzable at the national level. Second, conditions were defined using ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Differences in coding practices might exist; however, coding for common conditions, especially the life-threatening conditions described in this report, is likely consistent ( 9 , 10 ). Third, NSSP does not capture mortality data, and it is not known whether patients with MI or stroke sought treatment elsewhere or died at home. Fourth, despite allowing 2 weeks from the end of week 21 before analyzing the data, the findings from the final weeks might be slightly underestimated because of delayed reporting. Finally, seasonal effects in trends in ED visits might exist; however, a proximal comparison period was best for this analysis to minimize other factors that might have affected trends in disease incidence or health care–seeking behavior between years. Despite these limitations, this study also has important strengths. NSSP is a national surveillance system with automated electronic reporting and the ability to detect and monitor health events in near real time, and this analysis was restricted to hospitals with consistent reporting on patients’ diagnoses at discharge to minimize effects of differential reporting. At least one in five expected U.S. ED visits for MI or stroke and one in 10 ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis did not occur during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients might have delayed or avoided seeking care because of fear of COVID-19, unintended consequences of recommendations to stay at home, or other reasons. EDs play a critical role in treating acute conditions that might result in permanent disability or death. Persons experiencing severe chest pain, sudden or partial loss of motor function, altered mental status, signs of extreme hyperglycemia, or other life-threatening issues, should call 9-1-1, irrespective of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clear communication from public health and health care professionals is needed to reinforce the importance of timely emergency care for acute health conditions and to assure the public that EDs are implementing infection prevention and control guidelines §§§ to ensure the safety of their patients and health care personnel. Summary What is already known about this topic? National syndromic surveillance data suggest a decline in emergency department (ED) visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. What is added by this report? In the 10 weeks following declaration of the COVID-19 national emergency, ED visits declined 23% for heart attack, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis. What are the implications for public health practice? Persons experiencing chest pain, loss of motor function, altered mental status, or other life-threatening issues should seek immediate emergency care, regardless of the pandemic. Communication from public health and health care professionals should reinforce the importance of timely care for acute health conditions and assure the public that EDs are implementing infection prevention and control guidelines to ensure the safety of patients and health care personnel.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • 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

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

              Declines in Hospitalizations for Acute Cardiovascular Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Tertiary Care Experience

              Background While patients with cardiovascular disease face excess risks of severe illness with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), there may be indirect consequences of the pandemic on this high-risk patient segment. Objectives To examine longitudinal trends in hospitalizations for acute cardiovascular conditions across a tertiary care healthcare system. Methods We tracked acute cardiovascular hospitalizations between January 1st, 2019 and March 31st, 2020. We estimated daily hospitalization rates using negative binomial models. Temporal trends in hospitalization rates were compared across the first 3 months of 2020, with the first 3 months of 2019 as a reference. Results From January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, 6,083 patients experienced 7,187 hospitalizations for primary acute cardiovascular reasons. There was 43.4% (27.4% to 56.0%) fewer estimated daily hospitalizations in March 2020 as compared with March 2019 (P<0.001). The daily rate of hospitalizations did not change throughout 2019 (-0.01% per day [-0.04% to +0.02%], P=0.50), January 2020 (-0.5% per day [-1.6% to +0.5%], P=0.31), or February 2020 (+0.7% per day [-0.6% to +2.0%], P=0.27). There was significant daily decline in hospitalizations in March 2020 (-5.9% per day [-7.6% to -4.3%], P<0.001). Length of stay was shorter (4.8 [2.4,8.3] days vs. 6.0 [3.1,9.6] days; P=0.003) and in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (6.2% vs. 4.4%; P=0.30) in March 2020 compared with March 2019. Conclusions During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked decline in acute cardiovascular hospitalizations and patients who were admitted had shorter lengths of stay. These data substantiate concerns that acute care of cardiovascular conditions may be delayed, deferred, or abbreviated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
                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
                26 June 2020
                26 June 2020
                : 69
                : 25
                : 795-800
                Affiliations
                National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response; Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, CDC.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Samantha Lange, nya7@ 123456cdc.gov .
                Article
                mm6925e2
                10.15585/mmwr.mm6925e2
                7316316
                32584802
                c5e65a12-efa8-4f16-878b-c8754981c7bb

                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

                scite_

                Similar content55

                Cited by189

                Most referenced authors170