9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Guidance for Cardiac Electrophysiology During the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Heart Rhythm Society COVID-19 Task Force; Electrophysiology Section of the American College of Cardiology; and the Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association

      research-article
      , MD 1 , * , , , MD 2 , * , , MD 3 , , MD 4 , , MD 5 , , MD 6 , , MD 7 , , MD 8 , , MD 9 , , MD 10 , , MD 11 , , MD 12 , , MD 13 , , RN, PhD 14 , , MD 15 , , MD 16 , , MD 17 , , MD 12 , , MD 18 , , MD 19 , , MD 20 , , MD 21 , , MD 22 , *
      Circulation
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
      COVID-19, electrophysiology, health planning guidelines, pandemics, pathology, practice guideline, virus

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that is wreaking havoc on the health and economy of much of human civilization. Electrophysiologists have been impacted personally and professionally by this global catastrophe. In this joint article from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, we identify the potential risks of exposure to patients, allied healthcare staff, industry representatives, and hospital administrators. We also describe the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac arrhythmias and methods of triage based on acuity and patient comorbidities. We provide guidance for managing invasive and noninvasive electrophysiology procedures, clinic visits, and cardiac device interrogations. In addition, we discuss resource conservation and the role of telemedicine in remote patient care along with management strategies for affected patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

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

          Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

          Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p<0·0001), and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL (18·42, 2·64–128·55; p=0·0033) on admission. Median duration of viral shedding was 20·0 days (IQR 17·0–24·0) in survivors, but SARS-CoV-2 was detectable until death in non-survivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days. Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China

            In December 2019, novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)-infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, China. The number of cases has increased rapidly but information on the clinical characteristics of affected patients is limited.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

              To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Circulation
                Circulation
                CIR
                Circulation
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0009-7322
                1524-4539
                26 May 2020
                31 March 2020
                : 141
                : 21
                : e823-e831
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, KS (D.R.L., R.G.).
                [2 ]Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute and Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH (M.K.C.).
                [3 ]University of Washington, Seattle (K.K.P.).
                [4 ]Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Research and Data Science, Providence Heart Institute, Providence St Joseph Health, Portland, OR (T.J.G.).
                [5 ]Mt Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY (M.T.).
                [6 ]Weill Cornell School of Medicine, New York, NY (J.C.).
                [7 ]Ascension Health System, Indianapolis, IN (P.P.).
                [8 ]Centro Cardiovascular, San Juan, PR (J.S.).
                [9 ]Yale School of Medicine, Hartford, CT (R.L.).
                [10 ]VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (J.K.H.).
                [11 ]Prairie Heart Institute, Springfield, IL (B.R.).
                [12 ]University of Wisconsin, Madison (L.E., M.L.).
                [13 ]University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas (J.J.).
                [14 ]Bethel University, St Paul, MN (K.S.).
                [15 ]Mason City Clinic, IA (B.O.).
                [16 ]Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY (E.W.).
                [17 ]Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (P.A.N.).
                [18 ]Metro Health Medical Center, Cleveland, OH (E.K.).
                [19 ]University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (A.G.).
                [20 ]Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (J.M.M.).
                [21 ]Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA (P.J.W.).
                [22 ]Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ (A.M.R.).
                Author notes
                Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy MD, Executive Medical Director, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri–Columbia, HCA Midwest Health, 5100 W 105th Street, Suite 200, Overland Park, KS 661215. Email dhanunjaya.lakkireddy@ 123456hcahealthcare.com
                Article
                00009
                10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047063
                7243667
                32228309
                d915b2a8-2ee3-4a40-9885-ad426499f3ca
                © 2020 American Heart Association, Inc.

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                Categories
                10001
                10003
                State of the Art
                Consensus Reports
                Custom metadata
                ONLINE-ONLY

                covid-19,electrophysiology,health planning guidelines,pandemics,pathology,practice guideline,virus

                Comments

                Comment on this article