COVID-19 Updates

As we transition out of the Omicron surge, the lessons we’ve learned from the prior surges carry forward and add to our knowledge foundation. Medical journals have published numerous research and perspectives manuscripts on all aspects of COVID-19 over the past 2 years, adding much-needed knowledge to our clinical practice during the pandemic. However, the story does not stop there, as the pandemic has impacted the usual, non-COVID-19 clinical care we provide. The value-based health care delivery model accounts for both COVID-19 clinical care and the usual care we provide our patients every day. Clinicians, administrators, and health care workers will need to know how to balance both worlds in the years to come.

In this issue of JCOM, the work of balancing the demands of COVID-19 care with those of system improvement continues. Two original research articles address the former, with Liesching et al¹ reporting data on improving clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 through acute care oxygen therapies, and Ali et al² explaining the impact of COVID-19 on STEMI care delivery models. Liesching et al’s study showed that patients admitted for COVID-19 after the first surge were more likely to receive high-flow nasal cannula and had better outcomes, while Ali et al showed that patients with STEMI yet again experienced worse outcomes during the first wave.

On the system improvement front, Cusick et al³ report on a quality improvement (QI) project that addressed acute disease management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during hospitalization, Sosa et al⁴ discuss efforts to improve comorbidity capture at their institution, and Uche et al⁵ present the results of a nonpharmacologic initiative to improve management of chronic pain among veterans. Cusick et al’s QI project showed that a HIT testing strategy could be safely implemented through an evidence-based process to nudge resource utilization using specific management pathways. While capturing and measuring the complexity of diseases and comorbidities can be challenging, accurate capture is essential, as patient acuity has implications for reimbursement and quality comparisons for hospitals and physicians; Sosa et al describe a series of initiatives implemented at their institution that improved comorbidity capture. Furthermore, Uche et al report on a 10-week complementary and integrative health program for veterans with noncancer chronic pain that reduced pain intensity and improved quality of life for its participants. These QI reports show that, though the health care landscape has changed over the past 2 years, the aim remains the same: to provide the best care for patients regardless of the diagnosis, location, or time.

Conducting QI projects during the COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult, especially in terms of implementing consistent processes and management pathways while contending with staff and supply shortages. The pandemic, however, has highlighted the importance of continuing QI efforts, specifically around infectious disease prevention and good clinical practices. Moreover, the recent continuous learning and implementation around COVID-19 patient care has been a significant achievement, as clinicians and administrators worked continuously to understand and improve processes, create a supporting culture, and redesign care delivery on the fly. The management of both COVID-19 care and our usual care QI efforts should incorporate the lessons learned from the pandemic and leverage system redesign for future steps. As we’ve seen, survival in COVID-19 improved dramatically since the beginning of the pandemic, as clinical trials became more adaptive and efficient and system upgrades like telemedicine and digital technologies in the public health response led to major advancements. The work to improve the care provided in the clinic and at the bedside will continue through one collective approach in the new normal.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

As we transition out of the Omicron surge, the lessons we’ve learned from the prior surges carry forward and add to our knowledge foundation. Medical journals have published numerous research and perspectives manuscripts on all aspects of COVID-19 over the past 2 years, adding much-needed knowledge to our clinical practice during the pandemic. However, the story does not stop there, as the pandemic has impacted the usual, non-COVID-19 clinical care we provide. The value-based health care delivery model accounts for both COVID-19 clinical care and the usual care we provide our patients every day. Clinicians, administrators, and health care workers will need to know how to balance both worlds in the years to come.

In this issue of JCOM, the work of balancing the demands of COVID-19 care with those of system improvement continues. Two original research articles address the former, with Liesching et al¹ reporting data on improving clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 through acute care oxygen therapies, and Ali et al² explaining the impact of COVID-19 on STEMI care delivery models. Liesching et al’s study showed that patients admitted for COVID-19 after the first surge were more likely to receive high-flow nasal cannula and had better outcomes, while Ali et al showed that patients with STEMI yet again experienced worse outcomes during the first wave.

On the system improvement front, Cusick et al³ report on a quality improvement (QI) project that addressed acute disease management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during hospitalization, Sosa et al⁴ discuss efforts to improve comorbidity capture at their institution, and Uche et al⁵ present the results of a nonpharmacologic initiative to improve management of chronic pain among veterans. Cusick et al’s QI project showed that a HIT testing strategy could be safely implemented through an evidence-based process to nudge resource utilization using specific management pathways. While capturing and measuring the complexity of diseases and comorbidities can be challenging, accurate capture is essential, as patient acuity has implications for reimbursement and quality comparisons for hospitals and physicians; Sosa et al describe a series of initiatives implemented at their institution that improved comorbidity capture. Furthermore, Uche et al report on a 10-week complementary and integrative health program for veterans with noncancer chronic pain that reduced pain intensity and improved quality of life for its participants. These QI reports show that, though the health care landscape has changed over the past 2 years, the aim remains the same: to provide the best care for patients regardless of the diagnosis, location, or time.

Conducting QI projects during the COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult, especially in terms of implementing consistent processes and management pathways while contending with staff and supply shortages. The pandemic, however, has highlighted the importance of continuing QI efforts, specifically around infectious disease prevention and good clinical practices. Moreover, the recent continuous learning and implementation around COVID-19 patient care has been a significant achievement, as clinicians and administrators worked continuously to understand and improve processes, create a supporting culture, and redesign care delivery on the fly. The management of both COVID-19 care and our usual care QI efforts should incorporate the lessons learned from the pandemic and leverage system redesign for future steps. As we’ve seen, survival in COVID-19 improved dramatically since the beginning of the pandemic, as clinical trials became more adaptive and efficient and system upgrades like telemedicine and digital technologies in the public health response led to major advancements. The work to improve the care provided in the clinic and at the bedside will continue through one collective approach in the new normal.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

As we transition out of the Omicron surge, the lessons we’ve learned from the prior surges carry forward and add to our knowledge foundation. Medical journals have published numerous research and perspectives manuscripts on all aspects of COVID-19 over the past 2 years, adding much-needed knowledge to our clinical practice during the pandemic. However, the story does not stop there, as the pandemic has impacted the usual, non-COVID-19 clinical care we provide. The value-based health care delivery model accounts for both COVID-19 clinical care and the usual care we provide our patients every day. Clinicians, administrators, and health care workers will need to know how to balance both worlds in the years to come.

In this issue of JCOM, the work of balancing the demands of COVID-19 care with those of system improvement continues. Two original research articles address the former, with Liesching et al¹ reporting data on improving clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 through acute care oxygen therapies, and Ali et al² explaining the impact of COVID-19 on STEMI care delivery models. Liesching et al’s study showed that patients admitted for COVID-19 after the first surge were more likely to receive high-flow nasal cannula and had better outcomes, while Ali et al showed that patients with STEMI yet again experienced worse outcomes during the first wave.

On the system improvement front, Cusick et al³ report on a quality improvement (QI) project that addressed acute disease management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during hospitalization, Sosa et al⁴ discuss efforts to improve comorbidity capture at their institution, and Uche et al⁵ present the results of a nonpharmacologic initiative to improve management of chronic pain among veterans. Cusick et al’s QI project showed that a HIT testing strategy could be safely implemented through an evidence-based process to nudge resource utilization using specific management pathways. While capturing and measuring the complexity of diseases and comorbidities can be challenging, accurate capture is essential, as patient acuity has implications for reimbursement and quality comparisons for hospitals and physicians; Sosa et al describe a series of initiatives implemented at their institution that improved comorbidity capture. Furthermore, Uche et al report on a 10-week complementary and integrative health program for veterans with noncancer chronic pain that reduced pain intensity and improved quality of life for its participants. These QI reports show that, though the health care landscape has changed over the past 2 years, the aim remains the same: to provide the best care for patients regardless of the diagnosis, location, or time.

Conducting QI projects during the COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult, especially in terms of implementing consistent processes and management pathways while contending with staff and supply shortages. The pandemic, however, has highlighted the importance of continuing QI efforts, specifically around infectious disease prevention and good clinical practices. Moreover, the recent continuous learning and implementation around COVID-19 patient care has been a significant achievement, as clinicians and administrators worked continuously to understand and improve processes, create a supporting culture, and redesign care delivery on the fly. The management of both COVID-19 care and our usual care QI efforts should incorporate the lessons learned from the pandemic and leverage system redesign for future steps. As we’ve seen, survival in COVID-19 improved dramatically since the beginning of the pandemic, as clinical trials became more adaptive and efficient and system upgrades like telemedicine and digital technologies in the public health response led to major advancements. The work to improve the care provided in the clinic and at the bedside will continue through one collective approach in the new normal.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

From the Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at the Augusta University-University of Georgia Medical Partnership, Athens, GA (Syed H. Ali, Syed Hyder, and Dr. Murrow), and the Department of Cardiology, Piedmont Heart Institute, Piedmont Athens Regional, Athens, GA (Dr. Murrow and Mrs. Davis).

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the early COVID-19 pandemic at Piedmont Athens Regional (PAR), a 330-bed tertiary referral center in Northeast Georgia. 

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at PAR to evaluate patients with acute STEMI admitted over an 8-week period during the initial COVID-19 outbreak. This study group was compared to patients admitted during the corresponding period in 2019. The primary endpoint of this study was defined as a composite of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, congestive heart failure (CHF) with pulmonary congestion, and/or in-hospital mortality. 

Results: This study cohort was composed of 64 patients with acute STEMI; 30 patients (46.9%) were hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with STEMI in both the COVID-19 and control groups had similar comorbidities, Killip classification score, and clinical presentations. The median (interquartile range) time from symptom onset to reperfusion (total ischemic time) increased from 99.5 minutes (84.8-132) in 2019 to 149 minutes (96.3-231.8; P = .032) in 2020. Hospitalization during the COVID-19 period was associated with an increased risk for combined in-hospital outcome (odds ratio, 3.96; P = .046). 

Conclusion: Patients with STEMI admitted during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak experienced longer total ischemic time and increased risk for combined in-hospital outcomes compared to patients admitted during the corresponding period in 2019. 

Keywords: myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization, outcomes.

The emergence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in December 2019 caused a worldwide shift in resource allocation and the restructuring of health care systems within the span of a few months. With the rapid spread of infection, the World Health Organization officially declared a pandemic in March 2020. The pandemic led to the deferral and cancellation of in-person patient visits, routine diagnostic studies, and nonessential surgeries and procedures. This response occurred secondary to a joint effort to reduce transmission via stay-at-home mandates and appropriate social distancing.¹ 

Alongside the reduction in elective procedures and health care visits, significant reductions in hospitalization rates due to decreases in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and catheterization laboratory utilization have been reported in many studies from around the world.^2-7 Comprehensive data demonstrating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on acute STEMI patient characteristics, clinical presentation, and in-hospital outcomes are lacking. Although patients with previously diagnosed cardiovascular disease are more likely to encounter worse outcomes in the setting of COVID-19, there may also be an indirect impact of the pandemic on high-risk patients, including those without the infection.⁸ Several theories have been hypothesized to explain this phenomenon. One theory postulates that the fear of contracting the virus during hospitalization is great enough to prevent patients from seeking care.² Another theory suggests that the increased utilization of telemedicine prevents exacerbation of chronic conditions and the need for hospitalization.⁹ Contrary to this trend, previous studies have shown an increased incidence of acute STEMI following stressful events such as natural disasters.¹⁰ 

The aim of this study was to describe trends pertaining to clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with acute STEMI during the early COVID-19 pandemic at Piedmont Athens Regional (PAR), a 330-bed tertiary referral center in Northeast Georgia. 

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at PAR to evaluate patients with STEMI admitted to the cardiovascular intensive care unit over an 8-week period (March 5 to May 5, 2020) during the COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 was declared a national emergency on March 13, 2020, in the United States. The institutional review board at PAR approved the study; the need for individual consent was waived under the condition that participant data would undergo de-identification and be strictly safeguarded. 

Data Collection

Because there are seasonal variations in cardiovascular admissions, patient data from a control period (March 9 to May 9, 2019) were obtained to compare with data from the 2020 period. The number of patients with the diagnosis of acute STEMI during the COVID-19 period was recorded. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and primary angiographic findings were gathered for all patients. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission and time from hospital admission to reperfusion (defined as door-to-balloon time) were documented for each patient. Killip classification was used to assess patients’ clinical status on admission. Length of stay was determined as days from hospital admission to discharge or death (if occurring during the same hospitalization).

Adverse in-hospital complications were also recorded. These were selected based on inclusion of the following categories of acute STEMI complications: ischemic, mechanical, arrhythmic, embolic, and inflammatory. The following complications occurred in our patient cohort: sustained ventricular arrhythmia, congestive heart failure (CHF) defined as congestion requiring intravenous diuretics, re-infarction, mechanical complications (free-wall rupture, ventricular septal defect, or mitral regurgitation), second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation, stroke, mechanical ventilation, major bleeding, pericarditis, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital mortality. The primary outcome of this study was defined as a composite of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, CHF with congestion requiring intravenous diuretics, and/or in-hospital mortality. Ventricular arrythmia and CHF were included in the composite outcome because they are defined as the 2 most common causes of sudden cardiac death following acute STEMI.^11,12

Statistical Analysis

Normally distributed continuous variables and categorical variables were compared using the paired t-test. A 2-sided P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Mean admission rates for acute STEMI hospitalizations were determined by dividing the number of admissions by the number of days in each time period. The daily rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database. All data analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel. 

Results

The study cohort consisted of 64 patients, of whom 30 (46.9%) were hospitalized between March 5 and May 5, 2020, and 34 (53.1%) who were admitted during the analogous time period in 2019. This reflected a 6% decrease in STEMI admissions at PAR in the COVID-19 cohort. 

Acute STEMI Hospitalization Rates and COVID-19 Incidence

The mean daily acute STEMI admission rate was 0.50 during the study period compared to 0.57 during the control period. During the study period in 2020 in the state of Georgia, the daily rate of newly confirmed COVID-19 cases ranged from 0.194 per 100,000 on March 5 to 8.778 per 100,000 on May 5. Results of COVID-19 testing were available for 9 STEMI patients, and of these 0 tests were positive. 

Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics of the acute STEMI cohorts are presented in Table 1. Approximately 75% were male; median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 (51-72) years. There were no significant differences in age and gender between the study periods. Three-quarters of patients had a history of hypertension, and 87.5% had a history of dyslipidemia. There was no significant difference in baseline comorbidity profiles between the 2 study periods; therefore, our sample populations shared similar characteristics.

Clinical Presentation

Significant differences were observed regarding the time intervals of STEMI patients in the COVID-19 period and the control period (Table 2). Median time from symptom onset to hospital admission (patient delay) was extended from 57.5 minutes (IQR, 40.3-106) in 2019 to 93 minutes (IQR, 48.8-132) in 2020; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .697). Median time from hospital admission to reperfusion (system delay) was prolonged from 45 minutes (IQR, 28-61) in 2019 to 78 minutes (IQR, 50-110) in 2020 (P < .001). Overall time from symptom onset to reperfusion (total ischemic time) increased from 99.5 minutes (IQR, 84.8-132) in 2019 to 149 minutes (IQR, 96.3-231.8) in 2020 (P = .032). 

Regarding mode of transportation, 23.5% of patients in 2019 were walk-in admissions to the emergency department. During the COVID-19 period, walk-in admissions decreased to 6.7% (P = .065). There were no significant differences between emergency medical service, transfer, or in-patient admissions for STEMI cases between the 2 study periods. 

Killip classification scores were calculated for all patients on admission; 90.6% of patients were classified as Killip Class 1. There was no significant difference between hemodynamic presentations during the COVID-19 period compared to the control period. 

Angiographic Data

Overall, 53 (82.8%) patients admitted with acute STEMI underwent coronary angiography during their hospital stay. The proportion of patients who underwent primary reperfusion was greater in the control period than in the COVID-19 period (85.3% vs 80%; P = .582). Angiographic characteristics and findings were similar between the 2 study groups (Table 2).

In-Hospital Outcomes

In-hospital outcome data were available for all patients. As shown in Table 3, hospitalization during the COVID-19 period was independently associated with an increased risk for combined in-hospital outcome (odds ratio, 3.96; P = .046). The rate of in-hospital mortality was greater in the COVID-19 period (P = .013). We found no significant difference when comparing secondary outcomes from admissions during the COVID-19 period and the control period in 2019. For the 5 patients who died during the study period, the primary diagnosis at death was acute STEMI complicated by CHF (3 patients) or cardiogenic shock (2 patients).

This single-center retrospective study at PAR looks at the impact of COVID-19 on hospitalizations for acute STEMI during the initial peak of the pandemic. The key findings of this study show a significant increase in ischemic time parameters (symptom onset to reperfusion, hospital admission to reperfusion), in-hospital mortality, and combined in-hospital outcomes.

There was a 49.5-minute increase in total ischemic time noted in this study (P = .032). Though there was a numerical increase in time of symptom onset to hospital admission by 23.5 minutes, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .697). However, this study observed a statistically significant 33-minute increase in ischemic time from hospital admission to reperfusion (P < .001). Multiple studies globally have found a similar increase in total ischemic times, including those conducted in China and Europe.^13-15 Every level of potential delay must be considered, including pre-hospital, triage and emergency department, and/or reperfusion team. Pre-hospital sources of delays that have been suggested include “stay-at-home” orders and apprehension to seek medical care due to concern about contracting the virus or overwhelming the health care facilities. There was a clinically significant 4-fold decrease in the number of walk-in acute STEMI cases in the study period. In 2019, there were 8 walk-in cases compared to 2 cases in 2020 (P = .065). However, this change was not statistically significant. In-hospital/systemic sources of delays have been mentioned in other studies; they include increased time taken to rule out COVID-19 (nasopharyngeal swab/chest x-ray) and increased time due to the need for intensive gowning and gloving procedures by staff. It was difficult to objectively determine the sources of system delay by the reperfusion team due to a lack of quantitative data.

In the current study, we found a significant increase in in-hospital mortality during the COVID-19 period compared to a parallel time frame in 2019. This finding is contrary to a multicenter study from Spain that reported no difference in in-hospital outcomes or mortality rates among all acute coronary syndrome cases.¹⁶ The worsening outcomes and prognosis may simply be a result of increased ischemic time; however, the virus that causes COVID-19 itself may play a role as well. Studies have found that SARS-Cov-2 infection places patients at greater risk for cardiovascular conditions such as hypercoagulability, myocarditis, and arrhythmias.¹⁷ In our study, however, there were no acute STEMI patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Therefore, we cannot discuss the impact of increased thrombus burden in patients with COVID-19. Piedmont Healthcare published a STEMI treatment protocol in May 2020 that advised increased use of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in COVID-19-positive cases; during the study period, however, there were no occasions when tPA use was deemed appropriate based on clinical judgment.

Our findings align with previous studies that describe an increase in combined in-hospital adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 era. Previous studies detected a higher rate of complications in the COVID-19 cohort, but in the current study, the adverse in-hospital course is unrelated to underlying infection.^18,19 This study reports a higher incidence of major in-hospital outcomes, including a 65% increase in the rate of combined in-hospital outcomes, which is similar to a multicenter study conducted in Israel.¹⁹ There was a 2.3-fold numerical increase in sustained ventricular arrhythmias and a 2.5-fold numerical increase in the incidence of cardiac arrest in the study period. This phenomenon was observed despite a similar rate of reperfusion procedures in both groups. 

Acute STEMI is a highly fatal condition with an incidence of 8.5 in 10,000 annually in the United States. While studies across the world have shown a 25% to 40% reduction in the rate of hospitalized acute coronary syndrome cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, the decrease from 34 to 30 STEMI admissions at PAR is not statistically significant.²⁰ Possible reasons for the reduction globally include increased out-of-hospital mortality and decreased incidence of acute STEMI across the general population as a result of improved access to telemedicine or decreased levels of life stressors.²⁰  

In summary, there was an increase in ischemic time to reperfusion, in-hospital mortality, and combined in-hospital outcomes for acute STEMI patients at PAR during the COVID period.  

Limitations

This study has several limitations. This is a single-center study, so the sample size is small and may not be generalizable to a larger population. This is a retrospective observational study, so causation cannot be inferred. This study analyzed ischemic time parameters as average rates over time rather than in an interrupted time series. Post-reperfusion outcomes were limited to hospital stay. Post-hospital follow-up would provide a better picture of the effects of STEMI intervention. There is no account of patients who died out-of-hospital secondary to acute STEMI. COVID-19 testing was not introduced until midway in our study period. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of the SARS-Cov-2 virus inciting acute STEMI and subsequently leading to worse outcomes and poor prognosis. 

Conclusions

This study provides an analysis of the incidence, characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients presenting with acute STEMI during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic. In-hospital mortality and ischemic time to reperfusion increased while combined in-hospital outcomes worsened. 

Acknowledgment: The authors thank Piedmont Athens Regional IRB for approving this project and allowing access to patient data.

Corresponding author: Syed H. Ali; Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at the Augusta University-University of Georgia Medical Partnership, 30606, Athens, GA; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

doi:10.12788/jcom.0085

From the Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at the Augusta University-University of Georgia Medical Partnership, Athens, GA (Syed H. Ali, Syed Hyder, and Dr. Murrow), and the Department of Cardiology, Piedmont Heart Institute, Piedmont Athens Regional, Athens, GA (Dr. Murrow and Mrs. Davis).

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the early COVID-19 pandemic at Piedmont Athens Regional (PAR), a 330-bed tertiary referral center in Northeast Georgia. 

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at PAR to evaluate patients with acute STEMI admitted over an 8-week period during the initial COVID-19 outbreak. This study group was compared to patients admitted during the corresponding period in 2019. The primary endpoint of this study was defined as a composite of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, congestive heart failure (CHF) with pulmonary congestion, and/or in-hospital mortality. 

Results: This study cohort was composed of 64 patients with acute STEMI; 30 patients (46.9%) were hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with STEMI in both the COVID-19 and control groups had similar comorbidities, Killip classification score, and clinical presentations. The median (interquartile range) time from symptom onset to reperfusion (total ischemic time) increased from 99.5 minutes (84.8-132) in 2019 to 149 minutes (96.3-231.8; P = .032) in 2020. Hospitalization during the COVID-19 period was associated with an increased risk for combined in-hospital outcome (odds ratio, 3.96; P = .046). 

Conclusion: Patients with STEMI admitted during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak experienced longer total ischemic time and increased risk for combined in-hospital outcomes compared to patients admitted during the corresponding period in 2019. 

Keywords: myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization, outcomes.

The emergence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in December 2019 caused a worldwide shift in resource allocation and the restructuring of health care systems within the span of a few months. With the rapid spread of infection, the World Health Organization officially declared a pandemic in March 2020. The pandemic led to the deferral and cancellation of in-person patient visits, routine diagnostic studies, and nonessential surgeries and procedures. This response occurred secondary to a joint effort to reduce transmission via stay-at-home mandates and appropriate social distancing.¹ 

Alongside the reduction in elective procedures and health care visits, significant reductions in hospitalization rates due to decreases in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and catheterization laboratory utilization have been reported in many studies from around the world.^2-7 Comprehensive data demonstrating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on acute STEMI patient characteristics, clinical presentation, and in-hospital outcomes are lacking. Although patients with previously diagnosed cardiovascular disease are more likely to encounter worse outcomes in the setting of COVID-19, there may also be an indirect impact of the pandemic on high-risk patients, including those without the infection.⁸ Several theories have been hypothesized to explain this phenomenon. One theory postulates that the fear of contracting the virus during hospitalization is great enough to prevent patients from seeking care.² Another theory suggests that the increased utilization of telemedicine prevents exacerbation of chronic conditions and the need for hospitalization.⁹ Contrary to this trend, previous studies have shown an increased incidence of acute STEMI following stressful events such as natural disasters.¹⁰ 

The aim of this study was to describe trends pertaining to clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with acute STEMI during the early COVID-19 pandemic at Piedmont Athens Regional (PAR), a 330-bed tertiary referral center in Northeast Georgia. 

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at PAR to evaluate patients with STEMI admitted to the cardiovascular intensive care unit over an 8-week period (March 5 to May 5, 2020) during the COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 was declared a national emergency on March 13, 2020, in the United States. The institutional review board at PAR approved the study; the need for individual consent was waived under the condition that participant data would undergo de-identification and be strictly safeguarded. 

Data Collection

Because there are seasonal variations in cardiovascular admissions, patient data from a control period (March 9 to May 9, 2019) were obtained to compare with data from the 2020 period. The number of patients with the diagnosis of acute STEMI during the COVID-19 period was recorded. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and primary angiographic findings were gathered for all patients. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission and time from hospital admission to reperfusion (defined as door-to-balloon time) were documented for each patient. Killip classification was used to assess patients’ clinical status on admission. Length of stay was determined as days from hospital admission to discharge or death (if occurring during the same hospitalization).

Adverse in-hospital complications were also recorded. These were selected based on inclusion of the following categories of acute STEMI complications: ischemic, mechanical, arrhythmic, embolic, and inflammatory. The following complications occurred in our patient cohort: sustained ventricular arrhythmia, congestive heart failure (CHF) defined as congestion requiring intravenous diuretics, re-infarction, mechanical complications (free-wall rupture, ventricular septal defect, or mitral regurgitation), second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation, stroke, mechanical ventilation, major bleeding, pericarditis, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital mortality. The primary outcome of this study was defined as a composite of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, CHF with congestion requiring intravenous diuretics, and/or in-hospital mortality. Ventricular arrythmia and CHF were included in the composite outcome because they are defined as the 2 most common causes of sudden cardiac death following acute STEMI.^11,12

Statistical Analysis

Normally distributed continuous variables and categorical variables were compared using the paired t-test. A 2-sided P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Mean admission rates for acute STEMI hospitalizations were determined by dividing the number of admissions by the number of days in each time period. The daily rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database. All data analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel. 

Results

The study cohort consisted of 64 patients, of whom 30 (46.9%) were hospitalized between March 5 and May 5, 2020, and 34 (53.1%) who were admitted during the analogous time period in 2019. This reflected a 6% decrease in STEMI admissions at PAR in the COVID-19 cohort. 

Acute STEMI Hospitalization Rates and COVID-19 Incidence

The mean daily acute STEMI admission rate was 0.50 during the study period compared to 0.57 during the control period. During the study period in 2020 in the state of Georgia, the daily rate of newly confirmed COVID-19 cases ranged from 0.194 per 100,000 on March 5 to 8.778 per 100,000 on May 5. Results of COVID-19 testing were available for 9 STEMI patients, and of these 0 tests were positive. 

Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics of the acute STEMI cohorts are presented in Table 1. Approximately 75% were male; median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 (51-72) years. There were no significant differences in age and gender between the study periods. Three-quarters of patients had a history of hypertension, and 87.5% had a history of dyslipidemia. There was no significant difference in baseline comorbidity profiles between the 2 study periods; therefore, our sample populations shared similar characteristics.

Clinical Presentation

Significant differences were observed regarding the time intervals of STEMI patients in the COVID-19 period and the control period (Table 2). Median time from symptom onset to hospital admission (patient delay) was extended from 57.5 minutes (IQR, 40.3-106) in 2019 to 93 minutes (IQR, 48.8-132) in 2020; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .697). Median time from hospital admission to reperfusion (system delay) was prolonged from 45 minutes (IQR, 28-61) in 2019 to 78 minutes (IQR, 50-110) in 2020 (P < .001). Overall time from symptom onset to reperfusion (total ischemic time) increased from 99.5 minutes (IQR, 84.8-132) in 2019 to 149 minutes (IQR, 96.3-231.8) in 2020 (P = .032). 

Regarding mode of transportation, 23.5% of patients in 2019 were walk-in admissions to the emergency department. During the COVID-19 period, walk-in admissions decreased to 6.7% (P = .065). There were no significant differences between emergency medical service, transfer, or in-patient admissions for STEMI cases between the 2 study periods. 

Killip classification scores were calculated for all patients on admission; 90.6% of patients were classified as Killip Class 1. There was no significant difference between hemodynamic presentations during the COVID-19 period compared to the control period. 

Angiographic Data

Overall, 53 (82.8%) patients admitted with acute STEMI underwent coronary angiography during their hospital stay. The proportion of patients who underwent primary reperfusion was greater in the control period than in the COVID-19 period (85.3% vs 80%; P = .582). Angiographic characteristics and findings were similar between the 2 study groups (Table 2).

In-Hospital Outcomes

In-hospital outcome data were available for all patients. As shown in Table 3, hospitalization during the COVID-19 period was independently associated with an increased risk for combined in-hospital outcome (odds ratio, 3.96; P = .046). The rate of in-hospital mortality was greater in the COVID-19 period (P = .013). We found no significant difference when comparing secondary outcomes from admissions during the COVID-19 period and the control period in 2019. For the 5 patients who died during the study period, the primary diagnosis at death was acute STEMI complicated by CHF (3 patients) or cardiogenic shock (2 patients).

This single-center retrospective study at PAR looks at the impact of COVID-19 on hospitalizations for acute STEMI during the initial peak of the pandemic. The key findings of this study show a significant increase in ischemic time parameters (symptom onset to reperfusion, hospital admission to reperfusion), in-hospital mortality, and combined in-hospital outcomes.

There was a 49.5-minute increase in total ischemic time noted in this study (P = .032). Though there was a numerical increase in time of symptom onset to hospital admission by 23.5 minutes, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .697). However, this study observed a statistically significant 33-minute increase in ischemic time from hospital admission to reperfusion (P < .001). Multiple studies globally have found a similar increase in total ischemic times, including those conducted in China and Europe.^13-15 Every level of potential delay must be considered, including pre-hospital, triage and emergency department, and/or reperfusion team. Pre-hospital sources of delays that have been suggested include “stay-at-home” orders and apprehension to seek medical care due to concern about contracting the virus or overwhelming the health care facilities. There was a clinically significant 4-fold decrease in the number of walk-in acute STEMI cases in the study period. In 2019, there were 8 walk-in cases compared to 2 cases in 2020 (P = .065). However, this change was not statistically significant. In-hospital/systemic sources of delays have been mentioned in other studies; they include increased time taken to rule out COVID-19 (nasopharyngeal swab/chest x-ray) and increased time due to the need for intensive gowning and gloving procedures by staff. It was difficult to objectively determine the sources of system delay by the reperfusion team due to a lack of quantitative data.

In the current study, we found a significant increase in in-hospital mortality during the COVID-19 period compared to a parallel time frame in 2019. This finding is contrary to a multicenter study from Spain that reported no difference in in-hospital outcomes or mortality rates among all acute coronary syndrome cases.¹⁶ The worsening outcomes and prognosis may simply be a result of increased ischemic time; however, the virus that causes COVID-19 itself may play a role as well. Studies have found that SARS-Cov-2 infection places patients at greater risk for cardiovascular conditions such as hypercoagulability, myocarditis, and arrhythmias.¹⁷ In our study, however, there were no acute STEMI patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Therefore, we cannot discuss the impact of increased thrombus burden in patients with COVID-19. Piedmont Healthcare published a STEMI treatment protocol in May 2020 that advised increased use of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in COVID-19-positive cases; during the study period, however, there were no occasions when tPA use was deemed appropriate based on clinical judgment.

Our findings align with previous studies that describe an increase in combined in-hospital adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 era. Previous studies detected a higher rate of complications in the COVID-19 cohort, but in the current study, the adverse in-hospital course is unrelated to underlying infection.^18,19 This study reports a higher incidence of major in-hospital outcomes, including a 65% increase in the rate of combined in-hospital outcomes, which is similar to a multicenter study conducted in Israel.¹⁹ There was a 2.3-fold numerical increase in sustained ventricular arrhythmias and a 2.5-fold numerical increase in the incidence of cardiac arrest in the study period. This phenomenon was observed despite a similar rate of reperfusion procedures in both groups. 

Acute STEMI is a highly fatal condition with an incidence of 8.5 in 10,000 annually in the United States. While studies across the world have shown a 25% to 40% reduction in the rate of hospitalized acute coronary syndrome cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, the decrease from 34 to 30 STEMI admissions at PAR is not statistically significant.²⁰ Possible reasons for the reduction globally include increased out-of-hospital mortality and decreased incidence of acute STEMI across the general population as a result of improved access to telemedicine or decreased levels of life stressors.²⁰  

In summary, there was an increase in ischemic time to reperfusion, in-hospital mortality, and combined in-hospital outcomes for acute STEMI patients at PAR during the COVID period.  

Limitations

This study has several limitations. This is a single-center study, so the sample size is small and may not be generalizable to a larger population. This is a retrospective observational study, so causation cannot be inferred. This study analyzed ischemic time parameters as average rates over time rather than in an interrupted time series. Post-reperfusion outcomes were limited to hospital stay. Post-hospital follow-up would provide a better picture of the effects of STEMI intervention. There is no account of patients who died out-of-hospital secondary to acute STEMI. COVID-19 testing was not introduced until midway in our study period. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of the SARS-Cov-2 virus inciting acute STEMI and subsequently leading to worse outcomes and poor prognosis. 

Conclusions

This study provides an analysis of the incidence, characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients presenting with acute STEMI during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic. In-hospital mortality and ischemic time to reperfusion increased while combined in-hospital outcomes worsened. 

Acknowledgment: The authors thank Piedmont Athens Regional IRB for approving this project and allowing access to patient data.

Corresponding author: Syed H. Ali; Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at the Augusta University-University of Georgia Medical Partnership, 30606, Athens, GA; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

doi:10.12788/jcom.0085

From the Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at the Augusta University-University of Georgia Medical Partnership, Athens, GA (Syed H. Ali, Syed Hyder, and Dr. Murrow), and the Department of Cardiology, Piedmont Heart Institute, Piedmont Athens Regional, Athens, GA (Dr. Murrow and Mrs. Davis).

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the early COVID-19 pandemic at Piedmont Athens Regional (PAR), a 330-bed tertiary referral center in Northeast Georgia. 

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at PAR to evaluate patients with acute STEMI admitted over an 8-week period during the initial COVID-19 outbreak. This study group was compared to patients admitted during the corresponding period in 2019. The primary endpoint of this study was defined as a composite of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, congestive heart failure (CHF) with pulmonary congestion, and/or in-hospital mortality. 

Results: This study cohort was composed of 64 patients with acute STEMI; 30 patients (46.9%) were hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with STEMI in both the COVID-19 and control groups had similar comorbidities, Killip classification score, and clinical presentations. The median (interquartile range) time from symptom onset to reperfusion (total ischemic time) increased from 99.5 minutes (84.8-132) in 2019 to 149 minutes (96.3-231.8; P = .032) in 2020. Hospitalization during the COVID-19 period was associated with an increased risk for combined in-hospital outcome (odds ratio, 3.96; P = .046). 

Conclusion: Patients with STEMI admitted during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak experienced longer total ischemic time and increased risk for combined in-hospital outcomes compared to patients admitted during the corresponding period in 2019. 

Keywords: myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization, outcomes.

The emergence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in December 2019 caused a worldwide shift in resource allocation and the restructuring of health care systems within the span of a few months. With the rapid spread of infection, the World Health Organization officially declared a pandemic in March 2020. The pandemic led to the deferral and cancellation of in-person patient visits, routine diagnostic studies, and nonessential surgeries and procedures. This response occurred secondary to a joint effort to reduce transmission via stay-at-home mandates and appropriate social distancing.¹ 

Alongside the reduction in elective procedures and health care visits, significant reductions in hospitalization rates due to decreases in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and catheterization laboratory utilization have been reported in many studies from around the world.^2-7 Comprehensive data demonstrating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on acute STEMI patient characteristics, clinical presentation, and in-hospital outcomes are lacking. Although patients with previously diagnosed cardiovascular disease are more likely to encounter worse outcomes in the setting of COVID-19, there may also be an indirect impact of the pandemic on high-risk patients, including those without the infection.⁸ Several theories have been hypothesized to explain this phenomenon. One theory postulates that the fear of contracting the virus during hospitalization is great enough to prevent patients from seeking care.² Another theory suggests that the increased utilization of telemedicine prevents exacerbation of chronic conditions and the need for hospitalization.⁹ Contrary to this trend, previous studies have shown an increased incidence of acute STEMI following stressful events such as natural disasters.¹⁰ 

The aim of this study was to describe trends pertaining to clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with acute STEMI during the early COVID-19 pandemic at Piedmont Athens Regional (PAR), a 330-bed tertiary referral center in Northeast Georgia. 

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at PAR to evaluate patients with STEMI admitted to the cardiovascular intensive care unit over an 8-week period (March 5 to May 5, 2020) during the COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 was declared a national emergency on March 13, 2020, in the United States. The institutional review board at PAR approved the study; the need for individual consent was waived under the condition that participant data would undergo de-identification and be strictly safeguarded. 

Data Collection

Because there are seasonal variations in cardiovascular admissions, patient data from a control period (March 9 to May 9, 2019) were obtained to compare with data from the 2020 period. The number of patients with the diagnosis of acute STEMI during the COVID-19 period was recorded. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and primary angiographic findings were gathered for all patients. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission and time from hospital admission to reperfusion (defined as door-to-balloon time) were documented for each patient. Killip classification was used to assess patients’ clinical status on admission. Length of stay was determined as days from hospital admission to discharge or death (if occurring during the same hospitalization).

Adverse in-hospital complications were also recorded. These were selected based on inclusion of the following categories of acute STEMI complications: ischemic, mechanical, arrhythmic, embolic, and inflammatory. The following complications occurred in our patient cohort: sustained ventricular arrhythmia, congestive heart failure (CHF) defined as congestion requiring intravenous diuretics, re-infarction, mechanical complications (free-wall rupture, ventricular septal defect, or mitral regurgitation), second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation, stroke, mechanical ventilation, major bleeding, pericarditis, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital mortality. The primary outcome of this study was defined as a composite of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, CHF with congestion requiring intravenous diuretics, and/or in-hospital mortality. Ventricular arrythmia and CHF were included in the composite outcome because they are defined as the 2 most common causes of sudden cardiac death following acute STEMI.^11,12

Statistical Analysis

Normally distributed continuous variables and categorical variables were compared using the paired t-test. A 2-sided P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Mean admission rates for acute STEMI hospitalizations were determined by dividing the number of admissions by the number of days in each time period. The daily rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database. All data analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel. 

Results

The study cohort consisted of 64 patients, of whom 30 (46.9%) were hospitalized between March 5 and May 5, 2020, and 34 (53.1%) who were admitted during the analogous time period in 2019. This reflected a 6% decrease in STEMI admissions at PAR in the COVID-19 cohort. 

Acute STEMI Hospitalization Rates and COVID-19 Incidence

The mean daily acute STEMI admission rate was 0.50 during the study period compared to 0.57 during the control period. During the study period in 2020 in the state of Georgia, the daily rate of newly confirmed COVID-19 cases ranged from 0.194 per 100,000 on March 5 to 8.778 per 100,000 on May 5. Results of COVID-19 testing were available for 9 STEMI patients, and of these 0 tests were positive. 

Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics of the acute STEMI cohorts are presented in Table 1. Approximately 75% were male; median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 (51-72) years. There were no significant differences in age and gender between the study periods. Three-quarters of patients had a history of hypertension, and 87.5% had a history of dyslipidemia. There was no significant difference in baseline comorbidity profiles between the 2 study periods; therefore, our sample populations shared similar characteristics.

Clinical Presentation

Significant differences were observed regarding the time intervals of STEMI patients in the COVID-19 period and the control period (Table 2). Median time from symptom onset to hospital admission (patient delay) was extended from 57.5 minutes (IQR, 40.3-106) in 2019 to 93 minutes (IQR, 48.8-132) in 2020; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .697). Median time from hospital admission to reperfusion (system delay) was prolonged from 45 minutes (IQR, 28-61) in 2019 to 78 minutes (IQR, 50-110) in 2020 (P < .001). Overall time from symptom onset to reperfusion (total ischemic time) increased from 99.5 minutes (IQR, 84.8-132) in 2019 to 149 minutes (IQR, 96.3-231.8) in 2020 (P = .032). 

Regarding mode of transportation, 23.5% of patients in 2019 were walk-in admissions to the emergency department. During the COVID-19 period, walk-in admissions decreased to 6.7% (P = .065). There were no significant differences between emergency medical service, transfer, or in-patient admissions for STEMI cases between the 2 study periods. 

Killip classification scores were calculated for all patients on admission; 90.6% of patients were classified as Killip Class 1. There was no significant difference between hemodynamic presentations during the COVID-19 period compared to the control period. 

Angiographic Data

Overall, 53 (82.8%) patients admitted with acute STEMI underwent coronary angiography during their hospital stay. The proportion of patients who underwent primary reperfusion was greater in the control period than in the COVID-19 period (85.3% vs 80%; P = .582). Angiographic characteristics and findings were similar between the 2 study groups (Table 2).

In-Hospital Outcomes

In-hospital outcome data were available for all patients. As shown in Table 3, hospitalization during the COVID-19 period was independently associated with an increased risk for combined in-hospital outcome (odds ratio, 3.96; P = .046). The rate of in-hospital mortality was greater in the COVID-19 period (P = .013). We found no significant difference when comparing secondary outcomes from admissions during the COVID-19 period and the control period in 2019. For the 5 patients who died during the study period, the primary diagnosis at death was acute STEMI complicated by CHF (3 patients) or cardiogenic shock (2 patients).

This single-center retrospective study at PAR looks at the impact of COVID-19 on hospitalizations for acute STEMI during the initial peak of the pandemic. The key findings of this study show a significant increase in ischemic time parameters (symptom onset to reperfusion, hospital admission to reperfusion), in-hospital mortality, and combined in-hospital outcomes.

There was a 49.5-minute increase in total ischemic time noted in this study (P = .032). Though there was a numerical increase in time of symptom onset to hospital admission by 23.5 minutes, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .697). However, this study observed a statistically significant 33-minute increase in ischemic time from hospital admission to reperfusion (P < .001). Multiple studies globally have found a similar increase in total ischemic times, including those conducted in China and Europe.^13-15 Every level of potential delay must be considered, including pre-hospital, triage and emergency department, and/or reperfusion team. Pre-hospital sources of delays that have been suggested include “stay-at-home” orders and apprehension to seek medical care due to concern about contracting the virus or overwhelming the health care facilities. There was a clinically significant 4-fold decrease in the number of walk-in acute STEMI cases in the study period. In 2019, there were 8 walk-in cases compared to 2 cases in 2020 (P = .065). However, this change was not statistically significant. In-hospital/systemic sources of delays have been mentioned in other studies; they include increased time taken to rule out COVID-19 (nasopharyngeal swab/chest x-ray) and increased time due to the need for intensive gowning and gloving procedures by staff. It was difficult to objectively determine the sources of system delay by the reperfusion team due to a lack of quantitative data.

In the current study, we found a significant increase in in-hospital mortality during the COVID-19 period compared to a parallel time frame in 2019. This finding is contrary to a multicenter study from Spain that reported no difference in in-hospital outcomes or mortality rates among all acute coronary syndrome cases.¹⁶ The worsening outcomes and prognosis may simply be a result of increased ischemic time; however, the virus that causes COVID-19 itself may play a role as well. Studies have found that SARS-Cov-2 infection places patients at greater risk for cardiovascular conditions such as hypercoagulability, myocarditis, and arrhythmias.¹⁷ In our study, however, there were no acute STEMI patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Therefore, we cannot discuss the impact of increased thrombus burden in patients with COVID-19. Piedmont Healthcare published a STEMI treatment protocol in May 2020 that advised increased use of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in COVID-19-positive cases; during the study period, however, there were no occasions when tPA use was deemed appropriate based on clinical judgment.

Our findings align with previous studies that describe an increase in combined in-hospital adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 era. Previous studies detected a higher rate of complications in the COVID-19 cohort, but in the current study, the adverse in-hospital course is unrelated to underlying infection.^18,19 This study reports a higher incidence of major in-hospital outcomes, including a 65% increase in the rate of combined in-hospital outcomes, which is similar to a multicenter study conducted in Israel.¹⁹ There was a 2.3-fold numerical increase in sustained ventricular arrhythmias and a 2.5-fold numerical increase in the incidence of cardiac arrest in the study period. This phenomenon was observed despite a similar rate of reperfusion procedures in both groups. 

Acute STEMI is a highly fatal condition with an incidence of 8.5 in 10,000 annually in the United States. While studies across the world have shown a 25% to 40% reduction in the rate of hospitalized acute coronary syndrome cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, the decrease from 34 to 30 STEMI admissions at PAR is not statistically significant.²⁰ Possible reasons for the reduction globally include increased out-of-hospital mortality and decreased incidence of acute STEMI across the general population as a result of improved access to telemedicine or decreased levels of life stressors.²⁰  

In summary, there was an increase in ischemic time to reperfusion, in-hospital mortality, and combined in-hospital outcomes for acute STEMI patients at PAR during the COVID period.  

Limitations

This study has several limitations. This is a single-center study, so the sample size is small and may not be generalizable to a larger population. This is a retrospective observational study, so causation cannot be inferred. This study analyzed ischemic time parameters as average rates over time rather than in an interrupted time series. Post-reperfusion outcomes were limited to hospital stay. Post-hospital follow-up would provide a better picture of the effects of STEMI intervention. There is no account of patients who died out-of-hospital secondary to acute STEMI. COVID-19 testing was not introduced until midway in our study period. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of the SARS-Cov-2 virus inciting acute STEMI and subsequently leading to worse outcomes and poor prognosis. 

Conclusions

This study provides an analysis of the incidence, characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients presenting with acute STEMI during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic. In-hospital mortality and ischemic time to reperfusion increased while combined in-hospital outcomes worsened. 

Acknowledgment: The authors thank Piedmont Athens Regional IRB for approving this project and allowing access to patient data.

Corresponding author: Syed H. Ali; Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at the Augusta University-University of Georgia Medical Partnership, 30606, Athens, GA; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

doi:10.12788/jcom.0085

From Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA (Drs. Liesching and Lei), and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (Dr. Liesching)

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the utilization of oxygen therapies and clinical outcomes of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the second surge of the pandemic to that of patients admitted during the first surge.

Design: Observational study using a registry database.

Setting: Three hospitals (791 inpatient beds and 76 intensive care unit [ICU] beds) within the Beth Israel Lahey Health system in Massachusetts.

Participants: We included 3183 patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospitals.

Measurements: Baseline data included demographics and comorbidities. Treatments included low-flow supplemental oxygen (2-6 L/min), high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Outcomes included ICU admission, length of stay, ventilator days, and mortality.

Results: A total of 3183 patients were included: 1586 during the first surge and 1597 during the second surge. Compared to the first surge, patients admitted during the second surge had a similar rate of receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen (65.8% vs 64.1%, P = .3), a higher rate of receiving high-flow nasal cannula (15.4% vs 10.8%, P = .0001), and a lower ventilation rate (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001). The outcomes during the second surge were better than those during the first surge: lower ICU admission rate (8.1% vs 12.7%, P < .0001), shorter length of hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P < .0001), fewer ventilator days (10 vs 16, P = .01), and lower mortality (8.3% vs 19.2%, P < .0001). Among ventilated patients, those who received high-flow nasal cannula had lower mortality.

Conclusion: Compared to the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients admitted during the second surge had similar likelihood of receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen, were more likely to receive high-flow nasal cannula, were less likely to be ventilated, and had better outcomes.

Keywords: supplemental oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula, ventilator.

The respiratory system receives the major impact of SARS-CoV-2 virus, and hypoxemia has been the predominant diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.^1,2 During the initial stage of the pandemic, oxygen therapies and mechanical ventilation were the only choices for these patients.^3-6 Standard-of-care treatment for patients with COVID-19 during the initial surge included oxygen therapies and mechanical ventilation for hypoxemia and medications for comorbidities and COVID-19–associated sequelae, such as multi-organ dysfunction and failure. A report from New York during the first surge (May 2020) showed that among 5700 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 27.8% received supplemental oxygen and 12.2% received invasive mechanical ventilation.⁷ High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen delivery has been utilized widely throughout the pandemic due to its superiority over other noninvasive respiratory support techniques.^8-12 Mechanical ventilation is always necessary for critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, ventilator scarcity has become a bottleneck in caring for severely ill patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic.¹³

The clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients include a high intubation rate, long length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and high mortality.^14,15 As the pandemic evolved, new medications, including remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, or interferon β-1a, were used in addition to the standard of care, but these did not result in significantly different mortality from standard of care.¹⁶ Steroids are becoming foundational to the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia, but evidence from high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials is lacking.¹⁷ 

During the first surge from March to May 2020, Massachusetts had the third highest number of COVID-19 cases among states in the United States.¹⁸ In early 2021, COVID-19 cases were climbing close to the peak of the second surge in Massachusetts. In this study, we compared utilization of low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and mechanical ventilation and clinical outcomes of patients admitted to 3 hospitals in Massachusetts during the second surge of the pandemic to that of patients admitted during the first surge.

Methods

Setting

Beth Israel Lahey Health is a system of academic and teaching hospitals with primary care and specialty care providers. We included 3 centers within the Beth Israel Lahey Health system in Massachusetts: Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, with 335 inpatient hospital beds and 52 critical care beds; Beverly Hospital, with 227 beds and 14 critical care beds; and Winchester Hospital, with 229 beds and 10 ICU beds.

Participants

We included patients admitted to the 3 hospitals with COVID-19 as a primary or secondary diagnosis during the first surge of the pandemic (March 1, 2020 to June 15, 2020) and the second surge (November 15, 2020 to January 27, 2021). The timeframe of the first surge was defined as the window between the start date and the end date of data collection. During the time window of the first surge, 1586 patients were included. The start time of the second surge was defined as the date when the data collection was restarted; the end date was set when the number of patients (1597) accumulated was close to the number of patients in the first surge (1586), so that the two groups had similar sample size.

Study Design

A data registry of COVID-19 patients was created by our institution, and the data were prospectively collected starting in March 2020. We retrospectively extracted data on the following from the registry database for this observational study: demographics and baseline comorbidities; the use of low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and invasive mechanical ventilator; and ICU admission, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, and hospital discharge disposition. Start and end times for each oxygen therapy were not entered in the registry. Data about other oxygen therapies, such as noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, were not collected in the registry database, and therefore were not included in the analysis.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables (eg, age) were tested for data distribution normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Normally distributed data were tested using unpaired t-tests and displayed as mean (SD). The skewed data were tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and displayed as median (interquartile range [IQR]). The categorical variables were compared using chi-square test. Comparisons with P ≤ .05 were considered significantly different. Statistical analysis for this study was generated using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS), version 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc.).

Results

Baseline Characteristics

We included 3183 patients: 1586 admitted during the first surge and 1597 admitted during the second surge. Baseline characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted during the first and second surges are shown in Table 1. Patients admitted during the second surge were older (73 years vs 71 years, P = .01) and had higher rates of hypertension (64.8% vs 59.6%, P = .003) and asthma (12.9% vs 10.7%, P = .049) but a lower rate of interstitial lung disease (3.3% vs 7.7%, P < .001). Sequential organ failure assessment scores at admission and the rates of other comorbidities were not significantly different between the 2 surges.

The number of patients who were hospitalized and received low-flow supplemental oxygen, and/or HFNC, and/or ventilator in the first surge and the second surge is shown in the Figure. Of all patients included, 2067 (64.9%) received low-flow supplemental oxygen; of these, 374 (18.1%) subsequently received HFNC, and 85 (22.7%) of these subsequently received mechanical ventilation. Of all 3183 patients, 417 (13.1%) received HFNC; 43 of these patients received HFNC without receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen, and 98 (23.5%) subsequently received mechanical ventilation. Out of all 3183 patients, 244 (7.7%) received mechanical ventilation; 98 (40.2%) of these received HFNC while the remaining 146 (59.8%) did not. At the beginning of the first surge, the ratio of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation to patients who received HFNC was close to 1:1 (10/10); the ratio decreased to 6:10 in May and June 2020. At the beginning of the second surge, the ratio was 8:10 and then decreased to 3:10 in December 2020 and January 2021.

As shown in Table 2, the proportion of patients who received low-flow supplemental oxygen during the second surge was similar to that during the first surge (65.8% vs 64.1%, P = .3). Patients admitted during the second surge were more likely to receive HFNC than patients admitted during the first surge (15.4% vs 10.8%, P = .0001). Patients admitted during the second surge were less likely to be ventilated than the patients admitted during the first surge (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001).

Clinical Outcomes

As shown in Table 3, second surge outcomes were much better than first surge outcomes: the ICU admission rate was lower (8.1% vs 12.7%, P < .0001); patients were more likely to be discharged to home (60.2% vs 47.4%, P < .0001), had a shorter length of hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P < .0001), and had fewer ventilator days (10 vs 16, P = .01); and mortality was lower (8.3% vs 19.2%, P < .0001). There was a trend that length of ICU stay was shorter during the second surge than during the first surge (7 days vs 9 days, P = .09).

As noted (Figure), the ratio of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation to patients who received HFNC was decreasing during both the first surge and the second surge. To further analyze the relation between ventilator and HFNC, we performed a subgroup analysis for 244 ventilated patients during both surges to compare outcomes between patients who received HFNC and those who did not receive HFNC (Table 4). Ninety-eight (40%) patients received HFNC. Ventilated patients who received HFNC had lower mortality than those patients who did not receive HFNC (31.6% vs 48%, P = .01), but had a longer length of hospital stay (29 days vs 14 days, P < .0001), longer length of ICU stay (17 days vs 9 days, P < .0001), and a higher number of ventilator days (16 vs 11, P = .001).

Our study compared the baseline patient characteristics; utilization of low-flow supplemental oxygen therapy, HFNC, and mechanical ventilation; and clinical outcomes between the first surge (n = 1586) and the second surge (n = 1597) of the COVID-19 pandemic. During both surges, about two-thirds of admitted patients received low-flow supplemental oxygen. A higher proportion of the admitted patients received HFNC during the second surge than during the first surge, while the intubation rate was lower during the second surge than during the first surge.

Reported low-flow supplemental oxygen use ranged from 28% to 63% depending on the cohort characteristics and location during the first surge.^6,7,19 A report from New York during the first surge (March 1 to April 4, 2020) showed that among 5700 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 27.8% received low-flow supplemental oxygen.⁷ HFNC is recommended in guidelines on management of patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.²⁰ In our study, HFNC was utilized in a higher proportion of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the second surge (15.5% vs 10.8%, P = .0001). During the early pandemic period in Wuhan, China, 11% to 21% of admitted COVID-19 patients received HFNC.^21,22 Utilization of HFNC in New York during the first surge (March to May 2020) varied from 5% to 14.3% of patients admitted with COVID-19.^23,24 Our subgroup analysis of the ventilated patients showed that patients who received HFNC had lower mortality than those who did not (31.6% vs 48.0%, P = .011). Comparably, a report from Paris, France, showed that among patients admitted to ICUs for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, those who received HFNC had lower mortality at day 60 than those who did not (21% vs 31%, P = .052).²⁵ Our recent analysis showed that patients treated with HFNC prior to mechanical ventilation had lower mortality than those treated with only conventional oxygen (30% vs 52%, P = .05).²⁶ In this subgroup analysis, we could not determine if HFNC treatment was administered before or after ventilation because HFNC was entered as dichotomous data (“Yes” or “No”) in the registry database. We merely showed the beneficial effect of HFNC on reducing mortality for ventilated COVID-19 patients, but did not mean to focus on how and when to apply HFNC.

We observed that the patients admitted during the second surge were less likely to be ventilated than the patients admitted during the first surge (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001). During the first surge in New York, among 5700 patients admitted with COVID-19, 12.2% received invasive mechanical ventilation.⁷ In another report, also from New York during the first surge, 26.1% of 2015 hospitalized COVID-19 patients received mechanical ventilation.²⁷ In our study, the ventilation rate of 9.7% during the first surge was lower.

Outcomes during the second surge were better than during the first surge, including ICU admission rate, hospital and ICU length of stay, ventilator days, and mortality. The mortality was 19.2% during the first surge vs 8.3% during the second surge (P < .0001). The mortality of 19.2% was lower than the 30.6% mortality reported for 2015 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York during the first surge.²⁷ A retrospective study showed that early administration of remdesivir was associated with reduced ICU admission, ventilation use, and mortality.²⁸ The RECOVERY clinical trial showed that dexamethasone improved mortality for COVID-19 patients who received respiratory support, but not for patients who did not receive any respiratory support.²⁹ Perhaps some, if not all, of the improvement in ICU admission and mortality during the second surge was attributed to the new medications, such as antivirals and steroids.

The length of hospital stay for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 varied from 4 to 53 days at different locations of the world, as shown in a meta-analysis by Rees and colleagues.³⁰ Our results showing a length of stay of 6 days during the first surge and 5 days during the second surge fell into the shorter end of this range. In a retrospective analysis of 1643 adults with severe COVID-19 admitted to hospitals in New York City between March 9, 2020 and April 23, 2020, median hospital length of stay was 7 (IQR, 3-14) days.³¹ For the ventilated patients in our study, the length of stay of 14 days (did not receive HFNC) and 29 days (received HFNC) was much longer. This longer length of stay might be attributed to the patients in our study being older and having more severe comorbidities.

The main purpose of this study was to compare the oxygen therapies and outcomes between 2 surges. It is difficult to associate the clinical outcomes with the oxygen therapies because new therapies and medications were available after the first surge. It was not possible to adjust the outcomes with confounders (other therapies and medications) because the registry data did not include the new therapies and medications.

A strength of this study was that we included a large, balanced number of patients in the first surge and the second surge. We did not plan the sample size in both groups as we could not predict the number of admissions. We set the end date of data collection for analysis as the time when the number of patients admitted during the second surge was similar to the number of patients admitted during the first surge. A limitation was that the registry database was created by the institution and was not designed solely for this study. The data for oxygen therapies were limited to low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and invasive mechanical ventilation; data for noninvasive ventilation were not included.

Conclusion

At our centers, during the second surge of COVID-19 pandemic, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection were more likely to receive HFNC but less likely to be ventilated. Compared to the first surge, the hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection had a lower ICU admission rate, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer ventilator days, and lower mortality. For ventilated patients, those who received HFNC had lower mortality than those who did not.

Corresponding author: Timothy N. Liesching, MD, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA 01805; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

doi:10.12788/jcom.0086

From Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA (Drs. Liesching and Lei), and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (Dr. Liesching)

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the utilization of oxygen therapies and clinical outcomes of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the second surge of the pandemic to that of patients admitted during the first surge.

Design: Observational study using a registry database.

Setting: Three hospitals (791 inpatient beds and 76 intensive care unit [ICU] beds) within the Beth Israel Lahey Health system in Massachusetts.

Participants: We included 3183 patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospitals.

Measurements: Baseline data included demographics and comorbidities. Treatments included low-flow supplemental oxygen (2-6 L/min), high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Outcomes included ICU admission, length of stay, ventilator days, and mortality.

Results: A total of 3183 patients were included: 1586 during the first surge and 1597 during the second surge. Compared to the first surge, patients admitted during the second surge had a similar rate of receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen (65.8% vs 64.1%, P = .3), a higher rate of receiving high-flow nasal cannula (15.4% vs 10.8%, P = .0001), and a lower ventilation rate (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001). The outcomes during the second surge were better than those during the first surge: lower ICU admission rate (8.1% vs 12.7%, P < .0001), shorter length of hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P < .0001), fewer ventilator days (10 vs 16, P = .01), and lower mortality (8.3% vs 19.2%, P < .0001). Among ventilated patients, those who received high-flow nasal cannula had lower mortality.

Conclusion: Compared to the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients admitted during the second surge had similar likelihood of receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen, were more likely to receive high-flow nasal cannula, were less likely to be ventilated, and had better outcomes.

Keywords: supplemental oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula, ventilator.

The respiratory system receives the major impact of SARS-CoV-2 virus, and hypoxemia has been the predominant diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.^1,2 During the initial stage of the pandemic, oxygen therapies and mechanical ventilation were the only choices for these patients.^3-6 Standard-of-care treatment for patients with COVID-19 during the initial surge included oxygen therapies and mechanical ventilation for hypoxemia and medications for comorbidities and COVID-19–associated sequelae, such as multi-organ dysfunction and failure. A report from New York during the first surge (May 2020) showed that among 5700 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 27.8% received supplemental oxygen and 12.2% received invasive mechanical ventilation.⁷ High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen delivery has been utilized widely throughout the pandemic due to its superiority over other noninvasive respiratory support techniques.^8-12 Mechanical ventilation is always necessary for critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, ventilator scarcity has become a bottleneck in caring for severely ill patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic.¹³

The clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients include a high intubation rate, long length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and high mortality.^14,15 As the pandemic evolved, new medications, including remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, or interferon β-1a, were used in addition to the standard of care, but these did not result in significantly different mortality from standard of care.¹⁶ Steroids are becoming foundational to the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia, but evidence from high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials is lacking.¹⁷ 

During the first surge from March to May 2020, Massachusetts had the third highest number of COVID-19 cases among states in the United States.¹⁸ In early 2021, COVID-19 cases were climbing close to the peak of the second surge in Massachusetts. In this study, we compared utilization of low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and mechanical ventilation and clinical outcomes of patients admitted to 3 hospitals in Massachusetts during the second surge of the pandemic to that of patients admitted during the first surge.

Methods

Setting

Beth Israel Lahey Health is a system of academic and teaching hospitals with primary care and specialty care providers. We included 3 centers within the Beth Israel Lahey Health system in Massachusetts: Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, with 335 inpatient hospital beds and 52 critical care beds; Beverly Hospital, with 227 beds and 14 critical care beds; and Winchester Hospital, with 229 beds and 10 ICU beds.

Participants

We included patients admitted to the 3 hospitals with COVID-19 as a primary or secondary diagnosis during the first surge of the pandemic (March 1, 2020 to June 15, 2020) and the second surge (November 15, 2020 to January 27, 2021). The timeframe of the first surge was defined as the window between the start date and the end date of data collection. During the time window of the first surge, 1586 patients were included. The start time of the second surge was defined as the date when the data collection was restarted; the end date was set when the number of patients (1597) accumulated was close to the number of patients in the first surge (1586), so that the two groups had similar sample size.

Study Design

A data registry of COVID-19 patients was created by our institution, and the data were prospectively collected starting in March 2020. We retrospectively extracted data on the following from the registry database for this observational study: demographics and baseline comorbidities; the use of low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and invasive mechanical ventilator; and ICU admission, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, and hospital discharge disposition. Start and end times for each oxygen therapy were not entered in the registry. Data about other oxygen therapies, such as noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, were not collected in the registry database, and therefore were not included in the analysis.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables (eg, age) were tested for data distribution normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Normally distributed data were tested using unpaired t-tests and displayed as mean (SD). The skewed data were tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and displayed as median (interquartile range [IQR]). The categorical variables were compared using chi-square test. Comparisons with P ≤ .05 were considered significantly different. Statistical analysis for this study was generated using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS), version 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc.).

Results

Baseline Characteristics

We included 3183 patients: 1586 admitted during the first surge and 1597 admitted during the second surge. Baseline characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted during the first and second surges are shown in Table 1. Patients admitted during the second surge were older (73 years vs 71 years, P = .01) and had higher rates of hypertension (64.8% vs 59.6%, P = .003) and asthma (12.9% vs 10.7%, P = .049) but a lower rate of interstitial lung disease (3.3% vs 7.7%, P < .001). Sequential organ failure assessment scores at admission and the rates of other comorbidities were not significantly different between the 2 surges.

The number of patients who were hospitalized and received low-flow supplemental oxygen, and/or HFNC, and/or ventilator in the first surge and the second surge is shown in the Figure. Of all patients included, 2067 (64.9%) received low-flow supplemental oxygen; of these, 374 (18.1%) subsequently received HFNC, and 85 (22.7%) of these subsequently received mechanical ventilation. Of all 3183 patients, 417 (13.1%) received HFNC; 43 of these patients received HFNC without receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen, and 98 (23.5%) subsequently received mechanical ventilation. Out of all 3183 patients, 244 (7.7%) received mechanical ventilation; 98 (40.2%) of these received HFNC while the remaining 146 (59.8%) did not. At the beginning of the first surge, the ratio of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation to patients who received HFNC was close to 1:1 (10/10); the ratio decreased to 6:10 in May and June 2020. At the beginning of the second surge, the ratio was 8:10 and then decreased to 3:10 in December 2020 and January 2021.

As shown in Table 2, the proportion of patients who received low-flow supplemental oxygen during the second surge was similar to that during the first surge (65.8% vs 64.1%, P = .3). Patients admitted during the second surge were more likely to receive HFNC than patients admitted during the first surge (15.4% vs 10.8%, P = .0001). Patients admitted during the second surge were less likely to be ventilated than the patients admitted during the first surge (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001).

Clinical Outcomes

As shown in Table 3, second surge outcomes were much better than first surge outcomes: the ICU admission rate was lower (8.1% vs 12.7%, P < .0001); patients were more likely to be discharged to home (60.2% vs 47.4%, P < .0001), had a shorter length of hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P < .0001), and had fewer ventilator days (10 vs 16, P = .01); and mortality was lower (8.3% vs 19.2%, P < .0001). There was a trend that length of ICU stay was shorter during the second surge than during the first surge (7 days vs 9 days, P = .09).

As noted (Figure), the ratio of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation to patients who received HFNC was decreasing during both the first surge and the second surge. To further analyze the relation between ventilator and HFNC, we performed a subgroup analysis for 244 ventilated patients during both surges to compare outcomes between patients who received HFNC and those who did not receive HFNC (Table 4). Ninety-eight (40%) patients received HFNC. Ventilated patients who received HFNC had lower mortality than those patients who did not receive HFNC (31.6% vs 48%, P = .01), but had a longer length of hospital stay (29 days vs 14 days, P < .0001), longer length of ICU stay (17 days vs 9 days, P < .0001), and a higher number of ventilator days (16 vs 11, P = .001).

Our study compared the baseline patient characteristics; utilization of low-flow supplemental oxygen therapy, HFNC, and mechanical ventilation; and clinical outcomes between the first surge (n = 1586) and the second surge (n = 1597) of the COVID-19 pandemic. During both surges, about two-thirds of admitted patients received low-flow supplemental oxygen. A higher proportion of the admitted patients received HFNC during the second surge than during the first surge, while the intubation rate was lower during the second surge than during the first surge.

Reported low-flow supplemental oxygen use ranged from 28% to 63% depending on the cohort characteristics and location during the first surge.^6,7,19 A report from New York during the first surge (March 1 to April 4, 2020) showed that among 5700 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 27.8% received low-flow supplemental oxygen.⁷ HFNC is recommended in guidelines on management of patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.²⁰ In our study, HFNC was utilized in a higher proportion of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the second surge (15.5% vs 10.8%, P = .0001). During the early pandemic period in Wuhan, China, 11% to 21% of admitted COVID-19 patients received HFNC.^21,22 Utilization of HFNC in New York during the first surge (March to May 2020) varied from 5% to 14.3% of patients admitted with COVID-19.^23,24 Our subgroup analysis of the ventilated patients showed that patients who received HFNC had lower mortality than those who did not (31.6% vs 48.0%, P = .011). Comparably, a report from Paris, France, showed that among patients admitted to ICUs for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, those who received HFNC had lower mortality at day 60 than those who did not (21% vs 31%, P = .052).²⁵ Our recent analysis showed that patients treated with HFNC prior to mechanical ventilation had lower mortality than those treated with only conventional oxygen (30% vs 52%, P = .05).²⁶ In this subgroup analysis, we could not determine if HFNC treatment was administered before or after ventilation because HFNC was entered as dichotomous data (“Yes” or “No”) in the registry database. We merely showed the beneficial effect of HFNC on reducing mortality for ventilated COVID-19 patients, but did not mean to focus on how and when to apply HFNC.

We observed that the patients admitted during the second surge were less likely to be ventilated than the patients admitted during the first surge (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001). During the first surge in New York, among 5700 patients admitted with COVID-19, 12.2% received invasive mechanical ventilation.⁷ In another report, also from New York during the first surge, 26.1% of 2015 hospitalized COVID-19 patients received mechanical ventilation.²⁷ In our study, the ventilation rate of 9.7% during the first surge was lower.

Outcomes during the second surge were better than during the first surge, including ICU admission rate, hospital and ICU length of stay, ventilator days, and mortality. The mortality was 19.2% during the first surge vs 8.3% during the second surge (P < .0001). The mortality of 19.2% was lower than the 30.6% mortality reported for 2015 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York during the first surge.²⁷ A retrospective study showed that early administration of remdesivir was associated with reduced ICU admission, ventilation use, and mortality.²⁸ The RECOVERY clinical trial showed that dexamethasone improved mortality for COVID-19 patients who received respiratory support, but not for patients who did not receive any respiratory support.²⁹ Perhaps some, if not all, of the improvement in ICU admission and mortality during the second surge was attributed to the new medications, such as antivirals and steroids.

The length of hospital stay for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 varied from 4 to 53 days at different locations of the world, as shown in a meta-analysis by Rees and colleagues.³⁰ Our results showing a length of stay of 6 days during the first surge and 5 days during the second surge fell into the shorter end of this range. In a retrospective analysis of 1643 adults with severe COVID-19 admitted to hospitals in New York City between March 9, 2020 and April 23, 2020, median hospital length of stay was 7 (IQR, 3-14) days.³¹ For the ventilated patients in our study, the length of stay of 14 days (did not receive HFNC) and 29 days (received HFNC) was much longer. This longer length of stay might be attributed to the patients in our study being older and having more severe comorbidities.

The main purpose of this study was to compare the oxygen therapies and outcomes between 2 surges. It is difficult to associate the clinical outcomes with the oxygen therapies because new therapies and medications were available after the first surge. It was not possible to adjust the outcomes with confounders (other therapies and medications) because the registry data did not include the new therapies and medications.

A strength of this study was that we included a large, balanced number of patients in the first surge and the second surge. We did not plan the sample size in both groups as we could not predict the number of admissions. We set the end date of data collection for analysis as the time when the number of patients admitted during the second surge was similar to the number of patients admitted during the first surge. A limitation was that the registry database was created by the institution and was not designed solely for this study. The data for oxygen therapies were limited to low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and invasive mechanical ventilation; data for noninvasive ventilation were not included.

Conclusion

At our centers, during the second surge of COVID-19 pandemic, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection were more likely to receive HFNC but less likely to be ventilated. Compared to the first surge, the hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection had a lower ICU admission rate, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer ventilator days, and lower mortality. For ventilated patients, those who received HFNC had lower mortality than those who did not.

Corresponding author: Timothy N. Liesching, MD, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA 01805; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

doi:10.12788/jcom.0086

From Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA (Drs. Liesching and Lei), and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (Dr. Liesching)

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the utilization of oxygen therapies and clinical outcomes of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the second surge of the pandemic to that of patients admitted during the first surge.

Design: Observational study using a registry database.

Setting: Three hospitals (791 inpatient beds and 76 intensive care unit [ICU] beds) within the Beth Israel Lahey Health system in Massachusetts.

Participants: We included 3183 patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospitals.

Measurements: Baseline data included demographics and comorbidities. Treatments included low-flow supplemental oxygen (2-6 L/min), high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Outcomes included ICU admission, length of stay, ventilator days, and mortality.

Results: A total of 3183 patients were included: 1586 during the first surge and 1597 during the second surge. Compared to the first surge, patients admitted during the second surge had a similar rate of receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen (65.8% vs 64.1%, P = .3), a higher rate of receiving high-flow nasal cannula (15.4% vs 10.8%, P = .0001), and a lower ventilation rate (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001). The outcomes during the second surge were better than those during the first surge: lower ICU admission rate (8.1% vs 12.7%, P < .0001), shorter length of hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P < .0001), fewer ventilator days (10 vs 16, P = .01), and lower mortality (8.3% vs 19.2%, P < .0001). Among ventilated patients, those who received high-flow nasal cannula had lower mortality.

Conclusion: Compared to the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients admitted during the second surge had similar likelihood of receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen, were more likely to receive high-flow nasal cannula, were less likely to be ventilated, and had better outcomes.

Keywords: supplemental oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula, ventilator.

The respiratory system receives the major impact of SARS-CoV-2 virus, and hypoxemia has been the predominant diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.^1,2 During the initial stage of the pandemic, oxygen therapies and mechanical ventilation were the only choices for these patients.^3-6 Standard-of-care treatment for patients with COVID-19 during the initial surge included oxygen therapies and mechanical ventilation for hypoxemia and medications for comorbidities and COVID-19–associated sequelae, such as multi-organ dysfunction and failure. A report from New York during the first surge (May 2020) showed that among 5700 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 27.8% received supplemental oxygen and 12.2% received invasive mechanical ventilation.⁷ High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen delivery has been utilized widely throughout the pandemic due to its superiority over other noninvasive respiratory support techniques.^8-12 Mechanical ventilation is always necessary for critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, ventilator scarcity has become a bottleneck in caring for severely ill patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic.¹³

The clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients include a high intubation rate, long length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and high mortality.^14,15 As the pandemic evolved, new medications, including remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, or interferon β-1a, were used in addition to the standard of care, but these did not result in significantly different mortality from standard of care.¹⁶ Steroids are becoming foundational to the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia, but evidence from high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials is lacking.¹⁷ 

During the first surge from March to May 2020, Massachusetts had the third highest number of COVID-19 cases among states in the United States.¹⁸ In early 2021, COVID-19 cases were climbing close to the peak of the second surge in Massachusetts. In this study, we compared utilization of low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and mechanical ventilation and clinical outcomes of patients admitted to 3 hospitals in Massachusetts during the second surge of the pandemic to that of patients admitted during the first surge.

Methods

Setting

Beth Israel Lahey Health is a system of academic and teaching hospitals with primary care and specialty care providers. We included 3 centers within the Beth Israel Lahey Health system in Massachusetts: Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, with 335 inpatient hospital beds and 52 critical care beds; Beverly Hospital, with 227 beds and 14 critical care beds; and Winchester Hospital, with 229 beds and 10 ICU beds.

Participants

We included patients admitted to the 3 hospitals with COVID-19 as a primary or secondary diagnosis during the first surge of the pandemic (March 1, 2020 to June 15, 2020) and the second surge (November 15, 2020 to January 27, 2021). The timeframe of the first surge was defined as the window between the start date and the end date of data collection. During the time window of the first surge, 1586 patients were included. The start time of the second surge was defined as the date when the data collection was restarted; the end date was set when the number of patients (1597) accumulated was close to the number of patients in the first surge (1586), so that the two groups had similar sample size.

Study Design

A data registry of COVID-19 patients was created by our institution, and the data were prospectively collected starting in March 2020. We retrospectively extracted data on the following from the registry database for this observational study: demographics and baseline comorbidities; the use of low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and invasive mechanical ventilator; and ICU admission, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, and hospital discharge disposition. Start and end times for each oxygen therapy were not entered in the registry. Data about other oxygen therapies, such as noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, were not collected in the registry database, and therefore were not included in the analysis.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables (eg, age) were tested for data distribution normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Normally distributed data were tested using unpaired t-tests and displayed as mean (SD). The skewed data were tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and displayed as median (interquartile range [IQR]). The categorical variables were compared using chi-square test. Comparisons with P ≤ .05 were considered significantly different. Statistical analysis for this study was generated using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS), version 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc.).

Results

Baseline Characteristics

We included 3183 patients: 1586 admitted during the first surge and 1597 admitted during the second surge. Baseline characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted during the first and second surges are shown in Table 1. Patients admitted during the second surge were older (73 years vs 71 years, P = .01) and had higher rates of hypertension (64.8% vs 59.6%, P = .003) and asthma (12.9% vs 10.7%, P = .049) but a lower rate of interstitial lung disease (3.3% vs 7.7%, P < .001). Sequential organ failure assessment scores at admission and the rates of other comorbidities were not significantly different between the 2 surges.

The number of patients who were hospitalized and received low-flow supplemental oxygen, and/or HFNC, and/or ventilator in the first surge and the second surge is shown in the Figure. Of all patients included, 2067 (64.9%) received low-flow supplemental oxygen; of these, 374 (18.1%) subsequently received HFNC, and 85 (22.7%) of these subsequently received mechanical ventilation. Of all 3183 patients, 417 (13.1%) received HFNC; 43 of these patients received HFNC without receiving low-flow supplemental oxygen, and 98 (23.5%) subsequently received mechanical ventilation. Out of all 3183 patients, 244 (7.7%) received mechanical ventilation; 98 (40.2%) of these received HFNC while the remaining 146 (59.8%) did not. At the beginning of the first surge, the ratio of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation to patients who received HFNC was close to 1:1 (10/10); the ratio decreased to 6:10 in May and June 2020. At the beginning of the second surge, the ratio was 8:10 and then decreased to 3:10 in December 2020 and January 2021.

As shown in Table 2, the proportion of patients who received low-flow supplemental oxygen during the second surge was similar to that during the first surge (65.8% vs 64.1%, P = .3). Patients admitted during the second surge were more likely to receive HFNC than patients admitted during the first surge (15.4% vs 10.8%, P = .0001). Patients admitted during the second surge were less likely to be ventilated than the patients admitted during the first surge (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001).

Clinical Outcomes

As shown in Table 3, second surge outcomes were much better than first surge outcomes: the ICU admission rate was lower (8.1% vs 12.7%, P < .0001); patients were more likely to be discharged to home (60.2% vs 47.4%, P < .0001), had a shorter length of hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P < .0001), and had fewer ventilator days (10 vs 16, P = .01); and mortality was lower (8.3% vs 19.2%, P < .0001). There was a trend that length of ICU stay was shorter during the second surge than during the first surge (7 days vs 9 days, P = .09).

As noted (Figure), the ratio of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation to patients who received HFNC was decreasing during both the first surge and the second surge. To further analyze the relation between ventilator and HFNC, we performed a subgroup analysis for 244 ventilated patients during both surges to compare outcomes between patients who received HFNC and those who did not receive HFNC (Table 4). Ninety-eight (40%) patients received HFNC. Ventilated patients who received HFNC had lower mortality than those patients who did not receive HFNC (31.6% vs 48%, P = .01), but had a longer length of hospital stay (29 days vs 14 days, P < .0001), longer length of ICU stay (17 days vs 9 days, P < .0001), and a higher number of ventilator days (16 vs 11, P = .001).

Our study compared the baseline patient characteristics; utilization of low-flow supplemental oxygen therapy, HFNC, and mechanical ventilation; and clinical outcomes between the first surge (n = 1586) and the second surge (n = 1597) of the COVID-19 pandemic. During both surges, about two-thirds of admitted patients received low-flow supplemental oxygen. A higher proportion of the admitted patients received HFNC during the second surge than during the first surge, while the intubation rate was lower during the second surge than during the first surge.

Reported low-flow supplemental oxygen use ranged from 28% to 63% depending on the cohort characteristics and location during the first surge.^6,7,19 A report from New York during the first surge (March 1 to April 4, 2020) showed that among 5700 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 27.8% received low-flow supplemental oxygen.⁷ HFNC is recommended in guidelines on management of patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.²⁰ In our study, HFNC was utilized in a higher proportion of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the second surge (15.5% vs 10.8%, P = .0001). During the early pandemic period in Wuhan, China, 11% to 21% of admitted COVID-19 patients received HFNC.^21,22 Utilization of HFNC in New York during the first surge (March to May 2020) varied from 5% to 14.3% of patients admitted with COVID-19.^23,24 Our subgroup analysis of the ventilated patients showed that patients who received HFNC had lower mortality than those who did not (31.6% vs 48.0%, P = .011). Comparably, a report from Paris, France, showed that among patients admitted to ICUs for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, those who received HFNC had lower mortality at day 60 than those who did not (21% vs 31%, P = .052).²⁵ Our recent analysis showed that patients treated with HFNC prior to mechanical ventilation had lower mortality than those treated with only conventional oxygen (30% vs 52%, P = .05).²⁶ In this subgroup analysis, we could not determine if HFNC treatment was administered before or after ventilation because HFNC was entered as dichotomous data (“Yes” or “No”) in the registry database. We merely showed the beneficial effect of HFNC on reducing mortality for ventilated COVID-19 patients, but did not mean to focus on how and when to apply HFNC.

We observed that the patients admitted during the second surge were less likely to be ventilated than the patients admitted during the first surge (5.6% vs 9.7%, P < .0001). During the first surge in New York, among 5700 patients admitted with COVID-19, 12.2% received invasive mechanical ventilation.⁷ In another report, also from New York during the first surge, 26.1% of 2015 hospitalized COVID-19 patients received mechanical ventilation.²⁷ In our study, the ventilation rate of 9.7% during the first surge was lower.

Outcomes during the second surge were better than during the first surge, including ICU admission rate, hospital and ICU length of stay, ventilator days, and mortality. The mortality was 19.2% during the first surge vs 8.3% during the second surge (P < .0001). The mortality of 19.2% was lower than the 30.6% mortality reported for 2015 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York during the first surge.²⁷ A retrospective study showed that early administration of remdesivir was associated with reduced ICU admission, ventilation use, and mortality.²⁸ The RECOVERY clinical trial showed that dexamethasone improved mortality for COVID-19 patients who received respiratory support, but not for patients who did not receive any respiratory support.²⁹ Perhaps some, if not all, of the improvement in ICU admission and mortality during the second surge was attributed to the new medications, such as antivirals and steroids.

The length of hospital stay for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 varied from 4 to 53 days at different locations of the world, as shown in a meta-analysis by Rees and colleagues.³⁰ Our results showing a length of stay of 6 days during the first surge and 5 days during the second surge fell into the shorter end of this range. In a retrospective analysis of 1643 adults with severe COVID-19 admitted to hospitals in New York City between March 9, 2020 and April 23, 2020, median hospital length of stay was 7 (IQR, 3-14) days.³¹ For the ventilated patients in our study, the length of stay of 14 days (did not receive HFNC) and 29 days (received HFNC) was much longer. This longer length of stay might be attributed to the patients in our study being older and having more severe comorbidities.

The main purpose of this study was to compare the oxygen therapies and outcomes between 2 surges. It is difficult to associate the clinical outcomes with the oxygen therapies because new therapies and medications were available after the first surge. It was not possible to adjust the outcomes with confounders (other therapies and medications) because the registry data did not include the new therapies and medications.

A strength of this study was that we included a large, balanced number of patients in the first surge and the second surge. We did not plan the sample size in both groups as we could not predict the number of admissions. We set the end date of data collection for analysis as the time when the number of patients admitted during the second surge was similar to the number of patients admitted during the first surge. A limitation was that the registry database was created by the institution and was not designed solely for this study. The data for oxygen therapies were limited to low-flow supplemental oxygen, HFNC, and invasive mechanical ventilation; data for noninvasive ventilation were not included.

Conclusion

At our centers, during the second surge of COVID-19 pandemic, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection were more likely to receive HFNC but less likely to be ventilated. Compared to the first surge, the hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection had a lower ICU admission rate, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer ventilator days, and lower mortality. For ventilated patients, those who received HFNC had lower mortality than those who did not.

Corresponding author: Timothy N. Liesching, MD, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA 01805; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

doi:10.12788/jcom.0086

A new systematic literature review suggests that there may be – at most – a weak link between COVID-19 and alopecia areata.

If there is a connection, it’s likely not a strong one, said study author Rachel E. Christensen, a graduate student at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, in an interview. “Based on the reported number of cases following COVID-19, alopecia areata appears to be low on the list of common skin manifestations of COVID-19,” she said. Of 402 articles screened from three databases in the review, only 11 were identified as related to alopecia areata (AA) and COVID-19, and only 9 of those met the study inclusion criteria. “This number alone highlights the very low number of published articles investigating this connection.”

The review was published in JAAD International.

While COVID-19 has been linked to a variety of skin conditions, a 2021 South Korean study of 7,958 cases and 218,779 controls found no connection between infection and AA even after covariates such as age, gender, and income level were taken into account. In a letter to the editor published in 2020, dermatologists in Turkey reported that the percentage of patients with AA at the dermatology outpatient clinic jumped from 0.97% in May 2019 to 1.48% in May 2020. The number of patients in each group wasn’t reported.

Systematic review

The investigators launched the systematic review to gain a wider perspective, although there are still limitations. On the one hand, Ms. Christensen said, “we do know that COVID-19, like other viruses, has been linked to various dermatological disorders.”

However, “it is difficult to tease apart whether any worsening of alopecia areata we see following COVID-19 is due to the virus itself or the increased psychological burden related to the infection or to the pandemic in general,” she said. Indeed, the authors of the report in Turkey attributed the rise in cases to stress.

For the review, the researchers analyzed studies from Italy (four), Turkey (two), Brazil (one), the United States (one), and Poland (one).

Six of the studies reported cases of new-onset AA following COVID-19 infection (seven cases; average age, 37 years; females, three). Another study was a retrospective review of 32 patients with preexisting AA who developed COVID-19; none experienced significant worsening of AA within 6 months.

The review also included a study based on a survey of 389 patients with AA. The investigators found that, at a median 2.14 months after infection, 44% of those who had COVID-19 vs. 12% of those who were COVID negative had a relapse. Finally, a case report noted a patient with preexisting AA whose condition worsened following COVID infection.

The findings suggest that AA “could be a dermatological manifestation of COVID-19, with cases most often appearing 1-2 months following infection,” the authors wrote. “However, the heterogeneity of study designs and high proportion of case reports make it challenging to draw any conclusion.”

In an interview, dermatologist Brett King, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the review findings suggest that “there is little concern of alopecia areata following COVID infection.

Does new-onset AA happen, and are there exacerbations of preexisting disease related to COVID infection? Probably yes, but rarely.”

However, he noted that another form of alopecia, telogen effluvium (TE), is more common after COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. King, who was not involved with the systematic review, TE is typically time-limited, compared with AA’s more common chronic waxing-and-waning course.

“Distinguishing TE and AA is usually straightforward because AA typically presents with well-circumscribed patches of hair loss,” such as circular patches, “while TE manifests as diffuse hair loss,” he explained. “Rarely, however, AA does manifest diffuse hair loss without patches, similar to TE. In those cases, it may be difficult to distinguish them. A biopsy may be helpful if there is a question of the diagnosis.”

No study funding is reported. The review authors and Dr. King report no relevant disclosures.

A new systematic literature review suggests that there may be – at most – a weak link between COVID-19 and alopecia areata.

If there is a connection, it’s likely not a strong one, said study author Rachel E. Christensen, a graduate student at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, in an interview. “Based on the reported number of cases following COVID-19, alopecia areata appears to be low on the list of common skin manifestations of COVID-19,” she said. Of 402 articles screened from three databases in the review, only 11 were identified as related to alopecia areata (AA) and COVID-19, and only 9 of those met the study inclusion criteria. “This number alone highlights the very low number of published articles investigating this connection.”

The review was published in JAAD International.

While COVID-19 has been linked to a variety of skin conditions, a 2021 South Korean study of 7,958 cases and 218,779 controls found no connection between infection and AA even after covariates such as age, gender, and income level were taken into account. In a letter to the editor published in 2020, dermatologists in Turkey reported that the percentage of patients with AA at the dermatology outpatient clinic jumped from 0.97% in May 2019 to 1.48% in May 2020. The number of patients in each group wasn’t reported.

Systematic review

The investigators launched the systematic review to gain a wider perspective, although there are still limitations. On the one hand, Ms. Christensen said, “we do know that COVID-19, like other viruses, has been linked to various dermatological disorders.”

However, “it is difficult to tease apart whether any worsening of alopecia areata we see following COVID-19 is due to the virus itself or the increased psychological burden related to the infection or to the pandemic in general,” she said. Indeed, the authors of the report in Turkey attributed the rise in cases to stress.

For the review, the researchers analyzed studies from Italy (four), Turkey (two), Brazil (one), the United States (one), and Poland (one).

Six of the studies reported cases of new-onset AA following COVID-19 infection (seven cases; average age, 37 years; females, three). Another study was a retrospective review of 32 patients with preexisting AA who developed COVID-19; none experienced significant worsening of AA within 6 months.

The review also included a study based on a survey of 389 patients with AA. The investigators found that, at a median 2.14 months after infection, 44% of those who had COVID-19 vs. 12% of those who were COVID negative had a relapse. Finally, a case report noted a patient with preexisting AA whose condition worsened following COVID infection.

The findings suggest that AA “could be a dermatological manifestation of COVID-19, with cases most often appearing 1-2 months following infection,” the authors wrote. “However, the heterogeneity of study designs and high proportion of case reports make it challenging to draw any conclusion.”

In an interview, dermatologist Brett King, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the review findings suggest that “there is little concern of alopecia areata following COVID infection.

Does new-onset AA happen, and are there exacerbations of preexisting disease related to COVID infection? Probably yes, but rarely.”

However, he noted that another form of alopecia, telogen effluvium (TE), is more common after COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. King, who was not involved with the systematic review, TE is typically time-limited, compared with AA’s more common chronic waxing-and-waning course.

“Distinguishing TE and AA is usually straightforward because AA typically presents with well-circumscribed patches of hair loss,” such as circular patches, “while TE manifests as diffuse hair loss,” he explained. “Rarely, however, AA does manifest diffuse hair loss without patches, similar to TE. In those cases, it may be difficult to distinguish them. A biopsy may be helpful if there is a question of the diagnosis.”

No study funding is reported. The review authors and Dr. King report no relevant disclosures.

A new systematic literature review suggests that there may be – at most – a weak link between COVID-19 and alopecia areata.

If there is a connection, it’s likely not a strong one, said study author Rachel E. Christensen, a graduate student at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, in an interview. “Based on the reported number of cases following COVID-19, alopecia areata appears to be low on the list of common skin manifestations of COVID-19,” she said. Of 402 articles screened from three databases in the review, only 11 were identified as related to alopecia areata (AA) and COVID-19, and only 9 of those met the study inclusion criteria. “This number alone highlights the very low number of published articles investigating this connection.”

The review was published in JAAD International.

While COVID-19 has been linked to a variety of skin conditions, a 2021 South Korean study of 7,958 cases and 218,779 controls found no connection between infection and AA even after covariates such as age, gender, and income level were taken into account. In a letter to the editor published in 2020, dermatologists in Turkey reported that the percentage of patients with AA at the dermatology outpatient clinic jumped from 0.97% in May 2019 to 1.48% in May 2020. The number of patients in each group wasn’t reported.

Systematic review

The investigators launched the systematic review to gain a wider perspective, although there are still limitations. On the one hand, Ms. Christensen said, “we do know that COVID-19, like other viruses, has been linked to various dermatological disorders.”

However, “it is difficult to tease apart whether any worsening of alopecia areata we see following COVID-19 is due to the virus itself or the increased psychological burden related to the infection or to the pandemic in general,” she said. Indeed, the authors of the report in Turkey attributed the rise in cases to stress.

For the review, the researchers analyzed studies from Italy (four), Turkey (two), Brazil (one), the United States (one), and Poland (one).

Six of the studies reported cases of new-onset AA following COVID-19 infection (seven cases; average age, 37 years; females, three). Another study was a retrospective review of 32 patients with preexisting AA who developed COVID-19; none experienced significant worsening of AA within 6 months.

The review also included a study based on a survey of 389 patients with AA. The investigators found that, at a median 2.14 months after infection, 44% of those who had COVID-19 vs. 12% of those who were COVID negative had a relapse. Finally, a case report noted a patient with preexisting AA whose condition worsened following COVID infection.

The findings suggest that AA “could be a dermatological manifestation of COVID-19, with cases most often appearing 1-2 months following infection,” the authors wrote. “However, the heterogeneity of study designs and high proportion of case reports make it challenging to draw any conclusion.”

In an interview, dermatologist Brett King, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the review findings suggest that “there is little concern of alopecia areata following COVID infection.

Does new-onset AA happen, and are there exacerbations of preexisting disease related to COVID infection? Probably yes, but rarely.”

However, he noted that another form of alopecia, telogen effluvium (TE), is more common after COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. King, who was not involved with the systematic review, TE is typically time-limited, compared with AA’s more common chronic waxing-and-waning course.

“Distinguishing TE and AA is usually straightforward because AA typically presents with well-circumscribed patches of hair loss,” such as circular patches, “while TE manifests as diffuse hair loss,” he explained. “Rarely, however, AA does manifest diffuse hair loss without patches, similar to TE. In those cases, it may be difficult to distinguish them. A biopsy may be helpful if there is a question of the diagnosis.”

No study funding is reported. The review authors and Dr. King report no relevant disclosures.

A large global report shows a decline in mental health worldwide, with the poorest outcomes reported in young adults.

The Mental Health Million project of Sapien Labs issued its second report, published online March 15, encompassing 34 countries and over 220,000 Internet-enabled adults. It found a continued decline in mental health in all age groups and genders, with English-speaking countries having the lowest mental well-being.

The decline was significantly correlated with the stringency of COVID-19 lockdown measures in each country and was directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

The youngest age group (18-24 years) reported the poorest mental well-being, with better mental health scores rising in every successively older age group.

“Some of our findings, especially regarding mental health in young adults, are alarming,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, told this news organization.

“Our data, which are continually updated in real time, are freely available for nonprofit, noncommercial use and research, and we hope that researchers will get involved in an interdisciplinary way that spans sociology, economics, psychiatry, and other fields,” she said.
 

Pioneering research

Dr. Thiagarajan and her team pioneered the Mental Health Million project, an ongoing research initiative utilizing a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability.”

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being,” with scores ranging from –100 to +200. (Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being.) The MHQ categorizes respondents as “clinical, at-risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving” and computes scores on the basis of six broad dimensions of mental health: core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

As reported by this news organization, Sapien Lab’s first Mental Health State of the World report (n = 49,000 adults) was conducted in eight English-speaking countries in 2020. Participants were compared to a smaller sample of people from the same countries polled in 2019.

In this year’s report, “we expanded quite substantially,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. The project added Spanish, French, and Arabic and recruited participants from 34 countries on six continents (n = 223,087) via advertising on Google and Facebook.

Economic prosperity not protective

Across the eight English-speaking countries, there was a decline in mental well-being of 3% from 2020 to 2021, which was smaller than the 8% decline from 2019 to 2020. The percentage of people who were “distressed or struggling” increased from 26% to 30% in 2021.

“Now that a lot of pandemic issue seems to be easing up, I hope we’ll see mental well-being coming back up, but at least it’s a smaller decline than we saw between 2019 and 2020,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The decline across countries from 2019 to 2021 was significantly correlated with the stringency of governmental COVID-19-related measures (based on the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, 2022; r = .54) and directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

In total, 30% of respondents in English-speaking countries had mental well-being scores in the “distressed” or “struggling” range – higher than the Middle Eastern countries, North Africa, Latin America, and Europe (23%, 23%, 24%, and 18%, respectively).

Only 36% of participants in the English-speaking countries, the Middle East, and North Africa reported “thriving or succeeding,” vs. 45% and 46% in Latin America and Europe, respectively. Venezuela topped the list with an average MHQ of 91, while the United Kingdom and South Africa had the lowest scores, at 46 each.

Mental well-being was slightly higher in males than in females but was dramatically lower in nonbinary/third-gender respondents. In fact, those identifying as nonbinary/third gender had the lowest mental well-being of any group.

Across all countries and languages, higher education was associated with better mental well-being. Employment was also associated with superior mental well-being, compared with being unemployed – particularly in core English-speaking countries.

However, “country indicators of economic prosperity were negatively correlated with mental well-being, particularly for young adults and males, belying the commonly held belief that national economic prosperity translates into greater mental well-being,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.
 

‘Stark’ contrast

The most dramatic finding was the difference in mental well-being between younger and older adults, which was two- to threefold larger than differences in other dimensions (for example, age, gender, employment). Even the maximum difference between countries overall (15%) was still smaller than the generational gap within any region.

While only 7% (6%- 9%) of participants aged ≥65 years were “distressed and struggling” with their mental well-being to a “clinical” extent, 44% (38%-50%) of those aged 18-24 years reported mental well-being scores in the “distressed or struggling” range – representing a “growing gap between generations that, while present prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has since been exacerbated,” the authors state.

With every successive decrement in age group, mental well-being “plummeted,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. She noted that research conducted prior to 2010 in several regions of the world showed that young adults typically had the highest well-being. “Our findings stand in stark contrast to these previous patterns.”

The relationship between lockdown stringency and poorer mental health could play a role. “The impact of social isolation may be most strongly felt in younger people,” she said.
 

Internet a culprit?

“Within almost every region, scores for cognition and drive and motivation were highest while mood and outlook and social self were the lowest,” the authors report.

The aggregate percentage of respondents who reported being “distressed or struggling” in the various MHQ dimensions is shown in the following table.

Sedentary time

Commenting for this news organization, Bernardo Ng, MD, a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on International Psychiatry and Global Health and medical director of Sun Valley Research Center, Imperial, Calif., called the report “interesting, with an impressive sample size” and an “impressive geographic distribution.”

Courtesy Sun Valley Research Center

Dr. Ng, who was not involved in the report, said, “I did not think the impact of Internet use on mental health was as dramatic before looking at this report.

“On the other hand, I have personally been interested in the impact of sedentarism in mental health – not only emotionally but also biologically. Sedentarism, which is directly related to screen use time, produces inflammation that worsens brain function.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A large global report shows a decline in mental health worldwide, with the poorest outcomes reported in young adults.

The Mental Health Million project of Sapien Labs issued its second report, published online March 15, encompassing 34 countries and over 220,000 Internet-enabled adults. It found a continued decline in mental health in all age groups and genders, with English-speaking countries having the lowest mental well-being.

The decline was significantly correlated with the stringency of COVID-19 lockdown measures in each country and was directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

The youngest age group (18-24 years) reported the poorest mental well-being, with better mental health scores rising in every successively older age group.

“Some of our findings, especially regarding mental health in young adults, are alarming,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, told this news organization.

“Our data, which are continually updated in real time, are freely available for nonprofit, noncommercial use and research, and we hope that researchers will get involved in an interdisciplinary way that spans sociology, economics, psychiatry, and other fields,” she said.
 

Pioneering research

Dr. Thiagarajan and her team pioneered the Mental Health Million project, an ongoing research initiative utilizing a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability.”

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being,” with scores ranging from –100 to +200. (Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being.) The MHQ categorizes respondents as “clinical, at-risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving” and computes scores on the basis of six broad dimensions of mental health: core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

As reported by this news organization, Sapien Lab’s first Mental Health State of the World report (n = 49,000 adults) was conducted in eight English-speaking countries in 2020. Participants were compared to a smaller sample of people from the same countries polled in 2019.

In this year’s report, “we expanded quite substantially,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. The project added Spanish, French, and Arabic and recruited participants from 34 countries on six continents (n = 223,087) via advertising on Google and Facebook.

Economic prosperity not protective

Across the eight English-speaking countries, there was a decline in mental well-being of 3% from 2020 to 2021, which was smaller than the 8% decline from 2019 to 2020. The percentage of people who were “distressed or struggling” increased from 26% to 30% in 2021.

“Now that a lot of pandemic issue seems to be easing up, I hope we’ll see mental well-being coming back up, but at least it’s a smaller decline than we saw between 2019 and 2020,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The decline across countries from 2019 to 2021 was significantly correlated with the stringency of governmental COVID-19-related measures (based on the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, 2022; r = .54) and directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

In total, 30% of respondents in English-speaking countries had mental well-being scores in the “distressed” or “struggling” range – higher than the Middle Eastern countries, North Africa, Latin America, and Europe (23%, 23%, 24%, and 18%, respectively).

Only 36% of participants in the English-speaking countries, the Middle East, and North Africa reported “thriving or succeeding,” vs. 45% and 46% in Latin America and Europe, respectively. Venezuela topped the list with an average MHQ of 91, while the United Kingdom and South Africa had the lowest scores, at 46 each.

Mental well-being was slightly higher in males than in females but was dramatically lower in nonbinary/third-gender respondents. In fact, those identifying as nonbinary/third gender had the lowest mental well-being of any group.

Across all countries and languages, higher education was associated with better mental well-being. Employment was also associated with superior mental well-being, compared with being unemployed – particularly in core English-speaking countries.

However, “country indicators of economic prosperity were negatively correlated with mental well-being, particularly for young adults and males, belying the commonly held belief that national economic prosperity translates into greater mental well-being,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.
 

‘Stark’ contrast

The most dramatic finding was the difference in mental well-being between younger and older adults, which was two- to threefold larger than differences in other dimensions (for example, age, gender, employment). Even the maximum difference between countries overall (15%) was still smaller than the generational gap within any region.

While only 7% (6%- 9%) of participants aged ≥65 years were “distressed and struggling” with their mental well-being to a “clinical” extent, 44% (38%-50%) of those aged 18-24 years reported mental well-being scores in the “distressed or struggling” range – representing a “growing gap between generations that, while present prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has since been exacerbated,” the authors state.

With every successive decrement in age group, mental well-being “plummeted,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. She noted that research conducted prior to 2010 in several regions of the world showed that young adults typically had the highest well-being. “Our findings stand in stark contrast to these previous patterns.”

The relationship between lockdown stringency and poorer mental health could play a role. “The impact of social isolation may be most strongly felt in younger people,” she said.
 

Internet a culprit?

“Within almost every region, scores for cognition and drive and motivation were highest while mood and outlook and social self were the lowest,” the authors report.

The aggregate percentage of respondents who reported being “distressed or struggling” in the various MHQ dimensions is shown in the following table.

Sedentary time

Commenting for this news organization, Bernardo Ng, MD, a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on International Psychiatry and Global Health and medical director of Sun Valley Research Center, Imperial, Calif., called the report “interesting, with an impressive sample size” and an “impressive geographic distribution.”

Courtesy Sun Valley Research Center

Dr. Ng, who was not involved in the report, said, “I did not think the impact of Internet use on mental health was as dramatic before looking at this report.

“On the other hand, I have personally been interested in the impact of sedentarism in mental health – not only emotionally but also biologically. Sedentarism, which is directly related to screen use time, produces inflammation that worsens brain function.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A large global report shows a decline in mental health worldwide, with the poorest outcomes reported in young adults.

The Mental Health Million project of Sapien Labs issued its second report, published online March 15, encompassing 34 countries and over 220,000 Internet-enabled adults. It found a continued decline in mental health in all age groups and genders, with English-speaking countries having the lowest mental well-being.

The decline was significantly correlated with the stringency of COVID-19 lockdown measures in each country and was directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

The youngest age group (18-24 years) reported the poorest mental well-being, with better mental health scores rising in every successively older age group.

“Some of our findings, especially regarding mental health in young adults, are alarming,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, told this news organization.

“Our data, which are continually updated in real time, are freely available for nonprofit, noncommercial use and research, and we hope that researchers will get involved in an interdisciplinary way that spans sociology, economics, psychiatry, and other fields,” she said.
 

Pioneering research

Dr. Thiagarajan and her team pioneered the Mental Health Million project, an ongoing research initiative utilizing a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability.”

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being,” with scores ranging from –100 to +200. (Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being.) The MHQ categorizes respondents as “clinical, at-risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving” and computes scores on the basis of six broad dimensions of mental health: core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

As reported by this news organization, Sapien Lab’s first Mental Health State of the World report (n = 49,000 adults) was conducted in eight English-speaking countries in 2020. Participants were compared to a smaller sample of people from the same countries polled in 2019.

In this year’s report, “we expanded quite substantially,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. The project added Spanish, French, and Arabic and recruited participants from 34 countries on six continents (n = 223,087) via advertising on Google and Facebook.

Economic prosperity not protective

Across the eight English-speaking countries, there was a decline in mental well-being of 3% from 2020 to 2021, which was smaller than the 8% decline from 2019 to 2020. The percentage of people who were “distressed or struggling” increased from 26% to 30% in 2021.

“Now that a lot of pandemic issue seems to be easing up, I hope we’ll see mental well-being coming back up, but at least it’s a smaller decline than we saw between 2019 and 2020,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The decline across countries from 2019 to 2021 was significantly correlated with the stringency of governmental COVID-19-related measures (based on the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, 2022; r = .54) and directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

In total, 30% of respondents in English-speaking countries had mental well-being scores in the “distressed” or “struggling” range – higher than the Middle Eastern countries, North Africa, Latin America, and Europe (23%, 23%, 24%, and 18%, respectively).

Only 36% of participants in the English-speaking countries, the Middle East, and North Africa reported “thriving or succeeding,” vs. 45% and 46% in Latin America and Europe, respectively. Venezuela topped the list with an average MHQ of 91, while the United Kingdom and South Africa had the lowest scores, at 46 each.

Mental well-being was slightly higher in males than in females but was dramatically lower in nonbinary/third-gender respondents. In fact, those identifying as nonbinary/third gender had the lowest mental well-being of any group.

Across all countries and languages, higher education was associated with better mental well-being. Employment was also associated with superior mental well-being, compared with being unemployed – particularly in core English-speaking countries.

However, “country indicators of economic prosperity were negatively correlated with mental well-being, particularly for young adults and males, belying the commonly held belief that national economic prosperity translates into greater mental well-being,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.
 

‘Stark’ contrast

The most dramatic finding was the difference in mental well-being between younger and older adults, which was two- to threefold larger than differences in other dimensions (for example, age, gender, employment). Even the maximum difference between countries overall (15%) was still smaller than the generational gap within any region.

While only 7% (6%- 9%) of participants aged ≥65 years were “distressed and struggling” with their mental well-being to a “clinical” extent, 44% (38%-50%) of those aged 18-24 years reported mental well-being scores in the “distressed or struggling” range – representing a “growing gap between generations that, while present prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has since been exacerbated,” the authors state.

With every successive decrement in age group, mental well-being “plummeted,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. She noted that research conducted prior to 2010 in several regions of the world showed that young adults typically had the highest well-being. “Our findings stand in stark contrast to these previous patterns.”

The relationship between lockdown stringency and poorer mental health could play a role. “The impact of social isolation may be most strongly felt in younger people,” she said.
 

Internet a culprit?

“Within almost every region, scores for cognition and drive and motivation were highest while mood and outlook and social self were the lowest,” the authors report.

The aggregate percentage of respondents who reported being “distressed or struggling” in the various MHQ dimensions is shown in the following table.

Sedentary time

Commenting for this news organization, Bernardo Ng, MD, a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on International Psychiatry and Global Health and medical director of Sun Valley Research Center, Imperial, Calif., called the report “interesting, with an impressive sample size” and an “impressive geographic distribution.”

Courtesy Sun Valley Research Center

Dr. Ng, who was not involved in the report, said, “I did not think the impact of Internet use on mental health was as dramatic before looking at this report.

“On the other hand, I have personally been interested in the impact of sedentarism in mental health – not only emotionally but also biologically. Sedentarism, which is directly related to screen use time, produces inflammation that worsens brain function.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children have fallen to their lowest level since the beginning of the Delta surge in July of 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Just under 42,000 new cases were reported during the week of March 4-10, making it the 7th consecutive week of declines since the peak of the Omicron surge in January. Over those 7 weeks, new cases dropped over 96% from the 1.15 million reported for Jan. 14-20, based on data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

The last time that the weekly count was below 42,000 was July 16-22, 2021, when almost 39,000 cases were reported in the midst of the Delta upsurge. That was shortly after cases had reached their lowest point, 8,447, since the early stages of the pandemic in 2020, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is now up to 12.7 million, while the overall proportion of cases occurring in children held steady at 19.0% for the 4th week in a row, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using an age range of 0-18 versus the states’ variety of ages, puts total cases at 11.7 million and deaths at 1,656 as of March 14.

Data from the CDC’s COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network show that hospitalizations with laboratory-confirmed infection were down by 50% in children aged 0-4 years, by 63% among 5- to 11-year-olds, and by 58% in those aged 12-17 years for the week of Feb. 27 to March 5, compared with the week before.

The pace of vaccination continues to follow a similar trend, as the declines seen through February have continued into March. Cumulatively, 33.7% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, and 26.8% are fully vaccinated, with corresponding numbers of 68.0% and 58.0% for children aged 12-17, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

State-level data show that children aged 5-11 in Vermont, with a rate of 65%, are the most likely to have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, while just 15% of 5- to 11-year-olds in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi have gotten their first dose. Among children aged 12-17, that rate ranges from 40% in Wyoming to 94% in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, the AAP said in a separate report based on CDC data.

In a recent report involving 1,364 children aged 5-15 years, two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of infection from the Omicron variant by 31% in children aged 5-11 years and by 59% among children aged 12-15 years, said Ashley L. Fowlkes, ScD, of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team, and associates (MMWR 2022 Mar 11;71).
 

New cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children have fallen to their lowest level since the beginning of the Delta surge in July of 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Just under 42,000 new cases were reported during the week of March 4-10, making it the 7th consecutive week of declines since the peak of the Omicron surge in January. Over those 7 weeks, new cases dropped over 96% from the 1.15 million reported for Jan. 14-20, based on data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

The last time that the weekly count was below 42,000 was July 16-22, 2021, when almost 39,000 cases were reported in the midst of the Delta upsurge. That was shortly after cases had reached their lowest point, 8,447, since the early stages of the pandemic in 2020, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is now up to 12.7 million, while the overall proportion of cases occurring in children held steady at 19.0% for the 4th week in a row, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using an age range of 0-18 versus the states’ variety of ages, puts total cases at 11.7 million and deaths at 1,656 as of March 14.

Data from the CDC’s COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network show that hospitalizations with laboratory-confirmed infection were down by 50% in children aged 0-4 years, by 63% among 5- to 11-year-olds, and by 58% in those aged 12-17 years for the week of Feb. 27 to March 5, compared with the week before.

The pace of vaccination continues to follow a similar trend, as the declines seen through February have continued into March. Cumulatively, 33.7% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, and 26.8% are fully vaccinated, with corresponding numbers of 68.0% and 58.0% for children aged 12-17, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

State-level data show that children aged 5-11 in Vermont, with a rate of 65%, are the most likely to have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, while just 15% of 5- to 11-year-olds in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi have gotten their first dose. Among children aged 12-17, that rate ranges from 40% in Wyoming to 94% in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, the AAP said in a separate report based on CDC data.

In a recent report involving 1,364 children aged 5-15 years, two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of infection from the Omicron variant by 31% in children aged 5-11 years and by 59% among children aged 12-15 years, said Ashley L. Fowlkes, ScD, of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team, and associates (MMWR 2022 Mar 11;71).
 

New cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children have fallen to their lowest level since the beginning of the Delta surge in July of 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Just under 42,000 new cases were reported during the week of March 4-10, making it the 7th consecutive week of declines since the peak of the Omicron surge in January. Over those 7 weeks, new cases dropped over 96% from the 1.15 million reported for Jan. 14-20, based on data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

The last time that the weekly count was below 42,000 was July 16-22, 2021, when almost 39,000 cases were reported in the midst of the Delta upsurge. That was shortly after cases had reached their lowest point, 8,447, since the early stages of the pandemic in 2020, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is now up to 12.7 million, while the overall proportion of cases occurring in children held steady at 19.0% for the 4th week in a row, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using an age range of 0-18 versus the states’ variety of ages, puts total cases at 11.7 million and deaths at 1,656 as of March 14.

Data from the CDC’s COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network show that hospitalizations with laboratory-confirmed infection were down by 50% in children aged 0-4 years, by 63% among 5- to 11-year-olds, and by 58% in those aged 12-17 years for the week of Feb. 27 to March 5, compared with the week before.

The pace of vaccination continues to follow a similar trend, as the declines seen through February have continued into March. Cumulatively, 33.7% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose, and 26.8% are fully vaccinated, with corresponding numbers of 68.0% and 58.0% for children aged 12-17, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

State-level data show that children aged 5-11 in Vermont, with a rate of 65%, are the most likely to have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, while just 15% of 5- to 11-year-olds in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi have gotten their first dose. Among children aged 12-17, that rate ranges from 40% in Wyoming to 94% in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, the AAP said in a separate report based on CDC data.

In a recent report involving 1,364 children aged 5-15 years, two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of infection from the Omicron variant by 31% in children aged 5-11 years and by 59% among children aged 12-15 years, said Ashley L. Fowlkes, ScD, of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team, and associates (MMWR 2022 Mar 11;71).
 

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.