Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32988743›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions2021

Implications of COVID-19 on Time-Sensitive STEMI Care: A Report From a North American Epicenter.

Kevin Haddad, Brian J Potter, Alexis Matteau, François Gobeil, Samer Mansour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. STEMI in the Age of COVID: Unmasking Our Weaknesses. Is It the Virus That Matters?Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kevin HaddadFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Brian J PotterFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Alexis MatteauFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
François GobeilFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Cité-de-la-Santé Hospital, Laval, Québec, Canada.
Samer MansourFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Cité-de-la-Santé Hospital, Laval, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: s.mansour@umontreal.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has forced dramatic changes to the healthcare systems throughout the world. Time-sensitive management of cardiovascular emergencies such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has yet to be evaluated in the context of these new policies, particularly in so-called "hot spot" cities.

methodsWe evaluated the early impact of the pandemic on STEMI performance in the Greater Montreal Area. A total of 167 patients from 3 different study periods were included. Patients presenting in the lockdown period from mid-March to mid-May 2020 (Group C, 53 patients) were compared to those from mid-March to mid-May 2019 (Group A, 60 patients) and the 2020 pre-COVID-19 period (Group B, 54 patients).

resultsThe number of STEMI admissions was unaffected during the lockdown. However, significantly longer delays between symptom onset and first medical contact (FMC) were noted (Group C 189.0 IQR [70.0, 840.0] min vs. Group A 103.0 IQR [42.5, 263.0] min vs. Group B 91.0 IQR [38.0, 235.5 min], P = 0.007). In contrast, additional safety protocols do not appear to have significantly affected delays between FMC and first intracoronary device activation (Group C 102 IQR [73.0, 133.0] min vs. Group A 104 IQR [87.0, 146.0] min vs. Group B 99.5 IQR [80.0, 150.0] min, P = 0.37). Patients that presented during the outbreak were more likely to be unstable with a higher incidence of Killip classes II-IV compared to groups A and B (28.3% vs. 18.3% vs. 5.6% respectively, P = 0.008). Worse in-hospital outcomes were also noted with a significantly higher rate of major adverse cardiac events (Group A 5.0% vs. Group B 11.1% vs. Group C 22.6%, P = 0.007).

conclusionDuring the lockdown period, many patients appear to have been reluctant to present to hospitals. This was associated with more unstable STEMI presentations and worse in-hospital course. Importantly, the health care system appears able to ensure timely acute cardiac care while ensuring that COVID-19 protocols are respected.

Indexed as

COVID-19Percutaneous Coronary InterventionST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionCommunicable Disease ControlHumansNorth AmericaSARS-CoV-2Acute coronary syndrome (ACS)Cardiovascular diseaseCOVID-19Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)Public healthST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)

Identifiers

PMID32988743
PMCPMC7501080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.