Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33137309›Full record

ArticleAmerican heart journal2021

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patterns of outpatient cardiovascular care.

Jedrek Wosik, Megan E B Clowse, Robert Overton, Bhargav Adagarla, Nicoleta Economou-Zavlanos, Joanna Cavalier, Ricardo Henao, Jonathan P Piccini, Laine Thomas, Michael J Pencina and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American heart journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jedrek WosikDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: jedrek.wosik@duke.edu.
Megan E B ClowseDivision of Rheumatology and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Robert OvertonDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Bhargav AdagarlaDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Nicoleta Economou-ZavlanosDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Joanna CavalierDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Ricardo HenaoDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Jonathan P PicciniDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Laine ThomasDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Michael J PencinaDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Neha J PagidipatiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about abrupt changes in the way health care is delivered, and the impact of transitioning outpatient clinic visits to telehealth visits on processes of care and outcomes is unclear.

methodsWe evaluated ordering patterns during cardiovascular telehealth clinic visits in the Duke University Health System between March 15 and June 30, 2020 and 30-day outcomes compared with in-person visits in the same time frame in 2020 and in 2019.

resultsWithin the Duke University Health System, there was a 33.1% decrease in the number of outpatient cardiovascular visits conducted in the first 15 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the same time period in 2019. As a proportion of total visits initially booked, 53% of visits were cancelled in 2020 compared to 35% in 2019. However, patients with cancelled visits had similar demographics and comorbidities in 2019 and 2020. Telehealth visits comprised 9.3% of total visits initially booked in 2020, with younger and healthier patients utilizing telehealth compared with those utilizing in-person visits. Compared with in-person visits in 2020, telehealth visits were associated with fewer new (31.6% for telehealth vs 44.6% for in person) or refill (12.9% vs 15.6%, respectively) medication prescriptions, electrocardiograms (4.3% vs 31.4%), laboratory orders (5.9% vs 21.8%), echocardiograms (7.3% vs 98%), and stress tests (4.4% vs 6.6%). When adjusted for age, race, and insurance status, those who had a telehealth visit or cancelled their visit were less likely to have an emergency department or hospital encounter within 30 days compared with those who had in-person visits (adjusted rate ratios (aRR) 0.76 [95% 0.65, 0.89] and aRR 0.71 [95% 0.65, 0.78], respectively).

conclusionsIn response to the perceived risks of routine medical care affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, different phenotypes of patients chose different types of outpatient cardiology care. A better understanding of these differences could help define necessary and appropriate mode of care for cardiology patients.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareCardiovascular DiseasesCOVID-19TelemedicineCardiologyDelivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansInfection ControlMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2United States

Identifiers

PMID33137309
PMCPMC7604084

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.