Abstract
Aims
Several reports indicate lower rates of emergency admissions in the cardiovascular sector and reduced admissions of patients with chronic diseases during the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate numbers of admissions in incident and prevalent atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF) and to analyse care pathways in comparison to 2019.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of claims data of 74 German Helios hospitals was performed to identify consecutive patients hospitalized with a main discharge diagnosis of AF. A study period including the start of the German national protection phase (13 March 2020 to 16 July 2020) was compared to a previous year control cohort (15 March 2019 to 18 July 2019), with further sub-division into early and late phase. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated. Numbers of admission per day (A/day) for incident and prevalent AF and care pathways including readmissions, numbers of transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), electrical cardioversion (CV), and catheter ablation (CA) were analysed.
Results
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant decrease in total AF admissions both in the early (44.4 vs. 77.5 A/day, IRR 0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.61], P < 0.01) and late (59.1 vs. 63.5 A/day, IRR 0.93 [95% CI 0.90–0.96], P < 0.01) phases, length of stay was significantly shorter (3.3 ± 3.1 nights vs. 3.5 ± 3.6 nights, P < 0.01), admissions were more frequently in high-volume centres (77.0% vs. 75.4%, P = 0.02), and frequency of readmissions was reduced (21.7% vs. 23.6%, P < 0.01) compared to the previous year. Incident AF admission rates were significantly lower both in the early (21.9 admission per day vs. 41.1 A/day, IRR 0.53 [95% CI 0.48–0.58]) and late (35.5 vs. 39.3 A/day, IRR 0.90 [95% CI 0.86–0.95]) phases, whereas prevalent admissions were only lower in the early phase (22.5 vs. 36.4 A/day IRR 0.62 [95% CI 0.56–0.68]), but not in the late phase (23.6 vs. 24.2 A/day IRR 0.97 [95% CI 0.92–1.03]). Analysis of care pathways showed reduced numbers of TEE during the early phase [34.7% vs. 41.4%, odds ratio (OR) 0.74 [95% CI 0.64–0.86], P < 0.01], but not during the late phase (39.9% vs. 40.2%, OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.88–1.03], P = 0.26). Numbers of CV were comparable during early (40.6% vs. 39.7%, OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.94–1.25], P = 0.27) and late (38.6% vs. 37.5%, OR 1.06 [95% CI 0.98–1.14], P = 0.17) phases, compared to the previous year, respectively. Numbers of CA were comparable during the early phase (21.6% vs. 21.1%, OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.82–1.17], P = 0.82) with a distinct increase during the late phase (22.9% vs. 21.5%, OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.96–1.16], P = 0.28).
Conclusion
During the COVID-19 pandemic, AF admission rates declined significantly, with a more pronounced reduction in incident than in prevalent AF. Overall AF care was maintained during early and late pandemic phases with only minor changes, namely less frequent use of TEE. Confirmation of these findings in other study populations and identification of underlying causes are required to ensure optimal therapy in patients with AF during the COVID-19 pandemic.
USE OF CLINIC MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CARE PATHWAYS FOR CARDIAC DEVICE PATIENTS WITH ATRIAL FIBRILLATION
