Impact of COVID-19 lockdown in patients with implantable cardioverter and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators: insights from daily remote monitoring transmissions

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and mortality of emergency cardiovascular diseases in Tokyo

BACKGROUND

The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the incidence and in-hospital mortality of emergency cardiovascular disease (CVD) has not been clarified in Japan.

METHODS

We compared the number of admissions and in-hospital mortality for emergency CVD during the pandemic (from January to December 2020) with those of pre-pandemic periods (from January 2018 to December 2019), using quarterly data from the Tokyo Cardiovascular Care Unit Network. The incidence rate in 2020 is compared with the average incidence rate observed in the same quarter of 2018 and 2019 and is presented as an incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

The number of admissions for acute myocardial infarction during the pandemic was significantly lower than before the pandemic, with an IRR of 0.93 (95 % CI; 0.88-0.98). Similarly, the IRR for unstable angina was 0.78 (95 % CI; 0.72-0.83), for acute heart failure was 0.84 (95 % CI; 0.76-0.91), for acute aortic dissection was 0.88 (95 % CI; 0.78-0.98), and for ruptured aortic aneurysm was 0.75 (95 % CI; 0.62-0.88). In quarterly comparisons, the numbers of acute aortic diseases and emergency arrhythmia significantly decreased from July to September 2020, while those of other emergency CVDs significantly declined in the 2020 April-June period, which includes the first wave period in Japan. In-hospital mortality of emergency CVDs was unchanged from the pre-pandemic period, except for acute aortic dissection, which increased in odds ratio of 1.31 (95 % CI 1.10-1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced the number of admissions for all emergency CVDs in all or part of the year. In-hospital mortality was unchanged from the pre-pandemic period, except for acute aortic dissection, which increased.

Remote Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Remote monitoring (RM) is the newest function of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). In our observational retrospective analysis, we aimed to assess whether telecardiology could be a safe alternative to routine outpatient examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The in- and outpatient visits, the number of acute cardiac decompensation episodes, the RM data from CIEDs, and general condition were examined via questionnaires (KCCQ, EQ-5D-5L). Regarding the enrolled 85 patients, the number of personal patient appearances was significantly lower in the year following the pandemic outbreak compared to the previous year (1.4 ± 1.4 and 1.9 ± 1.2, p = 0.0077). The number of acute decompensation events was five before and seven during lockdown (p = 0.6). Based on the RM data, there was no significant difference in heart failure (HF) markers (all related p > 0.05); only patient activity increased after restrictions were lifted compared to that before the lockdown (p = 0.03). During restrictions, patients reported increased anxiety and depression compared to their previous state (p < 0.001). There was no subjective change in the perception of HF symptoms (p = 0.7). Based on the subjective perception and CIED data, the quality of life of patients with CIED did not deteriorate during the pandemic, but their anxiety and depression intensified. Telecardiology may be a safe alternative to routine inpatient examination.

Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic reduced active time in patients with implanted cardiac devices

BACKGROUND

Physical inactivity and sedentary behavior are modifiable risk factors for chronic disease and all-cause mortality that may have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 shutdowns.

METHODS

Accelerometry data was retrospectively collected from 332 permanent pacemaker (PPM) and 244 implantable cardiac defibrillation (ICD) patients for 6 time points: March 15-May 15, 2020 (pandemic period), January 1-March 14, 2020, October 1-December 31, 2019, March 15-May 15, 2019, January 1-March 14, 2019, and October 1-December 31, 2018. Paired t-tests, with Bonferroni correction, were used to compare time periods.

RESULTS

Activity significantly decreased during the pandemic period compared to one year prior by an average of 0.53 ± 1.18h/day (P < 0.001) for PPM patients and 0.51 ± 1.2h/day (P < 0.001) for ICD patients. Stratification of subjects by active time (< 2 versus ≥ 2h/day) showed patients with < 2h, particularly those with ICDs, had modestly greater activity reductions with the pandemic onset. Logistical regression analyses suggest a trend toward a greater reduction in active time at the onset of the pandemic and an increased risk of hospital or emergency department (ED) admission for PPM patients, but not ICD patients.

CONCLUSION

The onset of the pandemic in the United States was associated with a significant drop in PPM and ICD patient active hours that was modestly more pronounced in less active patients and cannot be explained by one year of aging or seasonal variation. If sustained, these populations may experience excess cardiovascular morbidity.

Effects of COVID-19 lockdown on arrhythmias in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in southern Italy

BACKGROUND

The effects of lockdown on non-COVID patients are varied and unexpected. The aim is to evaluate the burden of cardiac arrhythmias during a lockdown period because of COVID-19 pandemics in a population implanted with cardiac defibrillators and followed by remote monitoring.

METHODS

In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included 574 remotely monitored implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) recipients implanted before January 1, 2019, at seven hospitals in the Campania region, comparing the burden of arrhythmias occurred during the lockdown period because of COVID-19 epidemics (from March 9 to May 1, 2020) with the arrhythmias burden of the corresponding period in 2019 (reference period). Data collection was performed through remote monitoring.

RESULTS

During the lockdown period, we observed ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation) in 25 (4.8%) patients while in seasonal reference period we documented ventricular tachyarrhythmias in 12 (2.3%) patients; the comparison between the periods is statistically significant (P < .04). Atrial arrhythmias were detected in 38 (8.2%) subjects during the lockdown period and in 24 (5.2%) during the reference period (P < .004).

CONCLUSION

In seven hospitals in the Campania region, during the pandemic lockdown period, we observed a higher burden of arrhythmic events in ICD/CRT-D patients through device remote monitoring.

The use of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices during the COVID-19 pandemic: an EHRA physician survey

It is unclear to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the use of remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The present physician-based European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey aimed to assess the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on RM of CIEDs among EHRA members and how it changed the current practice. The survey comprised 27 questions focusing on RM use before and during the pandemic. Questions focused on the impact of COVID-19 on the frequency of in-office visits, data filtering, reasons for initiating in-person visits, underutilization of RM during COVID-19, and RM reimbursement. A total of 160 participants from 28 countries completed the survey. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, there was a significant increase in the use of RM in patients with pacemakers (PMs) and implantable loop recorders (ILRs) during the COVID-19 pandemic (PM 24.2 vs. 39.9%, P = 0.002; ILRs 61.5 vs. 73.5%, P = 0.028), while there was a trend towards higher utilization of RM for cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices during the pandemic (44.5 vs. 55%, P = 0.063). The use of RM with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) did not significantly change during the pandemic (ICD 65.2 vs. 69.6%, P = 0.408; CRT-D 65.2 vs. 68.8%, P = 0.513). The frequency of in-office visits was significantly lower during the pandemic (P < 0.001). Nearly two-thirds of participants (57 out of 87 respondents), established new RM connections for CIEDs implanted before the pandemic with 33.3% (n = 29) delivering RM transmitters to the patient's home address, and the remaining 32.1% (n = 28) activating RM connections during an in-office visit. The results of this survey suggest that the crisis caused by COVID-19 has led to a significant increase in the use of RM of CIEDs.

Impact of lockdown during COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity and arrhythmia burden in heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Restricted outdoor activity during COVID-19 related lockdown may accelerate heart failure (HF) progression and thereby increase cardiac arrhythmias. We analyzed the impact of March/April 2020 lockdown on physical activity and arrhythmia burden in HF patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices with daily, automatic remote monitoring (RM) function.

METHODS

The study cohort included 405 HF patients enrolled in Observation of Clinical Routine Care for Heart Failure Patients Implanted with BIOTRONIK CRT Devices (BIO|STREAM.HF) registry in 16 countries, who had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% (mean 28.2 ± 6.6%) and NYHA class II/III/IV (47.9%/49.6%/2.5%) before CRT pacemaker/defibrillator implantation. The analyzed RM data comprised physical activity detected by accelerometer, mean heart rate and nocturnal rate, PP variability, percentage of biventricular pacing, atrial high rate episode (AHRE) burden, ventricular extrasystoles and tachyarrhythmias, defibrillator shocks, and number of implant interrogations (i.e., follow-ups). Intraindividual differences in RM parameters before (4-week period) versus during (4-week period) lockdown were tested for statistical significance and independent predictors were identified.

RESULTS

There was a significant relative change in activity (mean -6.5%, p < .001), AHRE burden (+17%, p = .013), and follow-up rate (-75%, p < .001) during lockdown, with no significant changes in other RM parameters. Activity decreased by ≥8 min/day in 46.5% of patients; predictors were higher LVEF, lower NYHA class, no defibrillator indication, and more activity before lockdown. AHRE burden increased by ≥17 min/day in 4.7% of patients; predictors were history of atrial fibrillation, higher LVEF, higher body mass index, and activity decrease during lockdown.

CONCLUSION

Unfavorable changes in physical activity, AHRE burden, and follow-up rate were observed during lockdown, but not in ventricular arrhythmia.