COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Impact and Potential Implications for Cardiovascular Disease in Canada

Patients' experiences undergoing cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to understand patients' experiences undergoing cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to COVID-19, many elective cancer surgeries were delayed creating a massive backlog of cases. Patients' experiences with surgical delays may inform healthcare systems' responses to the backlog of cases and guide preparations for future healthcare emergencies.

METHODS

This was a qualitative description study. Patients undergoing general surgery for cancer at two university-affiliated hospitals between March 2020 and January 2021 were invited to one-to-one interviews. Patients were purposefully selected using quota sampling until interviews produced no new information (i.e., thematic saturation). Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide and analyzed according to inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included [mean age 64 ± 12.9; male (n = 10); surgical delay (n = 14); cancer sites: breast (n = 8), skin (n = 4), hepato-pancreato-biliary (n = 4), colorectal (n = 2), and gastro-esophageal (n = 2)]. When determining their willingness to undergo surgery, patients weighed the risk of COVID-19 infection against the urgency of their disease. Changes to the hospital environment (e.g., COVID-19 preventative measures) and deviations from expected treatment (e.g., alternative treatments, remote consultations, rescheduled care) caused diverse psychological responses, ranging from increased satisfaction to severe distress. Patients employed several coping strategies to mitigate distress, including eliciting reassurance from care providers, seeking information from unconventional sources, and reframing care interruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in care during the pandemic elicited diverse psychological responses from patients undergoing cancer surgery. Coping was facilitated by consistent communication with providers, emphasizing the importance of patient-centered expectation setting as we prepare for the future within and beyond the pandemic.

Remote, Whole-Body Interval Training Improves Muscular Endurance and Cardiac Autonomic Control in Young Adults

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is an exercise modality acknowledged to maintain physical fitness with more engagement in an active lifestyle compared with other traditional exercise models. Nevertheless, its effects on cardiac control and physical performance in an online-guided setting are not yet clarified. The present work assessed physical fitness and heart rate variability (HRV) before and after an online, home-based HIIT program in college-age students while pandemic lockdowns were in effect. Twenty university students (age: 21.9 ± 2.4 years.) that were solely enrolled in online classes were distributed into three groups: control-CON-(n = 6), 14 min of HIIT-HIIT-14-(n = 8), and 21 min of HIIT-HIIT-21-(n = 6). A maximal push-up test was employed to assess muscular endurance and performance, and resting HRV signals were collected with wireless heart rate monitors and were processed in Kubios HRV Std. (Kubios Oy, Finland). There was an increase in total push-up capacity compared to CON (p < 0.05 HIIT-21 vs. CON; p < 0.001 HIIT-14 vs. CON) after 8 weeks. A significant interaction was observed in high-frequency and low-frequency spectra ratios after the HIIT-21 intervention (p < 0.05). The current work demonstrated that either short- or mid-volume online, whole-body HIIT improves muscle strength, whereas mid-volume HIIT (HIIT-21) was the only intervention that developed a sympathovagal adaptation. This study showed promising results on muscular endurance and cardiac autonomic modulation through whole-body HIIT practice at home.

Clinical Outcomes of Individuals with COVID-19 and Tuberculosis during the Pre-Vaccination Period of the Pandemic: A Systematic Review

Background: Tuberculosis, like COVID-19, is most often a pulmonary disease. The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted tuberculosis services in myriad ways: health facility closures, lockdowns, travel bans, overwhelmed healthcare systems, restricted export of antituberculous drugs, etc. The effects of the shared risk on outcomes of the two diseases is not known, particularly for the first year of the pandemic, during the period before COVID-19 vaccines became widely available. Objective: We embarked on a systematic review to elucidate the consequences of tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes and of COVID-19 on tuberculosis outcomes during the pre-vaccination period of the pandemic. Methods: The systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO. We conducted an initial search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, WHO coronavirus database, medRxiv, bioRxiv, preprints.org, and Google Scholar using terms relating to COVID-19 and tuberculosis. We selected cohort and case–control studies for extraction and assessed quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results and Conclusion: We identified 2108 unique abstracts published between December 2019 and January 2021. We extracted data from 18 studies from 8 countries. A total of 650,317 persons had a diagnosis of COVID-19, and 4179 had a diagnosis of current or prior tuberculosis. We explored links between tuberculosis and COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and other adverse outcomes. Nine studies reported on mortality and 13 on other adverse outcomes; results on the association between tuberculosis and COVID-19 mortality/adverse outcomes were heterogenous. Tuberculosis outcomes were not fully available in any studies, due to short follow-up (maximum of 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis), so the effects of COVID-19 on tuberculosis outcomes could not be assessed. Much of the rapid influx of literature on tuberculosis and COVID-19 during this period was published on preprint servers, and therefore not peer-reviewed. It offered limited examination of the effect of tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes and even less on the effect of COVID-19 on tuberculosis treatment outcomes.

When the Masks Come Off in Canada and Guatemala: Will the Realities of Racism and Marginalization of Midwives Finally Be Addressed?

This article addresses the effects of COVID-19 in Eastern and Northern Ontario, Canada, with a comparative glimpse at the small province of Totonicapán, Guatemala, with which Canadians have been involved in obstetric and midwifery care in particular over the last 5 years. With universal health care coverage since 1966 and well-integrated midwifery, Canada's system would be considered relatively well set up to deal with a disaster like COVID-19 compared to low resource countries like Guatemala or countries without universal health care insurance (like the USA). However, the epidemic has uncovered the fact that in Ontario, Indigenous, Black, and People of Color (IBPOC), as elsewhere, may have been hardest hit, often not by actually contracting COVID-19, but by suffering secondary consequences. While COVID-19 could be an issue through which health care professionals can come together, there are signs that the medical hierarchies in many hospitals in both Ontario and Totonicapán are taking advantage of COVID-19 to increase interventive measures in childbirth and reduce midwives' involvement in hospitals. Meanwhile, home births are on the rise in both jurisdictions. Stories from a Jamaican Muslim woman in Ottawa, an Indigenous midwifery practice in Northern Ontario, registered midwives in Eastern Ontario, and about the traditional midwives in Guatemala reveal similar as well as unique problems resulting from the lockdowns. While this article is not intended to constitute an exhaustive analysis of social justice and human rights issues in Canada and Guatemala, we do take this opportunity to demonstrate where COVID-19 has become a catalyst that challenges the standard narrative, exposing the old ruts and blind spots of inequality and discrimination that our hierarchies and inadequate data collection-until the epidemic-were managing to ignore. As health advocates, we see signs that this pandemic is resulting in more open debate, which we hope will last long after it is over in both our countries.

The psychological burden of waiting for procedures and patient-centred strategies that could support the mental health of wait-listed patients and caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Waiting for procedures delayed by COVID-19 may cause anxiety and related adverse consequences.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize research on the mental health impact of waiting and patient-centred mitigation strategies that could be applied in the COVID-19 context.

METHODS

Using a scoping review approach, we searched 9 databases for studies on waiting lists and mental health and reported study characteristics, impacts and intervention attributes and outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 51 studies that focussed on organ transplant (60.8%), surgery (21.6%) or cancer management (13.7%). Most patients and caregivers reported anxiety, depression and poor quality of life, which deteriorated with increasing wait time. The impact of waiting on mental health was greater among women and new immigrants, and those of younger age, lower socio-economic status, or with less-positive coping ability. Six studies evaluated educational strategies to develop coping skills: 2 reduced depression (2 did not), 1 reduced anxiety (2 did not) and 2 improved quality of life (2 did not). In contrast, patients desired acknowledgement of concerns, peer support, and periodic communication about wait-list position, prioritization criteria and anticipated procedure date.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings revealed patient-centred strategies to alleviate the mental health impact of waiting for procedures. Ongoing research should explore how to optimize the impact of those strategies for diverse patients and caregivers, particularly in the COVID-19 context.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Six patients and four caregivers waiting for COVID-19-delayed procedures helped to establish eligibility criteria, plan data extraction and review a draft and final report.

Development of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network population-based registry: a methodology study

BACKGROUND

Emergency physicians lack high-quality evidence for many diagnostic and treatment decisions made for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective is to describe the methods used to collect and ensure the data quality of a multicentre registry of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

METHODS

This methodology study describes a population-based registry that has been enrolling consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since Mar. 1, 2020. Most data are collected from retrospective chart review. Phone follow-up with patients at 30 days captures the World Health Organization clinical improvement scale and contextual, social and cultural variables. Phone follow-up also captures patient-reported quality of life using the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey at 30 days, 60 days, 6 months and 12 months. Fifty participating emergency departments from 8 provinces in Canada currently enrol patients into the registry.

INTERPRETATION

Data from the registry of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network will be used to derive and validate clinical decision rules to inform clinical decision-making, describe the natural history of the disease, evaluate COVID-19 diagnostic tests and establish the real-world effectiveness of treatments and vaccines, including in populations that are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. This registry has the potential to generate scientific evidence to inform our pandemic response, and to serve as a model for the rapid implementation of population-based data collection protocols for future public health emergencies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

Sex differences in COVID-19: candidate pathways, genetics of ACE2, and sex hormones

Biological sex is increasingly recognized as a critical determinant of health and disease, particularly relevant to the topical COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Epidemiological data and observational reports from both the original SARS epidemic and the most recent COVID-19 pandemic have a common feature: males are more likely to exhibit enhanced disease severity and mortality than females. Sex differences in cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 share mechanistic foundations, namely, the involvement of both the innate immune system and the canonical renin-angiotensin system (RAS). Immunological differences suggest that females mount a rapid and aggressive innate immune response, and the attenuated antiviral response in males may confer enhanced susceptibility to severe disease. Furthermore, the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is involved in disease pathogenesis in cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, either to serve as a protective mechanism by deactivating the RAS or as the receptor for viral entry, respectively. Loss of membrane ACE2 and a corresponding increase in plasma ACE2 are associated with worsened cardiovascular disease outcomes, a mechanism attributed to a disintegrin and metalloproteinase (ADAM17). SARS-CoV-2 infection also leads to ADAM17 activation, a positive feedback cycle that exacerbates ACE2 loss. Therefore, the relationship between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 is critically dependent on the loss of membrane ACE2 by ADAM17-mediated proteolytic cleavage. This article explores potential mechanisms involved in COVID-19 that may contribute to sex-specific susceptibility focusing on the innate immune system and the RAS, namely, genetics and sex hormones. Finally, we highlight here the added challenges of gender in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cardiovascular Care Delivery During the Second Wave of COVID-19 in Canada

Hospitals and ambulatory facilities significantly reduced cardiac care delivery in response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The deferral of elective cardiovascular procedures led to a marked reduction in health care delivery with a significant impact on optimal cardiovascular care. International and Canadian data have reported dramatically increased wait times for diagnostic tests and cardiovascular procedures, as well as associated increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In the wake of the demonstrated ability to rapidly create critical care and hospital ward capacity, we advocate a different approach during the second and possible subsequent COVID-19 pandemic waves. We suggest an approach, informed by local data and experience, that balances the need for an expected rise in demand for health care resources to ensure appropriate COVID-19 surge capacity with continued delivery of essential cardiovascular care. Incorporating cardiovascular care leaders into pandemic planning and operations will help health care systems minimise cardiac care delivery disruptions while maintaining critical care and hospital ward surge capacity and continuing measures to reduce transmission risk in health care settings. Specific recommendations targeting the main pillars of cardiovascular care are presented: ambulatory, inpatient, procedural, diagnostic, surgical, and rehabilitation.

Exploring the percentage of COVID-19 cases reported in the community in Canada and associated case fatality ratios

While surveillance can identify changes in COVID-19 transmission patterns over time and space, sections of the population at risk, and the efficacy of public health measures, reported cases of COVID-19 are generally understood to only capture a subset of the actual number of cases. Our primary objective was to estimate the percentage of cases reported in the general community, considered as those that occurred outside of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), in specific provinces and Canada as a whole. We applied a methodology using the delay-adjusted case fatality ratio (CFR) to all cases and deaths, as well as those representing the general community. Our second objective was to assess whether the assumed CFR (mean = 1.38%) was appropriate for calculating underestimation of cases in Canada. Estimates were developed for the period from March 11th, 2020 to September 16th, 2020. Estimates of the percentage of cases reported (PrCR) and CFR varied spatially and temporally across Canada. For the majority of provinces, and for Canada as a whole, the PrCR increased through the early stages of the pandemic. The estimated PrCR in general community settings for all of Canada increased from 18.1% to 69.0% throughout the entire study period. Estimates were greater when considering only those data from outside of LTCFs. The estimated upper bound CFR in general community settings for all of Canada decreased from 9.07% on March 11th, 2020 to 2.00% on September 16th, 2020. Therefore, the true CFR in the general community in Canada was likely less than 2% on September 16th. According to our analysis, some provinces, such as Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan reported a greater percentage of cases as of September 16th, compared to British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec. This could be due to differences in testing rates and criteria, demographics, socioeconomic factors, race, and access to healthcare among the provinces. Further investigation into these factors could reveal differences among provinces that could partially explain the variation in estimates of PrCR and CFR identified in our study. The estimates provide context to the summative state of the pandemic in Canada, and can be improved as knowledge of COVID-19 reporting rates and disease characteristics are advanced.

Sex differences in COVID-19: candidate pathways, genetics of ACE2, and sex hormones

Biological sex is increasingly recognized as a critical determinant of health and disease, particularly relevant to the topical COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Epidemiological data and observational reports from both the original SARS epidemic and the most recent COVID-19 pandemic have a common feature: males are more likely to exhibit enhanced disease severity and mortality than females. Sex differences in cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 share mechanistic foundations, namely, the involvement of both the innate immune system and the canonical renin-angiotensin system (RAS). Immunological differences suggest that females mount a rapid and aggressive innate immune response, and the attenuated antiviral response in males may confer enhanced susceptibility to severe disease. Furthermore, the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is involved in disease pathogenesis in cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, either to serve as a protective mechanism by deactivating the RAS or as the receptor for viral entry, respectively. Loss of membrane ACE2 and a corresponding increase in plasma ACE2 are associated with worsened cardiovascular disease outcomes, a mechanism attributed to a disintegrin and metalloproteinase (ADAM17). SARS-CoV-2 infection also leads to ADAM17 activation, a positive feedback cycle that exacerbates ACE2 loss. Therefore, the relationship between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 is critically dependent on the loss of membrane ACE2 by ADAM17-mediated proteolytic cleavage. This article explores potential mechanisms involved in COVID-19 that may contribute to sex-specific susceptibility focusing on the innate immune system and the RAS, namely, genetics and sex hormones. Finally, we highlight here the added challenges of gender in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cardiac Rehabilitation in Canada During COVID-19

Background

Cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRPs) had to change quickly in response to a shift in clinical priorities related to to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Yet, no study has examined the effect of COVID-19 on CRPs and if there has been an adequate transition to alternative programming.

Methods

To examine the status of CRPs during the COVID-19 pandemic, a web-based questionnaire was completed by CRP managers from April 23rd to May 14th, 2020.

Results

Overall, 114 representatives of 144 CRPs (79.1% of Canadian programs) responded. Of respondents, 41.2% (n = 47) reported CRP closure; primary reasons were staff redeployment and facility closure (41% of 51 responses, for both). Redeployment occurred in open CRPs and closed CRPs (30% ± 34% and 47% ± 38% of employees, respectively; P = 0.05) and reduced hours in 17.8% ± 31% and 22.5% ± 33% for remaining employees; P = 0.56. Of open CRPs, 84.8% accepted referrals for medically high-risk patients pre-COVID-19; this level fell to only 43.5% during the COVID-19 pandemic, P < 0.001. There was a significant reduction in patients with cognitive/communication/mobility deficits who were eligible to participate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of respondents, 57%-82.6% reported safety concerns related to prescribing exercise to medically high-risk and vulnerable populations. CRPs transitioned from group-based to one-to-one delivery models->80% by phone and/or e-mail. Any tele-rehabilitation (one-to-one/group) was also used by 32.7% and 43.5% of CRPs to deliver exercise and education, respectively (mostly one-to-one). Resource barriers cited by open and closed CRPs were related to technology-no tele-rehabilitation, lack of equipment and patient access (35% of all barriers)-and 25.3% of barriers were owing to greater demands on staff time.

Conclusions

Within 2-months of COVID-19 being declared a pandemic, 41.2% of CRPs were closed and almost half of employees redeployed. Less time-efficient one-to-one models of remote care, mostly by phone/e-mail, were adopted. Vulnerable populations were disproportionately affected, becoming ineligible owing to safety concerns. Strategies to open closed CRPs, admission of high-risk/vulnerable populations, and offering of group-based tele-rehabilitation should be a national priority.