Drive-Through Pacing Clinic: A Popular Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Development of a carpark cardiac implantable electronic device clinic to improve time efficiency and patient satisfaction in the context of restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated time efficiency and patient satisfaction of a "car park clinic" (CPC) compared to traditional face-to-face (F2F) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Consecutive patients attending CPC between September 2020 and November 2021 were surveyed. CPC time was recorded by staff. F2F time was reported by patients and administrative data.

RESULTS

A total of 591 patients attended the CPC. A total of 176 responses were collected for F2F clinic. Regarding satisfaction, 90% of CPC patients responded "happy" or "very happy." 96% reported feeling "safe" or "very safe." Patients spent significantly less time in CPC compared to F2F (17 ± 8 vs. 50 ± 24 min, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

CPC had excellent patient satisfaction and superior time efficiency compared to F2F.

Prevalence of bradyarrhythmias needing pacing in COVID-19

Background

The Sars‐Cov‐2 infection is a multisystem illness that can affect the cardiovascular system. Tachyarrhythmias have been reported but the prevalence of bradyarrhythmia is unclear. Cases have been described of transient high‐degree atrioventricular (AV) block in COVID‐19 that were managed conservatively.

Method

A database of all patients requiring temporary or permanent pacing in two linked cardiac centers was used to compare the number of procedures required during the first year of the pandemic compared to the corresponding period a year earlier. The database was cross‐referenced with a database of all patients testing positive for Sars‐Cov‐2 infection in both institutions to identify patients who required temporary or permanent pacing during COVID‐19.

Results

The number of novel pacemaker implants was lower during the COVID‐19 pandemic than the same period the previous year (540 vs. 629, respectively), with a similar proportion of high‐degree AV block (38.3% vs. 33.2%, respectively, p = .069). Four patients with the Sars‐Cov‐2 infection had a pacemaker implanted for high‐degree AV block, two for sinus node dysfunction. Of this cohort of six patients, two succumbed to the COVID‐19 illness and one from non‐COVID sepsis. Device interrogation demonstrated a sustained pacing requirement in all cases.

Conclusion

High‐degree AV block remained unaltered in prevalence during the COVID‐19 pandemic. There was no evidence of transient high‐degree AV block in patients with the Sars‐Cov‐2 infection. Our experience suggests that all clinically significant bradyarrhythmia should be treated by pacing according to usual protocols regardless of the COVID status.