Author: Berman, Jeremy P.; Abrams, Mark P.; Kushnir, Alexander; Rubin, Geoffrey A.; Ehlert, Frederick; Biviano, Angelo; Morrow, John P.; Dizon, Jose; Wan, Elaine Y.; Yarmohammadi, Hirad; Waase, Marc P.; Rubin, David A.; Garan, Hasan; Saluja, Deepak
Title: Cardiac electrophysiology consultative experience at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States Cord-id: h47x607l Document date: 2020_8_27
ID: h47x607l
Snippet: BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly altered the practice of cardiac electrophysiology around the world for the foreseeable future. Professional organizations have provided guidance for practitioners, but real-world examples of the consults and responsibilities cardiac electrophysiologists face during a surge of COVID-19 patients is lacking. METHODS: In this observational case series we report on 29 consecutive inpatient electrophysiology consultations at a major academic medical center
Document: BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly altered the practice of cardiac electrophysiology around the world for the foreseeable future. Professional organizations have provided guidance for practitioners, but real-world examples of the consults and responsibilities cardiac electrophysiologists face during a surge of COVID-19 patients is lacking. METHODS: In this observational case series we report on 29 consecutive inpatient electrophysiology consultations at a major academic medical center in New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, during a 2 week period from March 30-April 12, 2020, when 80% of hospital beds were occupied by COVID-19 patients, and the New York City metropolitan area accounted for 10% of COVID-19 cases worldwide. RESULTS: Reasons for consultation included: Atrial tachyarrhythmia (31%), cardiac implantable electronic device management (28%), bradycardia (14%), QTc prolongation (10%), ventricular arrhythmia (7%), post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement conduction abnormality (3.5%), ventricular pre-excitation (3.5%), and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (3.5%). Twenty-four patients (86%) were positive for COVID-19 by nasopharyngeal swab. All elective procedures were canceled, and only one urgent device implantation was performed. Thirteen patients (45%) required in-person evaluation and the remainder were managed remotely. CONCLUSION: Our experience shows that the application of a massive alteration in workflow and personnel forced by the pandemic allowed our team to efficiently address the intersection of COVID-19 with a range of electrophysiology issues. This experience will prove useful as guidance for emerging hot spots or areas affected by future waves of the pandemic.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- academic new york city medical center and admission prior: 1
- acute liver injury and liver injury: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- acute respiratory distress and admission prior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- acute respiratory distress and liver injury: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- admission prior and liver injury: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date