Author: Butala, Neel M; Patel, Nilay K; Chhatwal, Jagpreet; Vahdat, Vahab; Pomerantsev, Eugene V; Albaghdadi, Mazen; Sakhuja, Rahul; Rosenzweig, Anthony; Elmariah, Sammy
                    Title: Patient and Provider Risk in Managing ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Decision Analysis.  Cord-id: 6fwtcvb1  Document date: 2020_11_10
                    ID: 6fwtcvb1
                    
                    Snippet: BACKGROUND The optimal treatment strategy for treating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unclear given the potential risk of occupational exposure during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We quantified the impact of different STEMI treatment strategies on patient outcomes and provider risk in context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS Using a decision-analytic framework, we evaluated the effect of 
                    
                    
                    
                     
                    
                    
                    
                    
                        
                            
                                Document: BACKGROUND The optimal treatment strategy for treating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unclear given the potential risk of occupational exposure during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We quantified the impact of different STEMI treatment strategies on patient outcomes and provider risk in context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS Using a decision-analytic framework, we evaluated the effect of PPCI versus the pharmaco-invasive strategy for managing STEMI on 30-day patient mortality and individual provider infection risk based on presence of cardiogenic shock, suspected coronary territory, and presence of known or presumptive COVID-19 infection. RESULTS For patients with low suspicion for COVID-19, PPCI had mortality benefit over the pharmaco-invasive strategy, and the risk of cardiac catheterization laboratory provider infection remained very low (<0.25%) across all subgroups. For patients with presumptive COVID-19 with cardiogenic shock, PPCI offered substantial mortality benefit to patients relative to the pharmaco-invasive strategy (7.9% absolute decrease in 30-day mortality), but also greater risk of provider infection (2.3% absolute increase in risk of provider infection). For patients with presumptive COVID-19 with nonanterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock, PPCI offered a 0.4% absolute mortality benefit over the pharmaco-invasive strategy with a 0.2% greater absolute risk of provider infection, and the tradeoff between patient and provider risk with PPCI became more apparent in sensitivity analysis with more severe COVID-19 infections. CONCLUSIONS Usual care with PPCI remains the appropriate treatment strategy in the majority of cases presenting with STEMI in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, utilization of a pharmaco-invasive strategy in selected patients with STEMI with presumptive COVID-19 and low likelihood of mortality from STEMI and use of preventive strategies such as preprocedural intubation in high risk patients when PPCI is the preferred strategy may be reasonable to reduce provider risk of COVID-19 infection.
 
  Search related documents: 
                                
                                Co phrase  search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date