Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department utilization of initial fibrinolysis for the treatment of STEMI.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Whitney B Sussman, Conner E Johnson, Erin R Weeda
{"title":"Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department utilization of initial fibrinolysis for the treatment of STEMI.","authors":"Whitney B Sussman, Conner E Johnson, Erin R Weeda","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Fibrinolysis is generally considered an alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) when PCI is not immediately feasible. The COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the timeliness of PCI. We sought to compare the rate of fibrinolysis use before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic in US emergency departments (EDs). Characteristics of patients and EDs with fibrinolysis use prior to vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic were also compared.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified adult patients presenting to US EDs for STEMI using the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) database. The cohort was restricted to individuals receiving fibrinolysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on receipt of fibrinolysis during the pre-pandemic (April 2018-December 2019) and pandemic (April 2020-December 2021) time periods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the period prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, fibrinolysis use was identified in 1593 ED encounters, representing a rate of 24.5 per 1000 STEMI encounters in the database. In the COVID-19 pandemic period, fibrinolysis use was identified in 1700 encounters, representing a rate of 28.2 per 1000 STEMI encounters in the database. This corresponded to a rate difference of 3.7 per 1000 STEMI encounters (95 % confidence interval: 1.9-5.5, p < 0.001). Most ED and patient characteristics were similar prior to vs during the pandemic among included cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fibrinolytic therapy use increased, but only slightly, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests that the healthcare system adapted quickly to changes during the pandemic in the setting of STEMI treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"90 ","pages":"106-108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.030","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Fibrinolysis is generally considered an alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) when PCI is not immediately feasible. The COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the timeliness of PCI. We sought to compare the rate of fibrinolysis use before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic in US emergency departments (EDs). Characteristics of patients and EDs with fibrinolysis use prior to vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic were also compared.

Methods: We identified adult patients presenting to US EDs for STEMI using the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) database. The cohort was restricted to individuals receiving fibrinolysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on receipt of fibrinolysis during the pre-pandemic (April 2018-December 2019) and pandemic (April 2020-December 2021) time periods.

Results: In the period prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, fibrinolysis use was identified in 1593 ED encounters, representing a rate of 24.5 per 1000 STEMI encounters in the database. In the COVID-19 pandemic period, fibrinolysis use was identified in 1700 encounters, representing a rate of 28.2 per 1000 STEMI encounters in the database. This corresponded to a rate difference of 3.7 per 1000 STEMI encounters (95 % confidence interval: 1.9-5.5, p < 0.001). Most ED and patient characteristics were similar prior to vs during the pandemic among included cohorts.

Conclusions: Fibrinolytic therapy use increased, but only slightly, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests that the healthcare system adapted quickly to changes during the pandemic in the setting of STEMI treatment.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
730
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: A distinctive blend of practicality and scholarliness makes the American Journal of Emergency Medicine a key source for information on emergency medical care. Covering all activities concerned with emergency medicine, it is the journal to turn to for information to help increase the ability to understand, recognize and treat emergency conditions. Issues contain clinical articles, case reports, review articles, editorials, international notes, book reviews and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信