Vol 31, No 5 (2024)
Original Article
Published online: 2024-06-04

open access

Page views 574
Article views/downloads 291
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Clinical characteristics and predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction before and during COVID-19 pandemic

Adam Kern12, Sebastian Pawlak12, Grzegorz Poskrobko12, Krystian Bojko12, Leszek Gromadziński1, Dariusz Onichimowski34, Rakesh Jalali56, Ewa Andrasz1, Jacek Bil7
Pubmed: 38832552
Cardiol J 2024;31(5):647-655.

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care aspects. The aim was to compare the patient profile, ACS characteristics, and the outcomes in patients referred to the invasive cardiology department before (March 2019 – February 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 – February 2021).

Methods: Clinical and demographic features, comorbidities, laboratory parameters at admission, and periprocedural data were recorded. The relationship of these parameters with in-hospital mortality was assessed.

Results: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 664 patients were admitted due to ACS (mean age 67.16 ± 11.94 years, females 32.1%), and during the COVID-19 pandemic 545 ACS patients were recorded [mean age 66.02 ± 12.02 years (p = 0.463), females 31% (p = 0.706)]. A 17.8% decrease in the ACS rate was observed. During the pandemic, there were more STEMI patients (44.3% vs. 52.1%, p < 0.001) and fewer patients treated conservatively (24.9% vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Most lesions were located in the left anterior descending artery (53.4% vs. 54.7%), but post-percutaneous coronary intervention TIMI 3 was observed more frequently before the pandemic (83.9% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). Periprocedural complication rates did not differ between the groups. In-hospital outcomes did not differ between analyzed periods regarding all-cause death nor cardiac death rates, 5.3% vs. 4.6% (p = 0.598) and 4.5% vs. 3.7% (p = 0.473), respectively.

Conclusions: Based on the analysis of 1209 patients, a decrease in ACS patients admitted during the pandemic was recorded, but in-hospital mortality remained similar.

COVID-19

Original Article

Cardiology Journal

2024, Vol. 31, No. 5, 647–655

DOI: 10.5603/cj.95392

Copyright © 2024 Via Medica

ISSN 1897–5593

eISSN 1898–018X

Clinical characteristics and predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction before and during COVID-19 pandemic

Adam Kern12Sebastian Pawlak12Grzegorz Poskrobko12Krystian Bojko12Leszek Gromadziński1Dariusz Onichimowski34Rakesh Jalali56Ewa Andrasz2Jacek Bil7
1Department of Cardiology and Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Collegium Medicum, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland
2Department of Cardiology, Regional Specialist Hospital, Olsztyn, Poland
3Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine, Collegium Medicum, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland
4Clinical Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Regional Specialist Hospital, Olsztyn, Poland
5Emergency Medicine Department, School of Medicine, Collegium Medicum, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland
6Clinical Emergency Department, Regional Specialist Hospital, Olsztyn, Poland
7National Medical Institute of the Ministry of Interior and Administration, Warsaw, Poland

Address for correspondence: Adam Kern, MD, PhD, FESC, Department of Cardiology, Regional Specialist Hospital,
ul. Żołnierska 18, 10–561 Olsztyn, Poland, tel: +48 895 386 349, e-mail: adamkern@mail.com

Received: 01.05.2023 Accepted: 10.04.2024 Early publication date: 04.06.2024

This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.

Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care aspects. The aim was to compare the patient profile, ACS characteristics, and the outcomes in patients referred to the invasive cardiology department before (March 2019–February 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020–February 2021).
Methods: Clinical and demographic features, comorbidities, laboratory parameters at admission, and periprocedural data were recorded. The relationship of these parameters with in-hospital mortality was assessed.
Results: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 664 patients were admitted due to ACS (mean age 67.16 ± 11.94 years, females 32.1%), and during the COVID-19 pandemic 545 ACS patients were recorded [mean age 66.02 ± 12.02 years (p = 0.463), females 31% (p = 0.706)]. A 17.8% decrease in the ACS rate was observed. During the pandemic, there were more STEMI patients (44.3% vs. 52.1%, p < 0.001) and fewer patients treated conservatively (24.9% vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Most lesions were located in the left anterior descending artery (53.4% vs. 54.7%), but post-percutaneous coronary intervention TIMI 3 was observed more frequently before the pandemic (83.9% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). Periprocedural complication rates did not differ between the groups. In-hospital outcomes did not differ between analyzed periods regarding all-cause death nor cardiac death rates, 5.3% vs. 4.6% (p = 0.598) and 4.5% vs. 3.7% (p = 0.473), respectively.
Conclusions: Based on the analysis of 1209 patients, a decrease in ACS patients admitted during the pandemic was recorded, but in-hospital mortality remained similar. (Cardiol J 2024; 31, 5: 647–655)
Keywords: acute coronary syndrome, coronary artery disease, SARS-CoV-2

Introduction

Cardiovascular events are one of the most common causes leading to death. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS), particularly with ST-elevation, presents a significant health and life threat for patients, and such patients should present to invasive cardiology departments as soon as possible [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many aspects of ACS care. Two main adverse effects can be highlighted. The prognosis of patients with COVID-19-positive acute myocardial infarction (MI) is significantly worse than COVID-19-negative patients [2–4]. Unfortunately, COVID-19 cases burdened the healthcare system, and physicians observed fewer ACS patients presenting to hospitals during the pandemic [5–7].

Although it is known that COVID-19 infection raises the risk of thrombosis, some authors observed an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) paradox during the pandemic. In a Spanish study involving 73 cardiac centers, researchers showed a 40% decrease in STEMI cases [7]. Similarly, Garcia et al. [8] observed a 38% drop in coronary angiography procedures due to STEMI. And finally, Italian authors showed a reduction in STEMI and NSTEMI cases by 26.5% and 65.1%, respectively [9].

Some possible explanations can be provided for the ACS rate drop. During the pandemic, patients were less eager to search for medical care. They might fear being admitted to a hospital. Apart from patient anxiety, healthcare providers were overburdened with COVID-19 patients [10, 11].

The aim herein, was to compare the patient profile, ACS characteristics, and the outcomes in patients with ACS referred to the invasive cardiology department before (March 2019–February 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020–February 2021).

Methods

Study design and participants

The data were obtained retrospectively from the hospital database. All patients diagnosed with ACS, i.e., unstable angina, NSTEMI, or STEMI, before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2019–February 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020–February 2021) were included. Also, patients referred to invasive diagnostic and treated conservatively from the beginning were included. In the second period, both COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were included.

In this study, various baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory data, and clinical outcomes in ACS patients admitted in these two periods were compared.

Data collection

Demographic, clinical, periprocedural, and laboratory data from the hospital database were retrieved. The following comorbidities were taken into consideration: arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, chronic heart failure, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral artery disease, chronic kidney disease, prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), prior PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), prior MI, COVID-19 status (if applicable) and clinical data associated with ACS: ACS type, time from symptoms onset, disease advancement, treatment strategy, and periprocedural complications. Additionally, information was gathered on echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular ejection fraction) and laboratory findings assessed at admission: alanine aminotransferase (ALT), complete blood count with differential (WBC — white blood cells, RBC — red blood cells, Hgb — hemoglobin, PLT — platelets), creatinine, creatine kinase (CK-MB), C-reactive protein (CRP), eGFR, glucose, lipid profile, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and troponin T (Tn-T). Information was also gathered on medications at discharge and in-hospital events.

Study endpoints

The primary study endpoint was to compare in-hospital cardiac death rates between two periods. The secondary endpoints included all-cause death, MI, stroke, and bleeding rates.

Statistical analysis

ACS patients were stratified into two cohorts regarding the time of admission: before the pandemic (March 2019–February 2020) or during the pandemic (March 2020–February 2021). Categorical variables are presented as numbers and percentages, and they were compared by applying the chi-square test or the Fisher exact test if appropriate. the normality of data distribution was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Cumulative in-hospital mortality (all-cause as well as cardiac) was depicted as percentages in tables. Moreover, multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent factors linked with in-hospital all-cause mortality. Variables from Tables 1–3 that reached a p-value of < 0.1 in univariable analysis were incorporated into a multivariable model. he final multivariable model was obtained by applying a backward variable selection method. The level of statistical significance was p < 0.05 (two-tailed). Then, ROC curves were generated based on the multivariable logistic regression model [12]. All statistical analyses were performed using Prism 9 for Mac OS version 9.5.0 (GraphPad Software).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics

Parameter

Mar 2019–Feb 2020

N = 664

Mar 2020–Feb 2021

N = 545

P-value

Age [years]

67.16 ± 11.94

66.02 ± 12.02

0.463

Females

213 (32.1)

169 (31.0)

0.706

Arterial hypertension

454 (68.4)

341 (62.6)

0.038

Dyslipidemia

514 (77.4)

353 (64.8)

< 0.001

Diabetes type 2

229 (34.5)

154 (28.3)

0.022

Peripheral artery disease

89 (13.4)

24 (4.4)

< 0.001

Chronic kidney disease

58 (8.7)

76 (13.9)

< 0.001

Carotid artery disease

12 (1.8)

11 (2.0)

0.516

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

39 (5.9)

12 (2.2)

0.009

Heart failure

291 (43.8)

211 (38.7)

0.079

Prior CABG

53 (8.0)

25 (4.6)

0.013

Prior PCI

149 (22.4)

97 (17.8)

0.178

Prior MI

145 (21.8)

90 (16.5)

0.234

COVID-19

22 (4.0)

< 0.001

Left ventricular ejection fraction

48.6 ± 11.2

46.7 ± 12.4

0.324

Table 2. Acute coronary syndrome characteristics

Parameter

Mar 2019–Feb 2020

N = 664

Mar 2020–Feb 2021

N = 545

P-value

Type

UA

89 (13.4)

63 (11.6)

< 0.001

NSTEMI

281 (42.3)

198 (36.3)

STEMI

294 (44.3)

284 (52.1)

Time from symptoms onset [h]

20.6 ± 27.13

17.9 ± 22.9

0.442

Disease advancement

Coronary angiography

626 (94.3)

543 (99.6)

< 0.001

1VD

262 (41.9)

227 (41.8)

0.001

2VD

180 (28.8)

167 (30.8)

3VD

136 (21.7)

130 (23.9)

3VD+LM

48 (7.7)

19 (3.5)

CTO

43 (6.9)

17 (3.1)

0.113

Treatment strategy

Conservative treatment

165 (24.9)

44 (8.0)

< 0.001

Revascularization

499 (75.1)

501 (92.0)

PCI

438 (87.8)

433 (86.4)

0.572

CABG

61 (13.2)

68 (13.6)

Table 3. Periprocedural characteristics

Parameter

Mar 2019–Feb 2020

N = 438

Mar 2020–Feb 2021

N = 433

P-value

SYNTAX

15.34 ± 9.68

11.84 ± 8.31

0.032

SYNTAX 2

34.36 ± 12.88

31.59 ± 11.71

0.029

Lesion location

LM

LAD

LCx

RCA

Bypass

N = 438

16 (3.7)

234 (53.4)

96 (21.9)

84 (19.2)

8 (1.8)

N = 433

31 (7.2)

237 (54.7)

37 (8.5)

113 (26.1)

15 (3.5)

< 0.001

TIMI pre

0

1

2

3

N = 626

193 (30.8)

104 (16.6)

189 (30.2)

140 (22.4)

N = 543

302 (55.6)

21 (3.9)

188 (34.6)

32 (5.9)

< 0.001

TIMI post

0

1

2

3

N = 626

29 (4.6)

16 (2.6)

56 (8.9)

525 (83.9)

N = 543

113 (20.8)

8 (1.5)

14 (2.6)

408 (75.1)

< 0.001

Bifurcation

47 (10.7)

26 (6.0)

0.014

Thrombectomy

11 (2.5)

8 (1.8)

0.644

GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor

48 (10.9)

54 (12.5)

0.528

Stents No

1

2

3

4

327 (74.7)

90 (20.5)

21 (4.8)

0

304 (70.2)

92 (21.2)

28 (6.5)

9 (2.1)

< 0.001

UFH

373 (85.1)

50 (11.5)

< 0.001

LMWH

62 (14.2)

382 (88.2)

Bivalirudin

3 (0.7)

1 (0.2)

Stent type

438

433

SES

195 (44.5)

176 (40.6)

0.303

EES

173 (39.5)

186 (42.9)

ZES

70 (16.0)

71 (16.4)

Periprocedural complications

Dissection

12 (2.7)

5 (1.2)

0.139

Distal embolization

18 (4.1)

10 (2.3)

0.178

No reflow

13 (2.9)

7 (1.6)

0.258

Perforation

0

1 (0.2)

0.451

Results

Baseline characteristics

Before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2019–February 2020), 664 patients were admitted due to ACS (mean age 67.16 ± 11.94 years, females 32.1%), and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020–February 2021), 545 ACS patients were recorded [mean age 66.02 ± 12.02 years (p = 0.463), females 31% (p = 0.706)]. A 17.8% decrease in ACS patients admitted to the hospital was observed. Before the pandemic, more patients had arterial hypertension (p = 0.038), dyslipidemia (p < 0.001), diabetes type 2 (p = 0.022), peripheral artery disease (p < 0.0001), prior CABG (p = 0.013), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.009); simultaneously, fewer patients had chronic kidney disease (p < 0.0001). During the pandemic, 22 (4%) patients with ACS and COVID-19 were admitted (Table 1).

Acute coronary syndrome characteristics and periprocedural details

During the pandemic, more patients presented with STEMI (44.3% vs. 52.1%, p < 0.001), and fewer patients were treated conservatively (24.9% vs. 8%, p < 0.001) (Table 2). Most lesions were located in the left anterior descending artery (53.4% vs. 54.7%), but post-PCI TIMI 3 was observed more frequently before the pandemic (83.9% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). One drug-eluting stent was usually implanted during PCI (74.7% vs. 70.2%, p < 0.001). Periprocedural complication rates did not differ between the groups (Table 3).

Laboratory findings at admission and medications at discharge

During the pandemic, patients characterized higher cardiac necrosis markers (both troponin and CK-MB), but higher NT-proBNP levels (3781.6 ± 9552.1 pg/mL vs. 2317.3 ± 4980.6 pg/mL, p = 0.001) were observed before the pandemic (Table 4). Moreover, during the pandemic, more patients received aspirin (77.8% vs. 96.3%, p < 0.001), new antiplatelets (ticagrelor: 33.8% vs. 51.2%, p < 0.001), ACE inhibitors (69.8% vs. 77.8%, p = 0.002), beta-blockers (75.4% vs. 86.2%, p < 0.001), and statins (79.2% vs. 97.2%, p < 0.001) at discharge (Table 5).

Table 4. Laboratory findings at admission

Parameter

Mar 2019–Feb 2020

N = 664

Mar 2020–Feb 2021

N = 545

P-value

Leucocytes [103/µL]

14.53 ± 9.1

16.72 ± 9.5

0.0001

Red blood cells [106/µL]

4.67 ± 2.23

5.12 ± 1.3

0.0001

Hemoglobin [g/dL]

13.71 ± 2.1

15.96 ± 5.6

0.0001

Platelets [103/µL]

252.06 ± 163.63

248.8 ± 80.4

0.601

eGFR [mL/min]

87.19 ± 36.4

71.45 ± 26.02

0.0001

Glucose [mg/dL]

152 ± 72.6

152.01 ± 82.3

0.998

NT-proBNP [pg/mL]

3781.6 ± 9552.1

2317.3 ± 4980.6

0.001

Max. troponin T [µg/L]

1.57 ± 2.32

3.17 ± 21.52

0.057

Max. CK-MB [IU/L]

56.4 ± 100.5

72.88 ± 158.20

0.028

ALT [IU/L]

55.4 ± 23.7

45.08 ± 59.63

0.0001

Total cholesterol [mg/dL]

182.8 ± 97.4

182.96 ± 61.91

0.974

LDL [mg/dL]

129.4 ± 79.1

124.86 ± 52.73

0.205

HDL [mg/dL]

47.9 ± 15.2

46.86 ± 16.77

0.233

Triglycerides [mg/dL]

142.9 ± 111.1

146.98 ± 131.85

0.656

C-reactive protein [mg/L]

8.35 ± 132.6

4.52 ± 33.18

0.509

Table 5. Medications at discharge

Parameter

Mar 2019–Feb 2020

N = 664

Mar 2020–Feb 2021

N = 545

P-value

Aspirin

517 (77.8)

525 (96.3)

< 0.001

Clopidogrel

282 (42.5)

211 (38.7)

< 0.001

Prasugrel

2 (0.3)

9 (1.7)

Ticagrelor

224 (33.8)

279 (51.2)

ACE inhibitor

463 (69.8)

424 (77.8)

0.002

ARB

23 (3.5)

21 (3.9)

ARNI

2 (0.3)

2 (0.4)

Betablocker

500 (75.4)

470 (86.2)

< 0.001

Statin

525 (79.2)

530 (97.2)

< 0.001

MRA

126 (19)

123 (22.6)

0.134

Diuretics

243 (36.7)

196 (36)

0.810

Ezetimibe

27 (4.1)

29 (5.3)

0.337

Fibrate

5 (0.8)

0

0.068

Ca-blocker

118 (17.8)

104 (19.1)

0.601

Flozins

15 (2.3)

11 (2.0)

0.844

Vitamin K antagonists

10 (1.5)

5 (0.9)

0.145

Rivaroxaban

17 (2.6)

23 (4.2)

Dabigatran

13 (2.0)

18 (3.3)

Apixaban

10 (1.5)

6 (1.1)

In-hospital outcomes

In-hospital outcomes did not differ between analyzed periods regarding all-cause death or cardiac death rates, 5.3% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.598 and 4.5% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.473, respectively. No differences were observed if patients were analyzed with STEMI, patients undergoing PCI within the left main, or patients with TIMI 0 flow at baseline coronary angiography (Table 6). Additionally, the outcomes of patients were analyzed with COVID-19 and without COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 and ACS had a statistically significant higher risk of all-cause death (18.2% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.014) but not cardiac death (9.1% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.191).

Table 6. In-hospitals outcomes

Parameter

Mar 2019–Feb 2020

Mar 2020–Feb 2021

P-value

Whole study population

N = 664

N = 545

Death

35 (5.3)

25 (4.6)

0.598

Cardiac death

30 (4.5)

20 (3.7)

0.473

Stroke

1 (0.15)

0

1

STEMI

N = 294

N = 284

Death

22 (7.5)

20 (7.0)

0.874

Cardiac death

21 (7.1)

17 (5.9)

0.6173

Stroke

0

0

1

Left main

N = 16

N = 31

Death

5 (31.3)

2 (6.5)

0.036

Cardiac death

5 (31.3)

2 (6.5)

0.036

Stroke

0

0

1

TIMI 0 at baseline

N = 193

N = 302

Death

1 (0.5)

7 (2.3)

0.158

Cardiac death

1 (0.5)

7 (2.3)

0.158

Stroke

0

0

1

Risk factors for cardiac death

Taking into account previous variables, the multivariable models for cardiac death in those two periods are presented in Table 7, and ROC curves are in Figure 1. The same variables were entered into both models, i.e., age, STEMI, SYNTAX value, and chronic kidney disease.

Table 7. Multivariable analysis

Variable

Mar 2019–Feb 2020

Mar 2020–Feb 2021

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

Age [years]

1.065

1.022–1.115

1.057

1.014–1.104

STEMI

7.465

2.270–34.450

7.556

2.742–24.99

SYNTAX

1.070

1.025–1.117

1.062

1.019–1.106

CKD

6.859

2.432–19.79

2.596

0.714–8.490

Figure 1. ROC curves based on the multivariable model; NPP — negative predictive power; PPP — positive predictive power

Discussion

There was a 17.8% decrease in ACS patients admitted to the hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, more patients presented with STEMI (44.3% vs. 52.1%, p < 0.001), and fewer patients were treated conservatively (24.9% vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Most lesions were located in the left anterior descending artery (53.4% vs. 54.7%), but post-PCI TIMI 3 was observed more frequently before the pandemic (83.9% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). Periprocedural complication rates did not differ between the groups. In-hospital outcomes did not differ between analyzed periods regarding all-cause death nor cardiac death rates, 5.3% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.598, and 4.5% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.473, respectively.

The database conducted by the Jagiellonian University Medical College and endorsed by the Association of Cardiovascular Interventions of the Polish Cardiac Society disclosed that the COVID-19 pandemic exerted a significant effect on interventional cardiology in Poland. A significant drop in the number of coronary angiography and PCI procedures was noted, as well as the use of modern imaging and physiologic assessment techniques. In comparison to 2019, a significant 25% drop in the total number of coronary angiography (172 521 vs. 130 662) as well as PCI procedures were recorded (101 716 vs. 82 349) [13–15]. Similar trends were also noted in other countries where COVID-19 torpedoed planned and unplanned hospitalization. Wang et al. disclosed a substantial decrease in hospitalization rates during the COVID-19 pandemic: total (–182 per 100 000) and unscheduled one (–39 per 100 000) caused by stroke (–1.51 per 100 000), acute MI (–1.32 per 100 000), or heart failure (–8.7 per 100 000) [16]. the following underlying mechanisms can be mentioned: patient anxiety about COVID-19 contraction, overburden of pre-pandemic hospitalizations, or introducing pandemic mitigation actions, e.g., rescheduling non-urgent diagnostic procedures or surgeries [17]. In the present study, more patients were treated conservatively before the pandemic, and more STEMI patients were recorded during the pandemic. This might suggest that during the pandemic, more commonly, patients with severe and persisting symptoms, as in acute MI with total vessel occlusion, decided to present to Emergency Departments (ED). Before the pandemic, more patients with chest pain presented to ED, and in further diagnostic, no obstructive coronary artery disease was confirmed. Other findings also confirm this observation. Pre-PCI TIMI 0 was more frequent during the pandemic (55.6% vs. 30.8%, p < 0.001) (more patients with STEMI and fresh thrombus during the pandemic), and post-PCI TIMI 3 was more frequent before the pandemic (83.9% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). The upsurge of STEMI patients during the pandemic was also observed in other studies. Yendrapali et al. reported an increase from 15–18% to 32% [18]. This contrasts with the earlier mentioned STEMI paradox showed in other studies. In a Spanish study involving 73 cardiac centers, researchers showed a 40% decrease in STEMI cases [7]. Similarly, Garcia et al. observed a 38% drop in coronary angiography procedures due to STEMI [8]. And finally, Italian authors showed a reduction in STEMI and NSTEMI cases by 26.5% and 65.1%, respectively [9].

Milovancev et al. showed decreased ED visits and hospitalizations not just in outbreaks but throughout the whole COVID-19 year. This highlights the risk of continuous delay of required healthcare for emergency life-threatening cardiovascular diseases [19].

Other authors observed increased comorbidity rates during the pandemic [1]. However, in our study, the opposite was recorded. Before the pandemic, more patients had arterial hypertension (p = 0.038), dyslipidemia (p < 0.001), diabetes type 2 (p = 0.022), peripheral artery disease (p < 0.0001), prior CABG (p = 0.013), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.009); simultaneously, fewer patients had chronic kidney disease (p < 0.0001). This might be difficult to explain, especially bearing in mind the widespread problems with access to healthcare facilities during the pandemic.

Several studies also indicated elevated death and complication rates related to acute MI and stroke during the pandemic [20–22]. Therefore, increasing in-hospital death rates for non-COVID-19 urgent diseases such as acute MI or stroke were expected. Unfortunately, no significant changes in the in-hospital mortality rates as compared to the pre-pandemic period were observed. This might partially be explained by the fact that only 4% of these patients were COVID-19-positive. No MI mechanical complications were observed, which can be associated with acute ischemia [23].

The treated population is associated with the differences in medications at discharge. During the pandemic, more patients received aspirin (77.8% vs. 96.3%, p < 0.001), new antiplatelets (ticagrelor: 33.8% vs. 51.2%, p < 0.001), ACE inhibitors (69.8% vs. 77.8%, p = 0.002), beta-blockers (75.4% vs. 86.2%, p < 0.001), and statins (79.2% vs. 97.2%, p < 0.001). This can be explained by the fact that during the pandemic, there were more STEMI patients with TIMI 0 at baseline. Such patients were treated more aggressively with statins and more potent antiplatelet drugs.

Study limitations

This study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective study; therefore, residual confounding factors may exist. Second, not all laboratory parameters were collected in all patients. Third, only a small percentage of patients were COVID-19-positive. And finally, only in-hospital outcomes are presented.

Conclusions

Based on the analysis of 1209 patients, a decrease in ACS patient admission during the pandemic was recorded, but in-hospital mortality remained similar.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflict of interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jankowska-Sanetra J, Sanetra K, Konopko M, et al. Incidence and course of acute coronary syndrome cases after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Kardiol Pol. 2023; 81(1): 22–30, doi: 10.33963/KP.a2022.0250, indexed in Pubmed: 36354113.
  2. Garcia S, Dehghani P, Grines C, et al. Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions, the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, and the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions, the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, and the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council. Initial Findings From the North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021; 77(16): 1994–2003, doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.02.055, indexed in Pubmed: 33888249.
  3. Ferlini M, Castini D, Ferrante G, et al. Acute Coronary Syndromes and SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Results From an Observational Multicenter Registry During the Second Pandemic Spread in Lombardy. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9: 912815, doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.912815, indexed in Pubmed: 35783857.
  4. Junior WB, Ferreia NN, Santos Ld, et al. Negative impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection in acute coronary syndrome mortality in a Latin American cohort study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 9: 959769, doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.959769, indexed in Pubmed: 36213662.
  5. Kaziród-Wolski K, Zając P, Zabojszcz M, et al. The Effect of COVID-19 on the Perioperative Course of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Poland: The Estimation of Perioperative Prognosis and Neural Network Analysis in 243,515 Cases from 2020 to 2021. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(18), doi: 10.3390/jcm11185394, indexed in Pubmed: 36143039.
  6. Santos H, Santos M, B Paula S, et al. Portuguese Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes, Portuguese Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes. The National Response to Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Portugal. Acta Med Port. 2022; 35(12): 891–898, doi: 10.20344/amp.18610, indexed in Pubmed: 36260808.
  7. Skoda R, Juhasz V, Dohy Z, et al. The effect of COVID-19 pandemic on myocardial infarction care and on its prognosis - Experience at a high volume Hungarian cardiovascular center. Physiol Int. 2022; 109: 419–426.
  8. Garcia S, Albaghdadi MS, Meraj PM, et al. Reduction in ST-Segment Elevation Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activations in the United States During COVID-19 Pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 75(22): 2871–2872, doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.011, indexed in Pubmed: 32283124.
  9. De Rosa S, Spaccarotella C, Basso C, et al. Società Italiana di Cardiologia and the CCU Academy investigators group, Società Italiana di Cardiologia and the CCU Academy investigators group. Reduction of hospitalizations for myocardial infarction in Italy in the COVID-19 era. Eur Heart J. 2020; 41(22): 2083–2088, doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa409, indexed in Pubmed: 32412631.
  10. Zuin M, Mugnai G, Zamboni A, et al. Decline of Admission for Acute Coronary Syndromes and Acute Cardiovascular Conditions during COVID-19 Pandemic in Veneto Region. Viruses. 2022; 14(9), doi: 10.3390/v14091925, indexed in Pubmed: 36146731.
  11. Jankowska-Sanetra J, Sanetra K, Konopko M, et al. The impact of first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 2019 pandemic in Poland on characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized due to stable coronary artery disease. Cardiol J. 2023; 30(3): 337–343, doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2022.0094, indexed in Pubmed: 36200545.
  12. Bil J, MoŻeŃska O, Segiet-ŚwiĘcicka A, et al. Revisiting the use of the provocative acetylcholine test in patients with chest pain and nonobstructive coronary arteries: A five-year follow-up of the AChPOL registry, with special focus on patients with MINOCA. Transl Res. 2021; 231: 64–75, doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2020.11.009, indexed in Pubmed: 33232803.
  13. Siudak Z, Dudek D, Grygier M, et al. Interventional cardiology in Poland in 2020 - impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Annual summary report of the Association of Cardiovascular Interventions of the Polish Cardiac Society and Jagiellonian University Medical College. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2021; 17(2): 131–134, doi: 10.5114/aic.2021.107490, indexed in Pubmed: 34400914.
  14. Wańha W, Wybraniec M, Kapłon-Cieślicka A, et al. Myocardial infarction in the shadow of COVID-19. Cardiol J. 2020; 27(5): 478–480, doi: 10.5603/CJ.2020.0152, indexed in Pubmed: 33165896.
  15. Siudak Z, Bartuś S, Hawranek M, et al. Interventional cardiology in Poland in 2021. Annual summary report of the Association of Cardiovascular Interventions of the Polish Cardiac Society (AISN PTK) and Jagiellonian University Medical College. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2022; 18(2): 87–89, doi: 10.5114/aic.2022.118523, indexed in Pubmed: 36051825.
  16. Wang SY, Seghieri C, Vainieri M, et al. Changes in Acute Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Heart Failure Hospitalizations During COVID-19 Pandemic in Tuscany-An Interrupted Time Series Study. Int J Public Health. 2022; 67: 1604319, doi: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604319, indexed in Pubmed: 35755955.
  17. Bil J, Kern A, Bujak K, et al. Clinical characteristics and 12-month outcomes in MINOCA patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Polish Archives of Internal Medicine. 2023, doi: 10.20452/pamw.16405.
  18. Yendrapalli U, Mullen S, Elawad A, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender disparities in acute coronary syndrome patterns. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2022; 41: 101077, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101077, indexed in Pubmed: 35782705.
  19. Milovančev A, Miljković T, Petrović M, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiology Emergency Department Visits. Int Heart J. 2022; 63(4): 749–754, doi: 10.1536/ihj.21-750, indexed in Pubmed: 35831145.
  20. Primessnig U, Pieske BM, Sherif M, et al. Increased mortality and worse cardiac outcome of acute myocardial infarction during the early COVID-19 pandemic. ESC Heart Fail. 2021; 8(1): 333–343, doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13075, indexed in Pubmed: 33283476.
  21. Solano-López J, Zamorano JL, Pardo Sanz A, et al. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 outbreak. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2020; 73(12): 985–993, doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2020.07.009, indexed in Pubmed: 32839121.
  22. Bryndza M, Legutko J, Kleczynski P, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of post-acute myocardial infarction mechanical complications. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2022; 11(3): 319–321, doi: 10.21037/acs-2021-ami-150, indexed in Pubmed: 35733725.
  23. Bil J, Buller P, Gil R, et al. Acute Complications in Patients with Myocardial Infarction with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review with Special Focus on Mechanical Complications. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022; 23(12): 393, doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2312393.