| Literature DB >> 33693295 |
Yu Yasuda1, Hironori Ishiguchi2, Masahiro Ishikura2, Masaaki Yoshida2, Koji Imoto2, Kazuhiko Sonoyama2, Tetsuya Kawabata2, Takayuki Okamura3, Akihiro Endo1, Shigeki Kobayashi3, Kazuaki Tanabe1, Masafumi Yano3, Tsuyoshi Oda2.
Abstract
Background: We investigated the incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in a non-epidemic area of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in Japan. Methods andEntities:
Keywords: Acute coronary syndrome; Coronavirus disease 2019; Pandemics
Year: 2021 PMID: 33693295 PMCID: PMC7939951 DOI: 10.1253/circrep.CR-20-0141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Circ Rep ISSN: 2434-0790
Figure 1.Monthly trend of patients visiting the emergency room (ER) and patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). (Upper) Solid lines indicate the number of monthly ER visits (yellow) and ACS incidence (blue) in 2020. Dotted lines indicate the mean number and standard deviation for monthly ER visits (black) and ACS incidence (gray) during 2015–2019. (Lower) Monthly number of patients testing positive for COVID-19 in the entire country of Japan and Izumo City. COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Comparison of ACS Patient Demographics During and Before COVID-19 Pandemic
| Overall COVID-19 pandemic | Historical cohort (n=274, | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean±SD | 73±13 | 72±12 | 0.59 |
| Male, n (%) | 44 (69) | 199 (73) | 0.53 |
| STEMI, n (%) | 45 (70) | 179 (65) | 0.44 |
| Peak CK (IU/L), median (IQR) | 1,125 (413, 3,879) | 1,083 (308, 2,524) | 0.22 |
| Time from symptom onset to arrival (h), median (IQR) | 4 (1, 18) | 2.5 (1, 8) | 0.08 |
| Killip class, mean±SD* | 1.9±1.2 | 1.5±1 | 0.003 |
| CPA at presentation, n (%) | 6 (9) | 23 (8) | 0.81 |
| Emergency CAG | 52 (81) | 218 (80) | 0.76 |
| PCI, n (%) | 55 (86) | 235 (86) | 0.97 |
| CABG, n (%) | 3 (5) | 20 (7) | 0.45 |
| Hospital stay (days), mean±SD | 13 (7.5, 19) | 13 (8, 19) | 0.78 |
| In-hospital deaths, n (%) | 8 (12) | 24 (9) | 0.35 |
Numerical data are expressed as the mean±SD or as the median (interquartile range (IQR); 1st–3rd quartile). Categorical data are expressed as the percentage (%) and number. *Statistical significance (P<0.05). CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; CAG, coronary angiography; CK, creatinine kinase; CPA, cardiopulmonary arrest; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; STEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Comparison of ACS Patient Demographics During and Before Pandemic in Japan
| Pandemic in Japan | Historical cohort (n=197, | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean±SD | 74±12 | 72±12 | 0.63 |
| Male, n (%) | 31 (74) | 141 (72) | 0.77 |
| STEMI, n (%) | 35 (83) | 136 (69) | 0.06 |
| Peak CK (IU/L), median (IQR)* | 1,703 (793, 4,663) | 1,132 (316, 2,402) | 0.01 |
| Time from symptom onset to arrival (h), median (IQR) | 4.3 (1, 18) | 2.5 (1, 7) | 0.08 |
| Killip class, mean±SD* | 1.9±1.2 | 1.5±1 | 0.006 |
| CPA at presentation, n (%) | 4 (9) | 16 (8) | 0.77 |
| Emergency CAG | 34 (81) | 159 (81) | 0.97 |
| PCI, n (%) | 36 (86) | 166 (84) | 0.81 |
| CABG, n (%) | 2 (5) | 16 (8) | 0.45 |
| Hospital stay (days), mean±SD | 14 (9, 20) | 13 (8, 20) | 0.59 |
| In-hospital mortality, n (%) | 6 (14) | 17 (9) | 0.25 |
Numerical data are expressed as the mean±SD or as the median (interquartile range (IQR); 1st–3rd quartile). Categorical data are expressed as the percentage (%) and number. *Statistical significance (P<0.05). Abbreviations as in Table 1.
Figure 2.Proportion of ACS patients with delayed admission and high Killip class. (Upper) Bars indicate the proportion of patients with a delay in admission ≥24 h from symptom onset in 2020 (blue) and 2015–2019 (gray). The proportion during the period of the pandemic in Japan (March–July, 2020) was significantly higher than that in the historical cohort (9/42 patients; 21% vs. 19/197 patients; 10%, P=0.03). (Lower) Bars indicate the proportion of patients with high Killip class (III/IV) in 2020 (blue) and 2015–2019 (gray). The proportion during the period of the pandemic in Japan was significantly higher than that in the historical cohort (15/42 patients; 36% vs. 34/197 patients; 17%, P=0.007). *Statistical significance (P<0.05).