COVID-19大流行对急诊科使用初始纤溶治疗STEMI的影响

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE American Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.030
Whitney B. Sussman, Conner E. Johnson, Erin R. Weeda
{"title":"COVID-19大流行对急诊科使用初始纤溶治疗STEMI的影响","authors":"Whitney B. Sussman,&nbsp;Conner E. Johnson,&nbsp;Erin R. Weeda","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Most ED and patient characteristics were similar prior to vs during the pandemic among included cohorts.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"90 ","pages":"Pages 106-108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department utilization of initial fibrinolysis for the treatment of STEMI\",\"authors\":\"Whitney B. Sussman,&nbsp;Conner E. Johnson,&nbsp;Erin R. Weeda\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Most ED and patient characteristics were similar prior to vs during the pandemic among included cohorts.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"90 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 106-108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675725000385\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675725000385","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:当st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)不能立即采用经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)时,纤维蛋白溶解通常被认为是一种替代方法。COVID-19大流行可能影响了PCI的及时性。我们试图比较美国急诊科(EDs)在COVID-19大流行之前和期间使用纤溶药物的比率。还比较了COVID-19大流行之前和期间使用纤溶药物的患者和急诊科患者的特征。方法:我们使用全国急诊科样本(NEDS)数据库确定到美国急诊科就诊的STEMI成年患者。该队列仅限于接受纤溶治疗的个体。根据大流行前(2018年4月- 2019年12月)和大流行期间(2020年4月- 2021年12月)接受纤溶治疗的情况,将患者分为两组。结果:在COVID-19大流行之前,在1593例ED就诊中发现了纤溶药物的使用,在数据库中每1000例STEMI就诊中有24.5例使用纤溶药物。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,在1700次就诊中发现使用纤溶药物,即数据库中每1000例STEMI就诊中有28.2例使用纤溶药物。这相当于每1000例STEMI患者中有3.7例的发生率差异(95%置信区间:1.9-5.5,p)。结论:在COVID-19大流行期间,纤溶治疗的使用增加了,但仅略有增加。这表明,在STEMI治疗的背景下,卫生保健系统迅速适应了大流行期间的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department utilization of initial fibrinolysis for the treatment of STEMI

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Automatic phenotyping of emergency department patients with incidental hepatic steatosis: A machine learning clustering analysis Seeing is believing: Point-of-care ultrasound for endotracheal tube confirmation Racial disparities in traumatic injuries sustained in prison: A multicenter retrospective cohort study Point-of-care lung ultrasound during atropine titration in severe organophosphate poisoning: A case report Recurrent bradycardia and hypotension after Oral Lacosamide during hospital boarding in the emergency department: A case report
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1