BACKGROUND Many of the drugs being used in the treatment of the ongoing pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are associated with QT prolongation. Expert guidance supports electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring to optimize patient safety.OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to establish an enhanced process for ECG monitoring of patients being treated for COVID-19.METHODS We created a Situation Background Assessment Recommendation tool identifying the indication for ECGs in patients with COVID-19 and tagged these ECGs to ensure prompt over reading and identification of those with QT prolongation (corrected QT interval . 470 ms for QRS duration 120 ms; corrected QT interval . 500 ms for QRS duration . 120 ms). This triggered a phone call from the electrophysiology service to the primary team to provide management guidance and a formal consultation if requested.RESULTS During a 2-week period, we reviewed 2006 ECGs, corresponding to 524 unique patients, of whom 103 (19.7%) met the Situation Background Assessment Recommendation tool-defined criteria for QT prolongation. Compared with those without QT prolongation, these patients were more often in the intensive care unit (60 [58.3%] vs 149 [35.4%]) and more likely to be intubated (32 [31.1%] vs 76 [18.1%]). Fifty patients with QT prolongation (48.5%) had electrolyte abnormalities, 98 (95.1%) were on COVID-19-related QT-prolonging medications, and 62 (60.2%) were on 1-4 additional non-COVID-19-related QT-prolonging drugs. Electrophysiology recommendations were given to limit modifiable risk factors. No patient developed torsades de pointes.CONCLUSION This process functioned efficiently, identified a high percentage of patients with QT prolongation, and led to relevant interventions. Arrhythmias were rare. No patient developed torsades de pointes.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to estimate the frequency of heart failure (HF) readmissions that can be prevented through a quality improvement (QI) program. All HF patients at the University of Connecticut Health Center who had a readmission within 30 days of discharge in the year before (2008) and the year after (2011) a QI program were studied. Through chart review, the percentage of patients who had preventable readmissions in each year was estimated. Prior to the QI initiative, chart reviewers identified that 20% to 30% of readmissions were preventable. The decrease in readmissions after the QI program was similar at 28%. Fewer readmissions after the QI initiative were deemed preventable compared with before. In conclusion, this study found a percentage of preventable readmissions similar to the actual 28% reduction in readmissions after a QI program was launched. Preventable readmissions were less common after the QI program was in place.

Remote monitoring provides clinicians with the ability to provide comprehensive follow-up care for patients with CIEDs. Patient outcomes are improved, and resource utilization is decreased with appropriate use of remote monitoring. Future efforts must focus on improving the utilization and efficiency of remote monitoring.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a significant decrease in volume of electrophysiology (EP) procedures. There has been concern that trainees may not achieve the procedural numbers required to graduate as independent electrophysiologists within the usual timeline. We sought to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the percentage of clinical cardiac EP (CCEP) fellows in jeopardy of not meeting procedural volume requirements and overall sentiments regarding preparedness of fellows for independent practice. Methods: We surveyed CCEP fellows and program directors about baseline procedural volumes, curriculum changes due to the pandemic, and attitudes about preparedness for board examinations and independent practice. Results: Ninety-nine fellows and 27 program directors responded to the survey. Ninety-eight percent of responding fellows reported a decrease in procedural volume as a result of the pandemic. Program directors reported an overall decrease in annual number of ablations and device procedures performed by each fellow during the 2019-2020 academic year compared to the preceding year. Despite this, a minority of fellows and program directors reported concerns about meeting Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education procedural requirements for devices (9% and 4%, respectively) and ablation (19% and 9%) or preparedness for independent practice after a 2-year fellowship. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a decrease in procedural volume for CCEP trainees, but the majority of fellows and program directors do not anticipate major barriers to timely graduation. This may change with COVID-19 resurgence and further interruptions in training.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, attempts to conserve resources and limit virus spread have resulted in delay of nonemergent procedures across all medical specialties including cardiac electrophysiology. Many patients have delayed care and continue to express concerns about potential nosocomial spread of coronavirus. Objective To quantify risk of development of COVID19 due to in-hospital transmission related to an electrophysiology procedure, in the setting of preventive measures instituted in our laboratory areas. Methods We contacted patients by telephone who underwent emergent procedures in the electrophysiology lab during the COVID19 surge at our hospital (3/16/2020 to 5/15/2020, reaching daily census 450 COVID19 patients,) > two weeks after the procedure, to assess for symptoms of and/or testing for COVID-19, and assessed outcomes from medical record review. Results Of the 124 patients undergoing EP procedures in this period, none had developed documented or suspected coronavirus infection. 7 patients described symptoms of chest pain, dyspnea, or fever; 3 were tested for coronavirus and found to be negative. Of the remaining 4, 2 had a more plausible alternative explanation for the symptoms, and 2 had transient symptoms not meeting published criteria for probable COVID19 infection. Conclusion Despite a high hospital census of COVID-19 patients during the period of hospital stay for an electrophysiology procedure, there were no likely COVID-19 infections occurring in follow up of at least two weeks. With proper use of preventive measures as recommended by published guidelines, the risk of nosocomial spread of COVID-19 to patients in the electrophysiology lab is low.

No abstract

No abstract