Cardiovascular testing recovery in Latin America one year into the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of data from an international longitudinal survey.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted Latin America (LATAM), significantly disrupting cardiovascular testing. This study evaluated cardiac procedure recovery in LATAM one year after the outbreak. Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) surveyed 669 centers in 107 countries worldwide, including 135 facilities in 19 LATAM countries, to assess cardiovascular procedure volumes in March 2019, April 2020, and April 2021, and changes in center practices and staffing conditions one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: LATAM centers reported a 21 % decrease in procedure volumes in April 2021 from pre-pandemic-baseline, vs. a 0 % change in the rest of the world (RoW), and greater volume reductions for almost all procedure types. Centers in Central America and Mexico reported the largest procedure reductions (47 % reduction) compared to the Caribbean (15 %), and South America (14 %, p = 0.01), and this LATAM region was a significant predictor of lower procedure recovery in multivariable regression. More LATAM centers reported reduced salaries and increased layoffs of clinical staff compared to RoW, and LATAM respondents estimated that half of physician and non-physician staff experienced excess psychological stress related to the pandemic, compared to 25 % and 30 % in RoW (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Cardiovascular testing recovery in LATAM trailed behind RoW for most procedure types, with centers in Central America and Mexico reporting the greatest volume reductions. This study found lasting impacts of COVID-19 on cardiovascular care in LATAM and the need for mental health support for LATAM healthcare workers in current and future pandemics.

Influence of Body Mass Index on Radiation Exposure Across Imaging Modalities in the Evaluation of Chest Pain.

BACKGROUND: Essential to a patient-centered approach to imaging individuals with chest pain is knowledge of differences in radiation effective dose across imaging modalities. Body mass index (BMI) is an important and underappreciated predictor of effective dose. This study evaluated the impact of BMI on estimated radiation exposure across imaging modalities. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients with concern for cardiac ischemia undergoing positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT), cadmium zinc telluride single-photon emission CT (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging, or coronary CT angiography (CCTA) using state-of-the-art imaging modalities and optimal radiation-sparing protocols. Radiation exposure was calculated across BMI categories based on established cardiac imaging-specific conversion factors. Among 9046 patients (mean±SD age, 64.3±13.1 years; 55% men; mean±SD BMI, 30.6±6.9 kg/m2), 4787 were imaged with PET/CT, 3092 were imaged with SPECT/CT, and 1167 were imaged with CCTA. Median (interquartile range) radiation effective doses were 4.4 (3.9-4.9) mSv for PET/CT, 4.9 (4.0-6.3) mSv for SPECT/CT, and 6.9 (4.0-11.2) mSv for CCTA. Patients at a BMI <20 kg/m2 had similar radiation effective dose with all 3 imaging modalities, whereas those with BMI ≥20 kg/m2 had the lowest effective dose with PET/CT. Radiation effective dose and variability increased dramatically with CCTA as BMI increased, and was 10 times higher in patients with BMI >45 kg/m2 compared with <20 kg/m2 (median, 26.9 versus 2.6 mSv). After multivariable adjustment, PET/CT offered the lowest effective dose, followed by SPECT/CT, and then CCTA (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although median radiation exposure is modest across state-of-the-art PET/CT, SPECT/CT, and CCTA systems using optimal radiation-sparing protocols, there are significant variations across modalities based on BMI. These data are important for making patient-centered decisions for ischemic testing.

Recovery Rates of Diagnostic Cardiac Procedural Volume in Oceania 1 Year Into COVID-19: The IAEA Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID 2).

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the recovery rates of diagnostic cardiac procedure volumes in the Oceania Region, midway through the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A survey was performed comparing procedure volumes between March 2019 (pre-pandemic), April 2020 (during first wave of COVID-19 pandemic), and April 2021 (1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic). A total of 31 health care facilities within Oceania that perform cardiac diagnostic procedures were surveyed, including a mixture of metropolitan and regional, hospital and outpatient, public and private sites, as well as teaching and non-teaching hospitals. A comparison was made with 549 centres in 96 countries in the rest of the world (RoW) outside of Oceania. The total number and median percentage change in procedure volume were measured between the three timepoints, compared by test type and by facility. RESULTS: A total of 11,902 cardiac diagnostic procedures were performed in Oceania in April 2021 as compared with 11,835 pre-pandemic in March 2019 and 5,986 in April 2020; whereas, in the RoW, 499,079 procedures were performed in April 2021 compared with 497,615 pre-pandemic in March 2019 and 179,014 in April 2020. There was no significant difference in the median recovery rates for total procedure volumes between Oceania (-6%) and the RoW (-3%) (p=0.81). While there was no statistically significant difference in percentage recovery been functional ischaemia testing and anatomical coronary testing in Oceania as compared with the RoW, there was, however, a suggestion of poorer recovery in anatomical coronary testing in Oceania as compared with the RoW (CT coronary angiography -16% in Oceania vs -1% in RoW, and invasive coronary angiography -20% in Oceania vs -9% in RoW). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery rates in procedure volume between metropolitan vs regional (p=0.44), public vs private (p=0.92), hospital vs outpatient (p=0.79), or teaching vs non-teaching centres (p=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Total cardiology procedure volumes in Oceania normalised 1 year post-pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels, with no significant difference compared with the RoW and between the different types of health care facilities.

Disparities in Noninvasive Traditional and Advanced Testing for Coronary Artery Disease: Findings from the INCAPS-COVID 2 Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of cardiovascular care, including noninvasive testing protocols and test selection for the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). Trends in test selection in traditional versus advanced noninvasive tests for CAD during the pandemic and in countries of varying income status have not been well studied. The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a global survey to assess the pandemic-related changes in the practice of cardiovascular diagnostic testing. Site procedural volumes for noninvasive tests to evaluate CAD from March 2019 (prepandemic), April 2020 (onset), and April 2021 (initial recovery) were collected. We considered traditional testing modalities, such as exercise electrocardiography, stress echocardiography, and stress single-photon emission computed tomography, and advanced testing modalities, such as stress cardiac magnetic resonance, coronary computed tomography angiography, and stress positron emission tomography. Survey data were obtained from 669 centers in 107 countries, reporting the performance of 367,933 studies for CAD during the study period. Compared with 2019, traditional tests were performed 14% less frequently (recovery rate 82%) in 2021 versus advanced tests, which were performed 15% more frequently (128% recovery rate). Coronary computed tomography angiography, stress cardiac magnetic resonance, and stress positron emission tomography showed 14%, 25%, and 25% increases in volumes from 2019 to 2021, respectively. The increase in advanced testing was isolated to high- and upper middle-income countries, with 132% recovery in advanced tests by 2021 compared with 55% in lower income nations. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated economic disparities in CAD testing practice between wealthy and poorer countries. Greater recovery rates and even new growth were observed for advanced imaging modalities; however, this growth was restricted to wealthy countries. Efforts to reduce practice variations in CAD testing because of economic status are warranted.

Cardiovascular Testing in the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Volume Recovery and Worldwide Comparison.

Purpose: To characterize the recovery of diagnostic cardiovascular procedure volumes in U.S. and non-U.S. facilities in the year following the initial COVID-19 outbreak. Materials and Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) coordinated a worldwide study called the IAEA Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19 2 (INCAPS COVID 2), collecting data from 669 facilities in 107 countries, including 93 facilities in 34 U.S. states, to determine the impact of the pandemic on diagnostic cardiovascular procedure volumes. Participants reported volumes for each diagnostic imaging modality used at their facility for March 2019 (baseline), April 2020, and April 2021. This secondary analysis of INCAPS COVID 2 evaluated differences in changes in procedure volume between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and among U.S. regions. Factors associated with return to prepandemic volumes in the United States were also analyzed in a multivariable regression analysis. Results: Reduction in procedure volumes in April 2020 compared with baseline was similar for U.S. and non-U.S. facilities (-66% vs -71%, P = .27). U.S. facilities reported greater return to baseline in April 2021 than did all non-U.S. facilities (4% vs -6%, P = .008), but there was no evidence of a difference when comparing U.S. facilities with non-U.S. high-income country (NUHIC) facilities (4% vs 0%, P = .18). U.S. regional differences in return to baseline were observed between the Midwest (11%), Northeast (9%), South (1%), and West (-7%, P = .03), but no studied factors were significant predictors of 2021 change from prepandemic baseline. Conclusion: The reductions in cardiac testing during the early pandemic have recovered within a year to prepandemic baselines in the United States and NUHICs, while procedure volumes remain depressed in lower-income countries.Keywords: SPECT, Cardiac, Epidemiology, Angiography, CT Angiography, CT, Echocardiography, SPECT/CT, MR Imaging, Radionuclide Studies, COVID-19, Cardiovascular Imaging, Diagnostic Cardiovascular Procedure, Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiac Testing Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023.

Impact of COVID-19 on Cardiovascular Testing in the United States Versus the Rest of the World.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-U.S. institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. RESULTS: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiovascular Testing in Asia: The IAEA INCAPS-COVID Study.

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly affected management of cardiovascular disease around the world. The effect of the pandemic on volume of cardiovascular diagnostic procedures is not known. Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effects of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular diagnostic procedures and safety practices in Asia. Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey to assess changes in cardiovascular procedure volume and safety practices caused by COVID-19. Testing volumes were reported for March 2020 and April 2020 and were compared to those from March 2019. Data from 180 centers across 33 Asian countries were grouped into 4 subregions for comparison. Results: Procedure volumes decreased by 47% from March 2019 to March 2020, showing recovery from March 2020 to April 2020 in Eastern Asia, particularly in China. The majority of centers cancelled outpatient activities and increased time per study. Practice changes included implementing physical distancing and restricting visitors. Although COVID testing was not commonly performed, it was conducted in one-third of facilities in Eastern Asia. The most severe reductions in procedure volumes were observed in lower-income countries, where volumes decreased 81% from March 2019 to April 2020. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic in Asia caused significant reductions in cardiovascular diagnostic procedures, particularly in low-income countries. Further studies on effects of COVID-19 on cardiovascular outcomes and changes in care delivery are warranted.

Preprint manuscripts and servers in the era of coronavirus disease 2019.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: To both examine the impact of preprint publishing on health sciences research and survey popular preprint servers amidst the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: The authors queried three biomedical databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and two preprint servers (MedRxiv and SSRN) to identify literature pertaining to preprints. Additionally, they evaluated 12 preprint servers featuring COVID-19 research through sample submission of six manuscripts. RESULTS: The realm of health sciences research has seen a dramatic increase in the presence and importance of preprint publications. By posting manuscripts on preprint servers, researchers are able to immediately communicate their findings, thereby facilitating prompt feedback and promoting collaboration. In doing so, they may also reduce publication bias and improve methodological transparency. However, by circumventing the peer-review process, academia incurs the risk of disseminating erroneous or misinterpreted data and suffering the downstream consequences. Never have these issues been better highlighted than during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers have flooded the literature with preprint publications as stopgaps to meet the desperate need for knowledge about the disease. These unreviewed articles initially outnumbered those published in conventional journals and helped steer the mainstream scientific community at the start of the pandemic. In surveying select preprint servers, the authors discovered varying usability, review practices, and acceptance polices. CONCLUSION: While vital in the rapid dispensation of science, preprint manuscripts promulgate their conclusions without peer review and possess the capacity to misinform. Undoubtedly part of the future of science, conscientious consumers will need to appreciate not only their utility, but also their limitations.