Background Apart from infecting a large number of people around the world and causing the death of many people, the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have changed the healthcare processes of other diseases by changing the allocation of health resources and changing people’s access or intention to healthcare systems. Objective To compare the incidence of endpoints marking delayed healthcare seeking in medical emergencies, before and during the pandemic. Methods Based on a PICO model, medical emergency conditions that need timely intervention was selected to be evaluated as separate panels. In a systematic literature review, PubMed was quarried for each panel for studies comparing the incidence of various medical emergencies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Markers of failure/disruption of treatment due to delayed referral were included in the meta-analysis for each panel. Result There was a statistically significant increased pooled median time of symptom onset to admission of the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients; an increased rate of vasospasm of aneurismal subarachnoid hemorrhage; and perforation rate in acute appendicitis; diabetic ketoacidosis presentation rate among Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus patients; and rate of orchiectomy among testicular torsion patients in comparison of pre-COVID-19 with COVID-19 cohorts; while there were no significant changes in the event rate of ruptured ectopic pregnancy and median time of symptom onset to admission in the cerebrovascular accident (CVA) patients. Conclusions COVID-19 has largely disrupted the referral of patients for emergency medical care and patient-related delayed care should be addressed as a major health threat.

Background Acute submassive a massive pulmonary embolism are known as leading causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in emergency departments. Choosing the optimal type of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of pulmonary embolism presents a quandary to the practitioners. To the best of our knowledge, there is no meta-analysis comparing superiority of conventional CDT and ultrasound-accelerated catheter directed thrombolysis (USACDT). Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile. Methods A systematic literature search of previous published studies comparing conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile was carried out in the electronic databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane from inception to December 2021. Data were analyzed by comprehensive meta-analysis software (CMA, version 3). Results The meta-analysis included nine studies with a total of 705 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that there is no significant difference between two groups with respect to pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (SMD: −0.084; 95% CI: −0.287 to 0.12; p: 0.41), RV/LV (SMD: −0.003; 95% CI: −0.277 to 0.270; p: 0.98), and Miller score (SMD: −0.345; 95% CI: −1.376 to 0.686; p: 0.51). Similarly, we found no statistically significant differences between two groups regarding major and minor bleeding ( p > .05). Conclusion Our meta-analysis showed that when compared with USACDT, conventional CDT provides similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes or safety for treatment of pulmonary embolism without the need for very expensive technologies. However, randomized clinical trials are required to further investigate cost-effectiveness of USACDT in comparison with conventional CDT.