Background - COVID-19 has led to over 1 million deaths worldwide and has been associated with cardiac complications including cardiac arrhythmias. The incidence and pathophysiology of these manifestations remain elusive. In this worldwide survey of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who developed cardiac arrhythmias, we describe clinical characteristics associated with various arrhythmias, as well as global differences in modulations of routine electrophysiology practice during the pandemic. Methods - We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection worldwide with and without incident cardiac arrhythmias. Patients with documented atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), atrioventricular block (AVB), or marked sinus bradycardia (HR<40bpm) were classified as having arrhythmia. De-identified data was provided by each institution and analyzed. Results - Data was collected for 4,526 patients across 4 continents and 12 countries, 827 of whom had an arrhythmia. Cardiac comorbidities were common in patients with arrhythmia: 69% had hypertension, 42% diabetes mellitus, 30% had heart failure and 24% coronary artery disease. Most had no prior history of arrhythmia. Of those who did develop an arrhythmia, the majority (81.8%) developed atrial arrhythmias, 20.7% developed ventricular arrhythmias, and 22.6% had bradyarrhythmia. Regional differences suggested a lower incidence of AF in Asia compared to other continents (34% vs. 63%). Most patients in in North America and Europe received hydroxychloroquine, though the frequency of hydroxychloroquine therapy was constant across arrhythmia types. Forty-three percent of patients who developed arrhythmia were mechanically ventilated and 51% survived to hospital discharge. Many institutions reported drastic decreases in electrophysiology procedures performed. Conclusions - Cardiac arrhythmias are common and associated with high morbidity and mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. There were significant regional variations in the types of arrhythmias and treatment approaches.

Objective: This study evaluated the impact of daily ECG self-recordings on time to documented recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) and time to treatment of recurrent arrhythmia in patients undergoing catheter radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or direct current cardioversion (DCCV) for AF/AFL. Background: AF recurrence rates after RFA and DCCV are 20–45% and 60–80% respectively. Randomized trials comparing mobile ECG devices to standard of care have not been performed in an AF/AFL population after treatment. Methods: Of 262 patients consented, 238 were randomized to either standard of care (123) or to receive the iHEART intervention (115). Patients in the intervention group were provided with and trained to use an AliveCor® KardiaMobile ECG monitor, and were instructed to take and transmit daily ECG recordings. Data were collected from transmitted ECG recordings and patients’ electronic health records. Results: In a multivariate Cox model, the likelihood of recurrence detection was greater in the intervention group (hazard ratio = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.06–2.30, p = .024). Hazard ratios did not differ significantly for RFA and DCCV procedures. Recurrence during the first month after ablation strongly predicted later recurrence (hazard ratio = 4.53, 95% CI: 2.05–10.00, p = .0006). Time to from detection to treatment was shorter for the control group. (hazard ratio = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.57–2.92, p <.0001) Conclusions: The use of mobile ECG self-recording devices allows for earlier detection of AF/AFL recurrence and may empower patients to engage in shared health decision making.

The Ambulatory and Hospital Care Statistics Branch is pleased to release the most current nationally representative data on ambulatory care visits to physician offices in the United States. Statistics are presented on physician practices as well as patient and visit characteristics using data collected in the 2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). NAMCS is an annual nationally representative sample survey of visits to nonfederal office-based patient care physicians, excluding anesthesiologists, radiologists, and pathologists. Visit estimates for the following 16 states that were targeted for separate estimation are included in the summary tables: