Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that is wreaking havoc on the health and economy of much of human civilization. Electrophysiologists have been impacted personally and professionally by this global catastrophe. In this joint article from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, we identify the potential risks of exposure to patients, allied healthcare staff, industry representatives, and hospital administrators. We also

Background Cardiovascular and arrhythmic events have been reported in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, arrhythmia manifestations and treatment strategies used in these patients have not been well-described. We sought to better understand the cardiac arrhythmic manifestations and treatment strategies in hospitalized COVID-19 patients through a worldwide crosssectional survey. Methods The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) sent an online survey (via SurveyMonkey) to electrophysiology (EP) professionals (physicians, scientists, and allied professionals) across the globe. The survey was active from March 27 to April 13, 2020. Results A total of 1197 respondents completed the survey with 50% of respondents from outside the USA, representing 76 countries and 6 continents. Of respondents, 905 (76%) reported having COVID-19-positive patients in their hospital. Atrial fibrillation was the most commonly reported tachyarrhythmia whereas severe sinus bradycardia and complete heart block were the most common bradyarrhythmias. Ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation arrest and pulseless electrical activity were reported by 4.8% and 5.6% of respondents, respectively. There were 140 of 631 (22.2%) respondents who reported using anticoagulation therapy in all COVID-19-positive patients who did not otherwise have an indication. One hundred fifty-five of 498 (31%) reported regular use of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZM); concomitant use of AZM was more common in the USA. Sixty of 489 respondents (12.3%) reported having to discontinue therapy with HCQ + AZM due to significant QTc prolongation and 20 (4.1%) reported cases of Torsade de Pointes in patients on HCQ/chloroquine and AZM. Amiodarone was the most common antiarrhythmic drug used for ventricular arrhythmia management. Conclusions In this global survey of > 1100 EP professionals regarding hospitalized COVID-19 patients, a variety of arrhythmic manifestations were observed, ranging from benign to potentially life-threatening. Observed adverse events related to use of HCQ + AZM included prolonged QTc requiring drug discontinuation as well as Torsade de Pointes. Large prospective studies to better define arrhythmic manifestations as well as the safety of treatment strategies in COVID-19 patients are warranted.

Background: Stroke reduction with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) is dependent on adherence and persistence in the real-world setting. Individual study estimates of DOAC adherence/persistence rates have been discordant. Our aims were to characterize real-world observational evidence for DOAC adherence/persistence and evaluate associated clinical outcomes in patients with AF. Methods and Results: PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to June 2018. Observational studies that reported real-world DOAC adherence/persistence in patients with AF were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses for pooled estimates were performed using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Outcomes included DOAC mean proportion of days covered or medication possession ratio, proportion of good adherence (proportion of days covered/medication possession ratio ≥80%), persistence, DOAC versus vitamin K antagonists persistence, and clinical outcomes associated with nonadherence/nonpersistence. Forty-eight observational studies with 594 784 unique patients with AF (59% male; mean age 71 years) were included. The overall pooled mean proportion of days covered/medication possession ratio was 77% (95% CI, 75%–80%), proportion of patients with good adherence was 66% (95% CI, 63%–70%), and proportion persistent was 69% (95% CI, 65%–72%). The pooled proportion of patients with good adherence was 71% (95% CI, 64%–78%) for apixaban, 60% (95% CI, 52%–68%) for dabigatran, and 70% (95% CI, 64%–75%) for rivaroxaban. Similar patterns were found for pooled persistence by agent. The pooled persistence was higher with DOACs than vitamin K antagonists (odds ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.12–.86]). DOAC nonadherence was associated with an increased risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.06–1.81]). Conclusions: Suboptimal adherence and persistence to DOACs was common in patients with AF, with 1 in 3 patients adhering to their DOAC <80% of the time, which was associated with poor clinical outcomes in nonadherent patients. Although it is convenient that DOACs do not require laboratory monitoring, greater effort in monitoring for and interventions to prevent nonadherence may be necessary to optimize stroke prevention. Increased clinician awareness of DOAC nonadherence may help identify at-risk patients.