Aims The first reports of declining hospital admissions for major cardiovascular emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic attracted public attention. However, systematic evidence on this subject is sparse. We aimed to investigate the rate of emergent hospital admissions, subsequent invasive treatments and comorbidities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Methods and results This was a retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data from the second largest insurance fund in Germany, BARMER. Patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, aortic rupture, stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) between January 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020, were included. Admission rates per 100,000 insured, invasive treatments and comorbidities were compared from January-May 2019 (pre-COVID) to January-May 2020 (COVID). A total of 115,720 hospitalizations were included in the current analysis (51.3% females, mean age 72.9 years). Monthly admission rates declined from 78.6/100,000 insured (pre-COVID) to 70.6/100,000 (COVID). The lowest admission rate was observed in April 2020 (61.6/100,000). Administration rates for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7.3-6.6), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (16.8-14.6), acute limb ischemia (5.1-4.6), stroke (35.0-32.5) and TIA (13.7-11.9) decreased from pre-COVID to COVID. Baseline comorbidities and the percentage of these patients treated with interventional or open-surgical procedures remained similar over time across all entities. In-hospital mortality in hospitalizations for stroke increased from pre-COVID to COVID (8.5-9.8%). Conclusions Admission rates for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular emergencies declined during the pandemic in Germany, while patients' comorbidities and treatment allocations remained unchanged. Further investigation is warranted to identify underlying reasons and potential implications on patients' outcomes. Moritz Seiffert and Fabian J. Brunner share the first authorship.

No abstract

The complexity and diversity of surgical/interventional vascular medicine necessitate innovative and pragmatic solutions for the valid measurement of the quality of care in the long term. The secondary utilization of routinely collected data from social insurance institutions has increasingly become the focus of interdisciplinary medicine over the years. Owing to their longitudinal linkage and pan-sector generation, routinely collected data make it possible to answer important questions and can complement quality development projects with primary registry data. Various guidelines exist for their usage, linkage, and reporting. Studies have shown good validity, especially for endpoints with major clinical relevance. The numerous advantages of routinely collected data face several challenges that require thorough plausibility and validity procedures and distinctive methodological expertise. This review presents a discussion of these advantages and challenges and provides recommendations for starting to use this increasingly important source of data.