Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Our goal was to compare the short-term outcomes of Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD), during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with those during normal times and summarize our perioperative management experience of patients with TAAD in the context of COVID-19.
METHODS
From 17 January 2020 to 8 March 2020, a total of 27 patients with TAAD were operated on in 8 cardiovascular surgery centres in Hubei Province (COVID-19 group). The data from 91 patients with TAAD from the same centres during the same period last year were extracted from the Hubei Cardiac Surgery Registration System (control group). A propensity score matched subgroup of 26 pairs (1:2) was identified. Perioperative data and short-term outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS
Nine patients in the COVID-19 group were categorized as suspicious for the disease (9/27, 33.3%), and others were excluded (18/27, 66.7%). No one was laboratory confirmed preoperatively. The average waiting, cross-clamp and circulatory arrest times were longer in the COVID-19 group (22.9 ± 8.3 vs 9.7 ± 4.0 h, P < 0.001; 135 ± 36 vs 103 ± 45 min, P = 0.003; 24 ± 9 vs 17 ± 8 min, P < 0.001, respectively). The 30-day or in-hospital deaths were 3.8% in both groups (P = 1.0). The COVID-19 group was associated with longer ventilation and intensive care unit times (81 ± 71 vs 45 ± 19 h, P < 0.001; 7.4 ± 3.8 vs 4.5 ± 2.7 days; P < 0.001, respectively). There were no statistical differences between the 2 groups in the incidence of complications such as stroke, neurological deficit, acute kidney injury, pulmonary infection and reoperation. Serum antibody tests for those patients showed 7 out of 9 suspected cases were Immunoglobulin G positive. No cross-infection occurred in other patients or associated medical staff.
CONCLUSIONS
With adequate preparation and appropriate protection, satisfactory early outcomes can be achieved after emergency operations for patients with TAAD during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords: Coronavirus disease 2019, Acute aortic dissection, Stanford type A aortic dissection, Emergency operation, Propensity score match
Since early December 2019, when the first case of pneumonia of unknown origin was identified in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province, a serious respiratory pandemic has spread worldwide [1–3].
INTRODUCTION
Since early December 2019, when the first case of pneumonia of unknown origin was identified in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province, a serious respiratory pandemic has spread worldwide [1–3]. As clinical data and relative knowledge accumulated, a novel beta-coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was confirmed as the causative agent [4, 5]. SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted person to person through respiratory droplets or by direct contact with a highly infectious person and can lead to viral pneumonia named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As of 4 April 2020, there have been a total of 81 669 confirmed cases and 3329 confirmed deaths across China (including Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan), with 1 051 635 confirmed cases and 56 985 confirmed deaths in more than 200 other countries [6, 7]. The World Health Organization has already declared this ongoing epidemic a global pandemic.
The pandemic broke out as winter turned to spring, which is also the time when one sees an increase in the number of cases of emergency cardiovascular diseases such as Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD). Some researchers suggested that SARS-CoV-2 might act on the cardiovascular system via the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor [3, 8] and lead to the deterioration or acute onset of underlying or pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Therefore, in the case of TAAD, if the patient presents with pericardial tamponade, visceral malperfusion, haemodynamic instability or any signs of aortic rupture, emergency surgery is inevitable and crucial. However, neither the World Health Organization interim guideline nor the New Coronavirus Pneumonia Prevention and Control Program (published by the National Health Commission of China) offered any specific recommendations for the management of patients with TAAD in the context of COVID-19 [9, 10]. Therefore, we designed this multicentre retrospective study to analyse the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with TAAD who had emergency interventions in Hubei province, the centre of the pandemic. We compared our results with the propensity score matching data extracted from the Hubei Cardiac Surgery Registration System in order to assess the early outcomes of these patients and summarize effective management experiences.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Study design
The data of patients with TAAD during the COVID-19 pandemic (from 16 January 2020 to 8 March 2020, hereinafter referred to as the COVID-19 group) were retrospectively collected from 8 different cardiovascular centres located at 6 metropolises in Hubei province. The data of patients with TAAD from the same centres during the same period last year (from 16 January 2019 to 8 March, 2019, hereinafter referred to as the control group) were extracted from the Hubei Cardiac Surgery Registration System, the administrative database of the Hubei Cardiovascular Surgery Quality Control centre, in which all inpatient hospitalizations for cardiovascular surgery in Hubei province are recorded. All patients diagnosed with Stanford TAAD who underwent operations in this period were identified. Preoperative clinical characteristics, operative variables and early outcomes were obtained from the medical records. All data of the COVID-19 group were obtained and revised with the same customized data collection form among the 8 centres. All data for the 2 groups was reviewed by 2 investigators (X.H. and Y.W.) to verify its accuracy.
The study was approved by the medical ethical committee of Wuhan Union Hospital of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Patient anonymity was assured during the analysis.
Perioperative management
The perioperative workflow of patients in the COVID-19 group is summarized in the flowchart in Fig. 1. The patients were quarantined in specific wards and were tested immediately to clarify the diagnoses of the cardiovascular lesion and of the pneumonia. All patients had preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans and haematological examinations. Oral and pharyngeal swab samples were taken from 18 patients in the COVID-19 group for a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) test using the kit (BioGerm, Shanghai, China) [11, 12].
Figure 1:
Flow chart of the perioperative management of patients who may have TAAD during the COVID-19 pandemic. *Including tests for influenza type A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Coxsackie group B virus, adenovirus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae. #For patients with rapidly deteriorating conditions who cannot wait for the qRT-PCR test results or during the early phase when the qRT-PCR kit is in short supply. §Including complete blood count, c-reactive protein test and others. ¶Including myocardial enzymology, brain natriuretic peptide analysis and others. †qRT-PCR of pharyngeal swab samples. COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019; CT: computed tomography; CTA: computed tomography angiography; ICU: intensive care unit; OR: operating room; PPE: personal protective equipment; qRT-PCR: quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction; RT-PCR: real-time polymerase chain reaction; SARS-Cov-2: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; TAAD: type A aortic dissection; UCG: ultrasonic cardiography.
The diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia was based on the New Coronavirus Pneumonia Prevention and Control Program (7th revised edition) published by the National Health Commission of China [10]. Suspected cases were identified as patients with an epidemiological history who satisfied at least 2 out of 3 requirements: typical respiratory symptoms or fever, abnormal results on a haemogram and positive results on a chest CT scan. Confirmed cases were patients suspected of having COVID-19 who had positive qRT-PCR results on samples from the respiratory tract.
An open or hybrid operation via a standard median sternotomy was performed on all patients. The brain was protected via bilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion. Moderate hypothermia (nasopharyngeal temperature 26°C) and circulatory arrest were used for total arch replacement in all cases.
Surgical staff working with patients in the COVID-19 group who were untested or who were suspected of having COVID-19 performed the operations with level III personal protective equipment, which included a disposable surgical cap, a respiratory protective device or positive pressure head cover, a medical protective mask (N95), goggles, a disposable gown worn over the surgical gown, two-layer disposable latex gloves and disposable shoe covers. For the patients whose test results were negative for COVID-19 cases, level II personal protective equipment was still required [including disposable surgical cap, goggles, medical protective mask (N95), disposable gown outside the operating coat, disposable latex gloves and disposable shoe covers].
All patients in the COVID-19 group received postoperative treatment in isolated intensive care units (ICUs) and postoperative wards. Two consecutive qRT-PCR tests were carried out on respiratory tract samples before the patient was discharged to exclude COVID-19 infection. Afterwards, the discharged patients were transported to local medical centres for isolated observation for at least 14 days. Serological samples were collected from all the patients in the COVID-19 group, and the levels of specific immunoglobulin M(IgM) and immunoglobulin G(IgG) antibodies were detected by enzyme-linked immunoassay. All the relevant medical staff also received chest CT scans and qRT-PCR tests to rule out possible cross-infection after the operation.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were expressed as the average ± the standard deviation. Categorical variables were summarized as the counts and percentages in each category. The Student’s t-test was used for continuous variables. Pearson’s χ2 or Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables. A two-tailed P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS software v19.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used.
Confounding due to differences in baseline characteristics was addressed using propensity score matching [13]. The propensity score was generated using a logistic regression algorithm. Covariates entered into the model included all measured baseline characteristics: age, gender, body mass index; risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary disease, cardiovascular disease and bicuspid valve; clinical presentations such as cardiogenic shock, stroke, cardiac tamponade, visceral ischaemia, limb ischaemia, previous cardiac surgery; and extension of dissection. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for this model was 0.80. A 1:2 match was then performed using a caliper of 0.01 of the logit of the propensity score computed by this model [14]. The baseline characteristics of the patient pairs matched by the propensity score were compared using the paired t-test for continuous variables and the McNamara test for categorical variables. A standardized difference ˂0.1 was deemed indicative of acceptable balance [15].
RESULTS
Baseline characteristics
Twenty-seven patients in the COVID-19 group and 91 in the control group were identified. The demographic characteristics of the entire cohort are presented in Table 1. For the entire cohort, the ages in the 2 groups were not different (51.1 ± 13.1 vs 52.1 ± 14.8 years; P = 0.753). Limb ischaemia occurred more frequently in the control group (14.8% vs 35.2%; P = 0.047). The preoperative cardiac tamponade rate was higher in the control group, though it did not reach statistical significance (3.7% vs 17.6%; P = 0.071). Twenty-six pairs (1:2) of patients were included after the propensity score match, and the differences in preoperative data between them were eliminated (Table 1).
Table 1:
Preoperative characteristics
| Variables | Total (N = 118), n (%) | Non-matched cohort |
Propensity matched cohort |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 group January 2020–March 2020 (N = 27), n (%) | Control group January 2019–March 2019 (N = 91), n (%) | P-value | COVID-19 group January 2020–March 2020 (N = 26), n (%) | Control group January 2019–March 2019 (N = 52), n (%) | P-value | ||
| General | |||||||
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 52.3 ± 13.2 | 51.1 ± 13.1 | 52.7 ± 14.8 | 0.614 | 50.3 ± 12.6 | 51.7 ± 12.5 | 0.644 |
| Male gender | 85 (72.0) | 20 (74.1) | 65 (71.4) | 0.788 | 20 (76.9) | 37 (71.2) | 0.588 |
| BMI(kg/m2), mean ± SD | 24.1 ± 4.1 | 24.4 ± 3.7 | 24.0 ± 4.3 | 0.397 | 24.4 ± 3.8 | 24.2 ± 3.7 | 0.824 |
| Smoking | 66 (55.9) | 15 (55.6) | 51 (56.0) | 0.964 | 14 (53.8) | 29 (55.8) | 0.872 |
| Risk factors | |||||||
| Hypertension | 92 (78.0) | 18 (66.7) | 74 (81.3) | 0.107 | 17 (65.4) | 39 (75) | 0.374 |
| Diabetes | 28 (30.8) | 9 (33.3) | 19 (20.9) | 0.219 | 8 (30.8) | 13 (17.3) | 0.588 |
| COPD | 29 (24.6) | 6 (22.2) | 23 (25.3) | 0.746 | 5 (19.2) | 11 (21.2) | 0.811 |
| Coronary disease | 12 (10.2) | 2 (7.4) | 10 (11.0) | 0.589 | 2 (7.7) | 6 (11.5) | 0.653 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 14 (11.9) | 1 (3.7) | 13 (14.3) | 0.135 | 1 (3.8) | 8 (15.4) | 0.174 |
| Hypertension | 92 (78.0) | 18 (66.7) | 74 (81.3) | 0.107 | 17 (65.4) | 39 (75) | 0.374 |
| Clinical presentation | |||||||
| Cardiogenic shock | 4 (3.4) | 0 (0) | 4 (4.4) | 0.268 | 0 (0) | 2 (3.8) | 0.302 |
| Stroke | 6 (5.1) | 1 (3.7) | 5 (5.5) | 0.71 | 1 (3.8) | 3 (5.8) | 0.717 |
| Cardiac tamponade | 17 (14.4) | 1 (3.7) | 16 (17.6) | 0.071 | 1 (3.8) | 5 (9.6) | 0.506 |
| Visceral ischaemia | 7 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 7 (7.7) | 0.137 | 0 (0) | 2 (3.8) | 0.666 |
| Limb ischaemia | 34 (28.8) | 4 (14.8) | 32 (35.2) | 0.047 | 3 (11.5) | 9 (17.3) | 0.506 |
| Previous cardiac surgery | 7 (5.9) | 1 (3.7) | 6 (6.6) | 0.577 | 0 (0) | 1 (1.9) | 0.83 |
| Extension of dissection | |||||||
| Asc Ao | 8 (6.8) | 1 (3.7) | 7 (7.7) | 0.469 | 1 (3.8) | 3 (5.8) | 0.827 |
| Asc Ao + Arch | 20 (16.9) | 4 (14.8) | 16 (17.6) | 0.736 | 4 (15.4) | 9 (17.3) | 0.815 |
| Asc Ao + Arch + Desc | 90 (76.3) | 22 (81.5) | 68 (74.7) | 0.468 | 21 (80.8) | 40 (76.9) | 0.361 |
Asc Ao: ascending aorta; BMI: body mass index; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019; Desc: descending aorta; SD: standard deviation.
Clinical characteristics in the coronavirus disease-19 group
Laboratory test results showed that most patients in the COVID-19 group had abnormal white blood cell counts (17/27, 63.0%) and about half of them had lymphopenia (11/27, 40.7%). All 27 patients had chest CT scans, and pulmonary exudation or ground-glass opacities were found in 7 patients (7/27, 25.9%). Due to the suddenness of the outbreak and the lack of standard COVID-19 PCR kits in the early phase of the pandemic, not all patients had preoperative qRT-PCR results. The results for the 18 patients for whom we had qRT-PCR results from samples from the respiratory tract were all negative. According to the guideline of the National Health Commission, 9 patients were categorized as suspected cases (9/27, 33.3%), and other patients were excluded from COVID-19 diagnosis (18/27, 66.7%) (Supplementary Material, Tables S1–S3).
Operative variables
The average waiting time (from administration to operation) was longer in the COVID-19 group (22.9 ± 8.3 vs 9.7 ± 4.0 h; P < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentage of hybrid operations between the 2 groups (15.4% vs 17.3%; P = 0.830). Aortic root operations, including the Bentall, David and Wheat procedures, were necessary for 6 patients (23.1%) in the COVID-19 group, whereas they were necessary for 18 patients (34.6%) in the control group (P = 0.135). Patients in the COVID-19 group had significantly longer clamp times (135 ± 36 vs 103 ± 45 min; P = 0.003) and circulatory arrest times (24 ± 9 vs 17 ± 8 min; P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences between the 2 groups in operation times, cardiopulmonary bypass times and transfusions of red blood cells, confirmed in propensity score matching cohorts (Table 2).
Table 2:
Operative variables
| Variables | Total (N = 118), n (%) | Non-matched cohort |
Propensity matched cohort |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 group January 2020–March 2020 (N = 27), n (%) | Control group January 2019–March 2019 (N = 91), n (%) | P-value | COVID-19 group January 2020–March 2020 (N = 26), n (%) | Control group January 2019–March 2019 (N = 52), n (%) | P-value | ||
| Waiting time to operation (h) mean ± SD | 13.7 ± 6.5 | 22.7 ± 8.3 | 8.1 ± 3.7 | <0.001 | 22.9 ± 8.3 | 9.7 ± 4.0 | <0.001 |
| Hybrid surgery | 21 (17.8) | 4 (14.8) | 27 (29.7) | 0.123 | 4 (15.4) | 9 (17.3) | 0.830 |
| Aortic root operationa | 36 (30.5) | 6 (22.2) | 30 (33.0) | 0.287 | 6 (23.1) | 18 (34.6) | 0.135 |
| Operation time (min), mean ± SD | 437 ± 109 | 460 ± 116 | 429 ± 102 | 0.183 | 456 ± 116 | 414 ± 119 | 0.145 |
| Clamp time (min), mean ± SD | 118 ± 36 | 136 ± 35 | 112 ± 40 | 0.006 | 135 ± 36 | 103 ± 45 | 0.003 |
| CPB time (min), mean ± SD | 208 ± 57 | 228 ± 72 | 206 ± 44 | 0.055 | 226 ± 72 | 202 ± 52 | 0.098 |
| CA time (min),b mean ± SD | 20 ± 9 | 24 ± 9 | 18 ± 9 | 0.003 | 24 ± 9 | 17 ± 8 | <0.001 |
| Transfusion of red blood cells (U), mean ± SD | 6.3 ± 2.8 | 6.8 ± 2.9 | 6.1 ± 2.9 | 0.27 | 6.8 ± 2.9 | 6.4±2.5 | 0.531 |
Including Bentall, David and Wheat operations.
Only for operations needing total arch replacement with deep hypothermia and circulatory arrest.
CA: circulatory arrest; COVID-19: coronavirus disease-2019; CPB: cardiopulmonary bypass; SD: standard deviation.
Early outcomes
The early postoperative outcomes are summarized in Table 3. The overall in-hospital/30-day mortality was 3.4% (4/118). A comparison of both unmatched and matched in-hospital mortality showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. There was 1 death (3.8%; multiorgan failure) in the COVID-19 group and 2 deaths (3.8%) in the control group (P = 1.0).
Table 3:
Early outcomes
| Variables | Total (N = 118), n (%) | Non-matched cohort |
Propensity matched cohort |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 group January 2020–March 2020 (N = 27), n (%) | Control group January 2019–March 2019 (N = 91), n (%) | P-value | COVID-19 group January 2020–March 2020 (N = 26), n (%) | Control group January 2019–March 2019 (N = 52), n (%) | P-value | ||
| 30-Day mortality (%) | 4 (3.4) | 1 (3.7) | 3 (3.3) | 0.908 | 1 (3.8) | 2 (3.8) | 1 |
| Stroke (%) | 6 (5.1) | 1 (3.7) | 5 (5.5) | 0.729 | 1 (3.8) | 3 (5.8) | 0.817 |
| Neurological deficit (%) | 6 (5.1) | 1 (3.7) | 5 (5.5) | 0.729 | 1 (3.8) | 4 (7.7) | 0.644 |
| Acute kidney injury (%) | 15 (12.7) | 2 (7.4) | 13 (14.3) | 0.166 | 2 (7.7) | 7 (13.5) | 0.488 |
| Pulmonary infection (%) | 29 (33.1) | 14 (51.9) | 25 (27.5) | 0.018 | 14 (53.8) | 10 (19.2) | 0.003 |
| ARDS (%) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.1) | 0.584 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 |
| CPR (%) | 2 (1.7) | 0 (0) | 2 (2.2) | 0.437 | 0 (0) | 2 (3.8) | 0.311 |
| ECMO usage (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 |
| Septic shock (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 |
| Unplanned reintubation (%) | 5 (4.2) | 0 | 5 (5.5) | 0.248 | 0 (0) | 3 (5.8) | 0.212 |
| Reoperation (%) | 8 (6.8) | 1 (3.7) | 7 (7.7) | 0.419 | 1 (3.8) | 5 (9.6) | 0.367 |
| ICU time (days), mean ± SD | 5.2 ± 3.6 | 7.2 ± 3.9 | 4.3 ± 2.9 | <0.001 | 7.4 ± 3.8 | 4.5 ± 2.7 | 0.002 |
| Ventilation time (h), mean ± SD | 49 ± 23 | 79 ± 71 | 41 ± 20 | <0.001 | 81 ± 71 | 45 ± 19 | <0.001 |
| Postoperative qRT-PCR | N/A | 0 (0) | N/A | N/A | 0 (0) | N/A | N/A |
| COVID-19 IgM positive | N/A | 0 (0) | N/A | N/A | 0 (0) | N/A | N/A |
| COVID-19 IgG positive | N/A | 7 (25.9) | N/A | N/A | 7 (26.9) | N/A | N/A |
ARDS: acute respiratory syndrome; COVID-19: coronavirus disease-2019; CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ECMO: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; ICU: intensive care unit; IgM: Immunoglobulin M; IgG: Immunoglobulin G; qRT-PCR: quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
As of 8 April 2020, all patients in the COVID-19 group were extubated. There was no cardiopulmonary resuscitation, acute respiratory syndrome, septic shock or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation usage in the entire cohort. The patients in the COVID-19 group had longer ventilation times and ICU stays compared to the control group (81 ± 71 vs 45 ± 19 h; P < 0.001; 7.4 ± 3.8 vs 4.5 ± 2.7 days; P = 0.002, respectively). No statistical differences in the incidence of stroke, permanent or temporary neurological deficit, acute kidney injury, pulmonary infection, unplanned reintubation and reoperation were found between the 2 groups. Four patients (15.4%) in the COVID-19 group had already been discharged. Although results from the qRT-PCR tests and the IgM tests of all patients in the COVID-19 group were negative postoperatively, 7 of them (25.9%, all categorized as suspected cases before) were positive for COVID-19 IgG antibody. No cross-infection occurred in surgeons, nurses, anaesthetists and other medical staff who had close contact with the patients.
DISCUSSION
Hubei is the centre and most seriously affected province of the COVID-19 pandemic in China. As of April 4, the proportion of confirmed COVID-19 patients in Hubei province was 83.02% (67 803/81 669), whereas the proportion of the population of Hubei compared to that of the entire country was only 4.23% (59.2 million/1400.8 million, as of 2018) [6]. Normal medical activities including cardiovascular surgical procedures were severely disturbed by the pandemic. However, the pandemic broke out between winter and spring, the high incidence seasons of acute aortic dissection. These factors make it extremely challenging for cardiovascular surgeons who must treat these critically ill patients in the context of COVID-19. Moreover, it has been suggested that COVID-19 has a close relationship with the cardiovascular system. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 may aggravate pre-existing cardiovascular disorders through virulence, inflammation, down-regulation of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system [16, 17]. Dyspnoea, fever and hypoxaemia caused by COVID-19 may also be a precipitating cause of an acute onset of aortic dissection [18]. Additionally, the essential steps during cardiovascular operations such as mechanical ventilation, cardiopulmonary bypass, deep hypothermia and circulatory arrest produce unfavourable effects on cardiopulmonary function and add complexity to the perioperative management of patients with TAAD concomitant with diagnosed or suspected COVID-19. Therefore, it is of great clinical significance to summarize the effects and management strategies of emergency dissection operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This multicentre retrospective study adopted a propensity score matching method to compare the clinical characteristics and early outcomes of patients with TAAD during the pandemic versus those during the normal period. Based on our findings, the pandemic and the corresponding protective measures have little influence on the early mortality and morbidities of the major postoperative complications after emergency operations for patients with TAAD. No patients or relevant medical staff were cross-infected after medical observation for at least 14 days. Only longer ventilation times and ICU stays were found in the COVID-19 group. However, the pandemic still had some negative impacts on clinical practice for cardiovascular surgeons.
After the outbreak of the pandemic, the first important challenge faced by cardiovascular surgeons was differential diagnoses because the signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as fever, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain and fatigue, are also common in cardiovascular disorders. A definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 still relies on chest CT scans and qRT-PCR test results [19, 20]. However, in the early phase, there was a shortage of PCR kits in Hubei, and the average timespan for receiving the test results was longer than 24 h. Because TAAD is a severe cardiovascular disease that deteriorates rapidly with high natural course mortality, there was no time for patients to wait for the final diagnosis if there was haemodynamic instability or any signs of dissection progression. In addition, we noticed that the preoperative preparation took more time than usual, such as waiting for the results of the qRT-PCR test, which may increase the risk of preoperative death. There were 4 preoperative deaths in our centre during the pandemic because of dissection rupture. Therefore, if emergency surgery is required, the relevant medical staff should adopt all integrative systemic protection measures as if the diagnosis of COVID-19 has been confirmed.
The personal protective equipment, especially level 3, hampers the performance of the surgeons: The positive pressure headgear with the electric supply air filter respirator and googles narrows the view of the surgeons and interferes with the communication between them; double-layer latex gloves make the sensation and movement of the surgeons’ hands dull, which may slow some delicate manipulations such as coronary artery anastomosis; disposable impermeable gowns and the unavailability of air-conditioning make the surgeon feel very hot during the operation and increase their strength consumption. So, we found that the cross-clamp time and circulatory arrest time were prolonged in the COVID-19 group. However, with practice and cooperation, these adverse impacts were gradually overcome.
Limitations
This study is limited by its small sample size and retrospective method. Heterogeneity in data from different centres also needs to be taken into account when interpreting the findings. Although 7 patients in this cohort showed a positive COVID-19 IgG result postoperatively, no one was laboratory diagnosed preoperatively. The relatively high false-negative rate of the qRT-PCR test results in the early phase may lead to a certain level of misdiagnosis. Because there was no prespecified plan to adjust for multiple comparisons, P-values may not be interpreted as confirmatory but rather as descriptive. Finally, we must be aware of the uncertainty around this evolving pandemic and the regional variability around the world.
CONCLUSION
This multicentre, retrospective, propensity score matching study showed that the number of patients with TAAD treated surgically significantly decreased whereas the waiting time for surgical procedures was significantly prolonged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the surgery during the pandemic required extended cardiopulmonary and ischaemic times, the early outcomes are comparable with those in the normal era.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Supplementary material is available at ICVTS online.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation [81400290, 81800413, 81730015].
Conflict of interest: none declared.
Author contributions
Xingjian Hu: Funding acquisition; Project administration; Supervision; Visualization; Writing—original draft. Yin Wang: Formal analysis; Methodology; Software; Writing—original draft. Junwei Liu: Data curation; Project administration. Xuefeng Qiu: Data curation; Project administration. Xiaobin Liu: Data curation; Project administration. Xionggang Jiang: Data curation; Project administration. Xiaofan Huang: Data curation; Project administration. Xianqing Feng: Data curation; Project administration. Yulin Zhang: Data curation; Project administration. Songlin Zhang: Data curation; Project administration. Haiyun Qian: Data curation; Project administration. Wei Liu: Data curation; Project administration. Jun Zhang: Data curation; Project administration. Jiashou Dong: Data curation; Project administration. Jiajun Chen: Data curation; Project administration. Jiahong Xia: Resources; Supervision; Validation. Nianguo Dong: Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Supervision; Writing—review & editing. Long Wu: Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Writing—review & editing.
Reviewer information
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review process of this article.
Supplementary Material
Glossary
Abbreviations
- COVID-19
Coronavirus disease 2019
- CT
Computed tomography
- ICU
Intensive care unit
- qRT-PCR
Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction
- SARS-CoV-2
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
- TAAD
Type A aortic dissection
Contributor Information
Yin Wang, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Junwei Liu, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xuefeng Qiu, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xiaobin Liu, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xionggang Jiang, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xiaofan Huang, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xianqing Feng, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Yulin Zhang, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Yichang First People’s Hospital, Three Gorges University, Yichang, China.
Songlin Zhang, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Yichang Central People’s Hospital, Three Gorges University, Yichang, China.
Haiyun Qian, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Jingzhou Central Hospital, Jingzhou, China.
Wei Liu, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Sinopharm Dongfeng General Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China.
Jun Zhang, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shiyan Taihe Hospital, Shiyan, China.
Jiashou Dong, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Jingmen First People’s Hospital, Jingmen, China.
Jiajun Chen, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Xiangyang Central Hospital, Xiangyang, China.
Jiahong Xia, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Nianguo Dong, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China; Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hubei Cardiovascular Surgery Quality Control Center, Wuhan, China.
Long Wu, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
REFERENCES
- 1. Chan JF, Kok KH, Zhu Z, Chu H, To KK, Yuan S. et al. Genomic characterization of the 2019 novel human-pathogenic coronavirus isolated from a patient with atypical pneumonia after visiting Wuhan. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020;9:221–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y. et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet 2020;395:507–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J. et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020;323:1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Zhang T, Wu Q, Zhang Z. Probable pangolin origin of SARS-CoV-2 associated with the COVID-19 outbreak. Curr Biol 2020;30:1346–51.e2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Xia J, Liu H. et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8:475–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. National Health Commission of China. April 4: Daily Briefing on Novel Coronavirus Cases in China. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202004/4f4e36d54fc941d48f6ce6554514075e.shtml (20 April 2020, date last accessed).
- 7. World Health Organization. WHO COVID-19 Dashboard. https://who.sprinklr.com/ (20 April 2020, date last accessed).
- 8. Letko M, Marzi A, Munster V. Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS-CoV-2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses. Nat Microbiol 2020;5:562–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. World Health Organization. Clinical Management of Severe Acute Respiratory Infection When Novel Coronavirus (nCoV) Infection is Suspected. Interim Guidance 2020. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/clinical-management-of-novel-cov.pdf (12 January 2020, date last accessed).
- 10. National Health Commission of China. New Coronavirus Pneumonia Prevention and Control Program (7th edition). (in Chinese). 2020. https://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7653p/202003/46c9294a7dfe4cef80dc7f5912eb1989/files/ce3e6945832a438eaae415350a8ce964.pdf (3 March 2020, date last accessed).
- 11. World Health Organization. Laboratory Testing for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Suspected Human Cases. Interim guidance 2020. https://www.who.int/publications-detail/laboratory-testing-for-2019-novel-coronavirus-in-suspected-human-cases-20200117 (17 January 2020, date last accessed).
- 12. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DKW. et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill 2020;25:2000045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Deb S, Austin PC, Tu JV, Ko DT, Mazer CD, Kiss A. et al. A review of propensity-score methods and their use in cardiovascular research. Can J Cardiol 2016;32:259–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med 2006;25:2084–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Austin PC, Schuster T. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: a simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res 2016;25:2214–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Sun P, Lu X, Xu C, Sun W, Pan B. Understanding of COVID-19 based on current evidence. J Med Virol 2020;92:548–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Zhao Y Zhao Z, Wang Y, Zhou Y, Ma Y, Zuo W. Single-cell RNA expression profiling of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2 Am J Resp Crit Care 2020;202:756–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Corrales-Medina VF, Musher DM, Shachkina S, Chirinos JA. Acute pneumonia and the cardiovascular system. Lancet 2013;381:496–505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Zhang J, Zhou L, Yang Y, Peng W, Wang W, Chen X. Therapeutic and triage strategies for 2019 novel coronavirus disease in fever clinics. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8:e11–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Wang Y, Kang H, Liu X, Tong Z. Combination of RT-qPCR testing and clinical features for diagnosis of COVID-19 facilitates management of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. J Med Virol 2020;92:538–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.


