Cardiovascular Outcomes in Nova Scotia During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThis study sought to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic response to healthcare delivery on outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease.MethodsThis is a population-based cohort study performed in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada (population 979,499), between the pre-COVID (March 1, 2017-March 16, 2020) and in-COVID (March 17, 2020-December 31, 2020) periods. Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with new-onset or existing cardiovascular disease were included for comparison between periods. The main outcome measures included the following: cardiovascular emergency department visits or hospitalizations, mortality, and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.ResultsIn the first month of the in-COVID period, emergency department visits (n = 51,750) for cardiac symptoms decreased by 20.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.0%-27.0%, P < 0.001). Cardiovascular hospitalizations (n = 20,609) declined by 48.1% (95% CI 40.4% to 54.9%, P < 0.001). The in-hospital mortality rate increased in patients with cardiovascular admissions in secondary care institutions by 55.1% (95% CI 10.1%-118%, P = 0.013). A decline of 20.4%-44.0% occurred in cardiovascular surgical/interventional procedures. The number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (n = 5528) increased from a monthly mean of 115 ± 15 to 136 ± 14, beginning in May 2020. Mortality for ambulatory patients awaiting cardiac intervention (n = 14,083) increased from 0.16% (n = 12,501) to 2.49% (n = 361) in the in-COVID period (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality during restrictions maintained during the COVID-19 period, in an area with a low burden of COVID-19. As the healthcare system recovers or enters subsequent waves of COVID-19, these findings should inform communication to the public regarding cardiovascular symptoms, and policy for delivery of cardiovascular care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".