American Journal of Emergency Medicine 47 (2021) 42-51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

American Journal of Emergency Medicine

journal homepage:

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department visits for serious cardiovascular conditions

Jesse M. Pines, MD, MBA, MSCE ^a,b,?, Mark S. Zocchi, MPH ^c, Bernard S. Black, JD ^d, Pablo Celedon ^a, Jestin N. Carlson, MD ^a,e, Ali Moghtaderi, PhD ^f, Arvind Venkat, MD ^a,b,

For the US Acute Care Solutions Research Group

^a US Acute Care Solutions, Canton, OH, United States of America

^b Department of Emergency Medicine, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America

^c The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, United States of America

^d Northwestern University, Pritzker School of Law and Kellogg School of Management, Evanston, IL, United States of America

^e Department of Emergency Medicine, Saint Vincent Hospital, Erie, PA, United States of America

^f Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States of America

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 12 February 2021

Received in revised form 27 February 2021 Accepted 2 March 2021

Keywords: Cardiology COVID-19

Pandemic Emergency

Emergency department

a b s t r a c t

Objective: We examine how emergency department (ED) visits for serious cardiovascular conditions evolved in the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic over January-October 2020, compared to 2019, in a large sample of U.S. EDs.

Methods: We compared 2020 ED visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, relative to 2019 visits in 108 EDs in 18 states in 115,716 adult ED visits with diagnoses for five serious cardiovascular conditions: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction , Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), ischemic stroke (IS), hemorrhagic stroke (HS), and heart failure . We calculated weekly ratios of ED visits in 2020 to visits in 2019 in the pre-pandemic (Jan 1-March 10), early-pandemic (March 11-April 21), and later- pandemic (April 22-October 31) periods.

Results: ED visit ratios show that NSTEMI, IS, and HF visits dropped to lows of 56%, 64%, and 61% of 2019 levels, respectively, in the early-pandemic and gradually returned to 2019 levels over the next several months. HS visits also dropped early pandemic period to 60% of 2019 levels, but quickly rebounded. We find mixed evidence on whether STEMI visits fell, relative to pre-pandemic rates. Total adult ED visits nadired at 57% of 2019 volume dur- ing the early-pandemic period and have only party recovered since, to approximately 84% of 2019 by the end of October 2020.

Conclusion: We confirm prior studies that ED visits for serious cardiovascular conditions declined early in the COVID-19 pandemic for NSTEMI, IS, HS, and HF, but not for STEMI. Delays or non-receipt in ED care may have led to worse outcomes.

(C) 2021

1. Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread across the United States in early 2020 with extensive publicity and lockdowns beginning in mid-March. One effect of the pandemic was a reduction in non-COVID-19 care in emergency departments (EDs) and other set- tings. Emergency care avoidance was driven by stay-at-home orders, concerns that the emergency care system would be overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases, and patient worries about becoming infected in healthcare settings. [1] U.S. ED visits declined precipitously, reaching a

* Corresponding author at: National Director of Clinical Innovation, US Acute Care Solutions, 2424 N. Potomac St. Arlington, VA, United States of America.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Pines).

low point in the second week of April at 58% of 2019 volume. [2-4] An- ecdotal evidence indicates that since then, ED visits have partially recov- ered but remain substantially below 2019 levels. Other contributors to lower ED visits likely include less communicable disease other than COVID-19, and lower injury rates, due to social distancing, mask wear- ing, and school/business closures, and care shifts to other venues, including telemedicine. [5]

Prior work has reported considerable declines not only for lower acuity ED care, but also serious cardiovascular conditions, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and heart failure, where emergency care is clearly indicated and timely care can be lifesaving. Multiple studies have found lower ED visits for serious, life- threatening conditions, both in the U.S., [6-9] and internationally. [10-13] Declines in visits for these conditions likely reflect ED

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2021.03.004

0735-6757/(C) 2021

pre-pandemic period (January 1-Marc”>avoidance, rather than lower disease incidence. This is because these conditions are commonly caused by underlying medical risk, which should not be strongly affected by behavior change due to the pan- demic. The underlying incidence of AMI and stroke may have increased among people who contract COVID-19 due to its pro-thrombotic nature. [14]

However, the early studies have notable limitations. For one, all in- vestigate only a limited period following the mid-March onset of the pandemic. Some involve indirect evidence, rather than direct evidence obtainable from ED records. [7,8] Some grouped more and less Serious conditions together. [6,10-12] For example, timely care is crucial for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction , hemorrhagic stroke (HS) and often for ischemic stroke (IS). [15] By contrast, immedi- ate care can be less crucial for some non-ST-segment elevation myocar- dial infarction (NSTEMI), and for some cases of heart failure . Some HF can be managed through telemedicine, use of which grew rapidly during the pandemic. [16,17]

We add to the evidence on ED avoidance by providing data on how ED visits for a broad group of serious cardiovascular conditions (STEMI, NSTEMI, IS, HS; HF) evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as overall ED visits over a longer time period through October 2020 in a large, geographically diverse sample of U.S. academic and community EDs.

1. Methods
   1. Study design and setting

We used data from a national emergency medicine group to perform a retrospective longitudinal study of adult ED visits (age 18 and older). We compared ED visit rates from January-October 2020 to the same time period in 2019, across 108 EDs in 18 states continuously staffed by the emergency medicine group. Our dataset has been described else- where in detail, and includes granular patient-level information on de- mographics, diagnoses, and disposition. [18] Data elements are extracted directly from electronic health records at each ED site and an- alyzed centrally for operational and billing purposes. Diagnoses are assigned by trained coders, and regular quality assurance is performed to ensure data integrity. ED location as large central metro, large fringe metro/medium metro, or small metro and non-metro was defined using the National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. [19] This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Allegheny Health Network.

• 1. Serious cardiovascular conditions

The primary analysis included five serious cardiovascular conditions, STEMI, NSTEMI, IS, HS, and HF, identified using the primary Interna- tional Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), Diagnosis codes (see appendix for coding details). STEMI, NSTEMI, HS, and IS were chosen because they represent common, time-sensitive condi- tions where ED and hospital care improves outcomes. HF was also in- cluded as a serious, debilitating condition where some exacerbations can be life-threatening, but some are treatable without an ED visit. We also studied total adult ED visits across all sites for comparison purposes. All visits with a primary or secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 (ICD-10 of U07.1 or B97.29) were excluded from all analyses.

• 1. Methods of measurement and data analysis

Using data from January-October 2019 and January-October 2020, we aggregated patient-level visit data to the ED-week level and calcu- lated, for each ED, 3-week moving averages of visit counts in 2020 and the corresponding 3-week periods in 2019. We then calculated the overall weekly means of the moving averages across all EDs, using 2019 total ED visit volumes as weights, and computed a 2020/2019

ratio of the moving averages. These ratios can be interpreted as frac- tional changes from 2019 to 2020 (e.g., a ratio of 0.80 would indicate a 20% drop in ED visits in 2020 relative to 2019).

We rely principally on graphs of the weekly ratios, but also divided the sample period into three subperiods: a pre-pandemic period (weeks beginning January 1 – March 4, 2020), an early-pandemic period (weeks beginning March 11-April 15), and a later pandemic pe- riod (weeks beginning April 22 or later). Extensive COVID-19 publicity began mid-March, with a national emergency order issued on March

13. Given the use of a 3-week rolling averages, the week of March 11 be- gins to capture pandemic effects, but they are not fully captured until the week of March 25. We chose the dividing line between the early and later period based on total ED visits for all causes, which nadired during the week of April 15, and then began to recover.

We also computed the change in the 2020/2019 visit ratio from the pre-pandemic period to the early and the later pandemic period. We also studied total ED visits by age category and gender, and studied car- diovascular conditions by ED location (large central metro; large fringe/ medium metro; small metro/non-metro), ED size based on 2019 visit volume (<30,000 visits, 30,000-59,999 visits, and > 60,000 visits), and academic versus community hospital. Stata version 16.1 was used for all analyses (College Station, TX).

1. Results

We included 2,511,783 ED visits in 2020 and 3,055,151 ED visits in 2019 across study sites. Of those, there were 55,842 visits in 2020 (2.2%) with any of the five serious cardiovascular conditions and 59,874 (2.0%) visits in 2019. Of the 115,716 visits for serious cardiovas- cular conditions in both years, 53,960 (47%) were for HF, 26,944 were for IS (23%), 17,802 were for NSTEMI (15%), 9310 for STEMI (8%), and 7700 for HS (7%).

• 1. Pre-pandemic period (January 1-March 11, 2020)

During the pre-pandemic period, total ED visits in 2020 were similar to 2019 (2020/2019 ratio = 1.01), but slightly higher for patients age 65 and older and for small EDs (2020/2019 ratios = 1.03). The 2020/2019 ratios for the five serious conditions together were more variable, with HS and HF differing the most (2020/2019 ratios = 0.91 and 1.08) (Table 1). The ratios also fluctuated during the pre-pandemic period; for example, the STEMI ratio averaged 0.96 but ranged from a low of

0.80 to a high of 1.10.

• 1. Early-pandemic period (March 11–April 21, 2020)

During the early-pandemic period, the total ED visit 2020/2019 ratio fell sharply, and averaged 0.67 during this period, with greater reduc- tions for adults 65 and older (average ratio = 0.62) and females (aver- age ratio = 0.62). Visits for serious conditions also declined significantly during the early pandemic period (average ratio = 0.70 for all five con- ditions together). Of the five serious conditions, visits for NSTEMI dropped the most (average ratio = 0.66), followed by HF (average ratio = 0.68). IS and HS also fell significantly (average ratios = 0.71 and 0.78, respectively). STEMI visits declined less sharply (average ratio = 0.84) and were similar to the average for the last three pre- pandemic weeks (average for these three weeks = 0.89).

The weekly 2020/2019 ratios are presented graphically in Fig. 1A (STEMI and NSTEMI), 1B (HS and IS) and 1C (HF), together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Each figure also includes the 2020/2019 ratio for all visits, for comparison. Total ED visit ratios fell sharply in the early pandemic and nadired at 57% of 2019 volume in the third week of April. The five serious cardiovascular conditions together nadired at an average of 63%. The lows by condition were 56% for NSTEMI, 64% for IS, 60% for HF and HS, and 77% for STEMI. HS demon- strated a rapid decline to 60% of 2019 volume in the week of April 1,

Table 1

Change in Emergency Care 2020/2019 Visit Ratios from the Prepandemic Period (January 1 to March 10) to Two Pandemic Periods (March 11 to April 21 and April 22 to October 27)

Change from Jan 1 – Mar 10 to:

Jan 1 – Mar 10 Mar 11 – Apr 21 Apr 22 -Oct 27 Mar 11 – Apr 21 Apr 22 -Oct 27

	Ratio	(95% CI)		Ratio	(95% CI)		Ratio	(95% CI)		Diff. (95% CI)			Diff. (95% CI)
ED Visit Ratios
All ED Visits	1.01	(1.00, 1.02)	0.67		(0.65, 0.68)	0.78		(0.77, 0.80)	-0.34		(-0.35, -0.33)	-0.22		(-0.24, -0.21)
Ages
18-44 y	1.00	(0.99, 1.01)	0.69		(0.68, 0.71)	0.78		(0.76, 0.79)	-0.31		(-0.33, -0.30)	-0.23		(-0.25, -0.21)
45-64 y	0.99	(0.98, 1.00)	0.67		(0.65, 0.69)	0.78		(0.77, 0.80)	-0.32		(-0.34, -0.30)	-0.21		(-0.23, -0.19)
65+ y	1.03	(1.01, 1.04)	0.62		(0.61, 0.63)	0.79		(0.78, 0.81)	-0.41		(-0.42, -0.39)	-0.23		(-0.25, -0.22)
Gender
Male	1.02	(1.01, 1.03)	0.73		(0.71, 0.75)	0.82		(0.81, 0.84)	-0.29		(-0.31, -0.28)	-0.20		(-0.22, -0.18)
Female	1.00	(0.99, 1.00)	0.62		(0.61, 0.63)	0.75		(0.74, 0.77)	-0.38		(-0.39, -0.36)	-0.24		(-0.26, -0.23)
Facility Characteristics ED Location
Small metro and non-metro (N = 28)	0.99	(0.97, 1.01)	0.67		(0.65, 0.70)	0.80		(0.77, 0.82)	-0.32		(-0.34, -0.30)	-0.20		(-0.21, -0.18)
Medium metro (N = 54)	1.01	(0.99, 1.02)	0.67		(0.65, 0.69)	0.80		(0.77, 0.82)	-0.34		(-0.36, -0.32)	-0.21		(-0.23, -0.19)
Large central metro (N = 26)	1.01	(1.00, 1.02)	0.66		(0.64, 0.69)	0.76		(0.73, 0.78)	-0.35		(-0.38, -0.33)	-0.26		(-0.28, -0.23)
ED Size
Small (<30,000 visits/y, N = 36)	1.03	(1.01, 1.04)	0.67		(0.64, 0.69)	0.84		(0.81, 0.87)	-0.36		(-0.39, -0.34)	-0.19		(-0.21, -0.17)
Medium (30,000-59,999 visits/y, N = 57)	0.99	(0.95, 1.02)	0.65		(0.63, 0.68)	0.76		(0.74, 0.79)	-0.33		(-0.35, -0.31)	-0.22		(-0.24, -0.20)
Large (60,000 visits/y, N = 18)	0.98	(0.96, 1.01)	0.65		(0.63, 0.68)	0.76		(0.73, 0.79)	-0.33		(-0.35, -0.31)	-0.22		(-0.25, -0.19)
Type
Community hospital (N = 101)	1.01	(1.00, 1.02)	0.66		(0.65, 0.68)	0.78		(0.76, 0.80)	-0.34		(-0.36, -0.33)	-0.23		(-0.24, -0.21)
Academic Hospital (N = 7)	1.01	(0.99, 1.02)	0.69		(0.63, 0.74)	0.80		(0.76, 0.84)	-0.32		(-0.37, -0.27)	-0.21		(-0.25, -0.16)
Visit Ratios for Serious Cardiac conditions
STEMI	0.96	(0.87, 1.06)	0.84		(0.74, 0.94)	0.91		(0.85, 0.96)	-0.13		(-0.26, 0.00)	-0.06		(-0.17, 0.05)
NSTEMI	1.09	(0.98, 1.19)	0.66		(0.57, 0.76)	0.87		(0.81, 0.93)	-0.42		(-0.58, -0.26)	-0.22		(-0.33, -0.10)
Ischemic Stroke	0.99	(0.91, 1.07)	0.71		(0.65, 0.78)	0.90		(0.85, 0.94)	-0.28		(-0.35, -0.21)	-0.09		(-0.16, -0.02)
Hemorrhagic Stroke	0.91	(0.83, 0.99)	0.78		(0.67, 0.90)	0.95		(0.89, 1.01)	-0.13		(-0.28, 0.02)	0.04		(-0.06, 0.13)
Heart Failure	1.08	(1.00, 1.15)	0.68		(0.63, 0.73)	0.98		(0.92, 1.03)	-0.40		(-0.46, -0.34)	-0.10		(-0.18, -0.02)
Any serious cardiac condition	1.04	(0.99, 1.09)	0.70		(0.67, 0.74)	0.93		(0.90, 0.96)	-0.34		(-0.38, -0.29)	-0.11		(-0.16, -0.06)

Notes: Facility means used to calculate ratios (available in the Appendix) are weighted by 2019 adult ED volume and have standard errors clustered by facility.

but rapidly recovered to pre-pandemic levels by the week of April 22. STEMI first rose and then fell, with the nadir for STEMI (77% in the week of April 15) barely below the 80% level in the pre-pandemic week of Feb 26. Examination of temporal trends by ED location (large central metro, large fringe metro/medium metro, and small metro/ non-metro), size (small, medium, and large EDs), and type (community vs. academic hospital) did not demonstrate clear differences across loca- tions, sizes, and types (see Appendix).

• 1. Later-pandemic period (April 22 – August 31, 2020)

Total ED visits gradually recovered but remained depressed during the later-pandemic period (average 2020/2019 ratio = 0.78), with a somewhat larger decline among females (average ratio = 0.75). Visits for serious cardiovascular conditions during the later-pandemic period recovered to near 2019 levels (average ratio = 0.93). There was a mod- erate recovery for NSTEMI (average ratio = 0.87), IS (average ratio = 0.90), and effectively Complete recovery in visit rates for HF (average ratio = 0.98), STEMI (average ratio = 0.91, comparable to immediate pre-pandemic weeks) and HS (average ratio = 0.95, not meaningfully difference than the pre-pandemic ratio average ratio of 0.91).

Fig. 1A-C shows the rebound in visits by condition type. The timing of the return to pre-pandemic levels for STEMI, HS, and HF varied across these conditions. STEMI visit rates never really fell; HS visits recovered by late April and HF visits recovered by late July. Total adult ED visits in- creased gradually to a 2020/2019 ratio of around 0.81 by late June but then leveled off.

1. Discussion

Understanding the extent of both initial and continuing ED avoid- ance for serious cardiovascular conditions is vital, particularly in 2021 as high COVID-19 case levels lead to public health restrictions similar

to the early pandemic periods, and stories about Hospital overcrowding emerge in the US. In our study, we demonstrate that visits for serious cardiovascular conditions declined in the early-pandemic period, with significant declines for all conditions except STEMI, for which the evi- dence for a decline is mixed. This occurred contemporaneously with large increases in COVID-19 cases in the United States. Based on 2020/ 2019 visit ratios, there were approximately 459 fewer NSTEMI, 563 fewer IS, 124 fewer HS, and 1335 fewer HF visits across the 108 EDs in the 6-week long early pandemic period. Given the clear benefits of hospital-based care for these conditions, the early pandemic declines likely worsened outcomes for many patients and led to avoidable deaths outside the hospital because ED care was not sought, and per- haps also for persons who delayed obtaining care but eventually arrived to the ED. Further study will be required to account for the pandemic’s “collateral” effects on excess morbidity and mortality for non-COVID- 19 conditions. [9]^. However, estimates of excess mortality for cardiovas- cular conditions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as of mid-January 2021 place this number at 15,574 excess

U.S. deaths for ischemic heart disease, 12,253 for cerebrovascular dis- ease, and 4447 for heart failure since February 1, 2020. [20] The ED avoidance we observe in our study likely contributed to these excess deaths, along with AMI events triggered by COVID infection and subse- quent deaths. [21]

ED visit declines for the serious conditions nadired at different levels and at different times. While the cause for these differences is unclear, the sharper drops for HF, and for NSTEMI relative to STEMI, likely reflect less severe clinical presentations of these conditions for some patients. For example, NSTEMI can be debilitating and clinically apparent in many cases (i.e. crushing chest pain). Yet, in other cases the clinical pre- sentations may be more subtle with atypical symptoms – such as short- ness of breath/generalized weakness, which patients may ignore and not seek care. [22,23] Visits for HF dipped the most of all the serious conditions, likely because many cases of non-critical HF are less

Fig. 1. Average Facility-Week Ratios for Serious Cardiac Conditions (using 3-week moving averages) in a Sample of 108 emergency departments through the COVID-19 pandemic, Fig. 1a. STEMI and NSTEMI, Fig. 1b. Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke (using 3-week moving averages), Fig. 1c. Heart Failure and Any Serious Cardiac Condition (using 3-week moving averages). Notes: Facility-week means used to calculate ratios are weighted by 2019 adult ED volume and use a three-week moving average, vertical bars represent 95% confidence intervals. STEMI = ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; NSTEMI = non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; Any serious cardiac conditions = STEMI + NSTEMI + ischemic stroke + hemorrhagic stroke + heart failure visits

immediately debilitating and might be manageable outside of the hos- pital. For example, adjusting medication through telemedicine can be achieved when Oral medication management changes are the sole inter- vention for volume overload or dehydration. One of the key

interventions by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during the pandemic was to broadly expand providers’ ability to bill for telehealth, which may have increased access to care for people who feared or avoided in-person care. [24]

Fig. 1 (continued).

We did not find clear evidence for a decline in STEMI visits during the COVID-19 period compared to earlier in 2020. This differs from three other notable studies of the early-pandemic which reported large, relative declines compared to 2019. One reported a 38% decline in activations for STEMI in 9 large, academic cardiac catheterization lab- oratories, another reported a 40% decline in STEMI in Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and a multi-center European study found that STEMI fell 22% across 9 large EDs. [7,9,11] These same studies also re- ported a larger decrease in NSTEMI visits than STEMI, which we con- firm. From these studies as well as ours, we can generalize that patients with more serious acute myocardial infarctions (i.e. STEMI) were less likely to avoid care. This is likely because the presentation of STEMI is often more clinically dramatic for patients, often with more se- vere chest pain and more associated symptoms. [25] We did not find clear patterns of care avoidance across specific types, sizes, and loca- tions of EDs.

Starting in mid-May 2020 and continuing through the summer, there was a lifting in the U.S. of stay-at-home orders and a subsequent broad, but gradual re-opening of public places and easing restrictions on gathering sizes. This also correlated with the second spike in COVID-19 cases, which being to rise in May and peaked in mid-July. While HS visits rapidly recovered to baseline, it took several additional months for NSTEMI, IS, and HF to return to 2019 levels. This slow return highlights the importance of public health messaging to ensure that people with serious cardiovascular conditions seek care throughout 2021, before the vaccine is widely available and distributed. In some communities, interventions were redeployed to retain hospital capacity for COVID-19 care during the late 2020 / early 2021 surge. Ensuring peo- ple appropriately seek care may require a combination of general public health messages, messaging targeted at higher risk patients possibly through their physicians, and increased access to telemedicine for per- sons seeking to determine whether they need ED care. [26] To our knowledge, this is the first report to quantify the degree and pace of the rebound in ED visits for serious cardiovascular conditions following the initial pandemic period.

There are several limitations to our study. First, while the EDs in our sample encompass a broad geography (18 U.S. states), they only repre- sent only approximately 2% of U.S. EDs nationally. Therefore, our results may not generalize to all U.S. EDs. Specifically, our study EDs were not located in the pandemic’s early hotspots, including New York City, and only 7 teaching hospitals are included in our sample. Unlike previous studies, that covered principally academic medical centers, we are able to provide insights from community hospital EDs, where most Americans seek care.

We rely solely on data from ED visits and could not directly observe the actual underlying incidence of disease outside the ED, outcomes for patients who avoided or delayed care (i.e. deaths at home or worse out- comes from delaying care), specific symptoms that prompted care seek- ing, or severity of illness within the ED. We also did not directly observe whether some care for patients who avoided visiting the ED was deliv- ered in other settings, including doctor’s offices, other outpatient cen- ters, or telemedicine. We only included primary ED diagnoses for these conditions. These diagnoses are sometimes provisional and may change throughout the hospitalization process as additional data or test results emerge. However, we do not think that the provision nature of some diagnoses would affect our comparison of 2020 to 2019, or a comparison across different periods during 2020. Finally, we observed higher visits for some conditions in the pre-pandemic period in 2020 compared to 2019, which appear unrelated to the pandemic. We also have found pre-pandemic visit rates to differ between early 2020 and early 2019 for other conditions, notably substance use visits, which were substantially higher in early 2020, versus the same period in 2019. [27] To address this we presented the relative declines compared to 2019 and to the pre-pandemic to offer two views of the relative visit changes.

We found that ED visits for most serious cardiovascular conditions (NSTEMI, IS, HS, and HF) declined substantially in the early-pandemic, with mixed evidence for STEMI, but visit rates broadly recovered to 2019 levels by August 2020. There were important differences across conditions, with larger declines for HF, and for NSTEMI versus STEMI,

and a more rapid rebound for HS versus IS. ED avoidance for serious car- diovascular conditions requires continued Close monitoring and poten- tial public health or other interventions, particularly throughout 2021 with rising COVID-19 cases and reimpositions of stay-at-home orders.

Funding/support

No funding was secured for this study.

Credit author statement

Jesse Pines: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing – Original Draft; Mark Zocchi: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing –

Review & Editing; Formal Analysis; Bernard Black: Methodology; Formal Analysis; Writing – Review & Editing; Pablo Celedon: Method- ology; Software; Data Curation; Writing – Review & Editing. Jestin Carlson: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing – Review & Editing. Ali Moghtaderi: Methodology; Formal Analysis; Writing – Review & Editing; Arvind Venkat: Conceptualization; Methodology; Supervision; Project administration; Writing – Review & Editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

JMP has been a consultant to CSL Behring, Medtronic, Abbott Point- of-Care, Novo Nordisk, National Quality Forum, and Beckman-Coulter on unrelated work. No other authors have any potential conflicts to disclose.

Appendix 1. Weekly means

Jan 1 – Mar 10 Mar 11 – Apr 21 Apr 22 – Aug 25

Means (SD) Means (SD) Means (SD)

	2019		2020			2019		2020			2019		2020
ED Visits/Week
All ED Visits	834.9	(342.6)	840.6	(343.9)		842.5	(342.6)	561.8	(266.0)		839.7	(346.0)	657.7	(279.8)
Ages
18-44 y	374.1	(182.8)	375.4	(185.4)		374.2	(179.8)	258.6	(143.8)		379.5	(184.7)	294.6	(147.7)
45-64 y	242.9	(103.3)	241.4	(101.6)		245.6	(104.7)	165.0	(78.3)		243.6	(104.4)	191.2	(81.8)
65+ y	217.9	(95.1)	223.7	(96.8)		222.8	(96.6)	138.2	(67.1)		216.6	(93.7)	171.8	(77.8)
Gender
Male	355.0	(153.2)	362.9	(156.4)		360.8	(155.6)	263.1	(128.4)		365.2	(160.3)	300.8	(134.3)
Female	479.9	(196.4)	477.6	(194.8)		481.8	(194.5)	298.7	(143.6)		474.5	(193.7)	356.9	(151.4)
Facility Characteristics ED Location
Small metro and non-metro (N = 28)	657.3	(317.8)	651.2	(309.7)	659.2		(312.6)	443.0	(223.2)	653.6		(312.9)	519.6	(242.6)
Medium metro (N = 54)	840.9	(328.2)	846.3	(328.5)	849.7		(331.0)	567.3	(256.5)	845.2		(333.7)	672.4	(283.4)
Large central metro (N = 26)	931.7	(340.7)	944.9	(343.0)	940.8		(336.3)	624.0	(282.5)	942.5		(340.9)	715.0	(267.0)
ED Size
Small (<30,000 visits/y, N = 36)	358.0	(124.6)	367.6	(133.4)	363.9		(127.3)	242.4	(103.4)	358.4		(127.6)	300.4	(116.9)
Medium (30,000-59,999 visits/y, N = 57)	754.5	(160.5)	743.5	(160.4)	763.2		(163.0)	498.7	(156.5)	757.9		(163.0)	579.3	(136.6)
Large (60,000 visits/y, N = 18)	1260.2	(202.4)	1239.3	(216.3)	1266.8		(197.9)	827.0	(234.2)	1270.5		(199.3)	968.0	(214.9)
Type
Community hospital (N = 101)	793.1	(330.8)	798.5	(331.4)	800.3		(331.2)	530.8	(251.1)	795.1		(332.4)	620.5	(263.4)
Academic Hospital (N = 7)	1165.1	(239.4)	1173.2	(245.2)	1176.7		(228.1)	806.8	(252.5)	1192.5		(228.7)	951.9	(226.7)
ED Visits/Week for Serious Cardiac Conditions
STEMI	1.36	(1.36)	1.31	(1.28)	1.35		(1.31)	1.13	(1.21)	1.33		(1.37)	1.21	(1.29)
NSTEMI	2.65	(2.50)	2.88	(2.53)	2.78		(2.71)	1.84	(1.76)	2.57		(2.42)	2.24	(2.03)
Ischemic Stroke	4.13	(3.64)	4.08	(3.32)	3.99		(3.63)	2.84	(2.60)	4.02		(3.38)	3.61	(3.00)
Hemorrhagic Stroke	1.30	(1.57)	1.18	(1.46)	1.17		(1.44)	0.91	(1.27)	1.13		(1.49)	1.07	(1.45)
Heart Failure	8.57	(5.76)	9.24	(5.84)	8.10		(5.25)	5.48	(4.17)	7.16		(4.74)	6.99	(5.19)
Any serious cardiac condition	18.00	(11.06)	18.69	(10.64)	17.38		(10.51)	12.21	(7.62)	16.22		(9.80)	15.12	(9.46)

Notes: Weekly means are weighted by 2019 ED volume at each facility.

Appendix 2. 2020/2019 visit ratios for serious conditions by facility characteristics

	Jan 1 – Mar 10			Mar 11 – Apr 21			Apr 22 -Oct 27
	Ratio	(95% CI)		Ratio (95% CI)			Ratio		(95% CI)
STEMI
All EDs	0.96	(0.87, 1.06)		0.84	(0.74, 0.94)		0.91		(0.85, 0.96)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	0.90	(0.75, 1.05)		0.85	(0.63, 1.08)		0.93		(0.81, 1.04)
Large fringe and medium metro	1.00	(0.87, 1.13)		0.81	(0.68, 0.94)		0.92		(0.85, 0.98)
Large central metro	0.92	(0.73, 1.11)		0.91	(0.74, 1.09)		0.87		(0.74, 1.00)
ED size
Small EDs	0.96	(0.79, 1.13)	0.69		(0.48, 0.89)	1.04		(0.93, 1.15)
Medium EDs	0.89	(0.78, 1.00)	0.87		(0.72, 1.01)	0.88		(0.78, 0.97)
Large EDs	1.01	(0.83, 1.20)	0.80		(0.65, 0.95)	0.88		(0.80, 0.97)
								(continued on next page)

(continued)
	Jan 1 – Mar 10			Mar 11 – Apr 21			Apr 22 -Oct 27
	Ratio	(95% CI)		Ratio (95% CI)			Ratio	(95% CI)
ED type
Community hospitals	0.99	(0.88, 1.09)		0.84	(0.73, 0.95)		0.92	(0.87, 0.98)
academic hospitals	0.85	(0.65, 1.04)		0.84	(0.65, 1.03)		0.82	(0.69, 0.94)
NSTEMI
All EDs	1.09	(0.98, 1.19)		0.66	(0.57, 0.76)		0.87	(0.81, 0.93)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	1.25	(1.04, 1.46)		0.74	(0.58, 0.89)		0.91	(0.65, 1.16)
Medium metro	1.06	(0.9, 1.21)		0.64	(0.5, 0.77)		0.87	(0.79, 0.94)
Large central metro	1.07	(0.94, 1.19)		0.69	(0.58, 0.80)		0.85	(0.74, 0.97)
ED size
Small EDs	0.94	(0.73, 1.15)	0.73		(0.55, 0.91)	0.94		(0.82, 1.06)
Medium EDs	1.02	(0.93, 1.11)	0.70		(0.61, 0.78)	0.87		(0.79, 0.94)
Large EDs	1.15	(0.93, 1.37)	0.59		(0.43, 0.76)	0.83		(0.71, 0.95)
ED type
Community hospitals	1.13	(1.02, 1.24)	0.69		(0.58, 0.80)	0.90		(0.83, 0.97)
Academic hospitals	0.88	(0.75, 1.01)	0.54		(0.43, 0.65)	0.72		(0.65, 0.79)
Ischemic stroke
All EDs	0.99	(0.91, 1.07)	0.71		(0.65, 0.78)	0.90		(0.85, 0.94)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	1.03	(0.95, 1.12)	0.72		(0.57, 0.87)	0.94		(0.89, 0.99)
Large fringe and medium metro	0.92	(0.83, 1.02)	0.69		(0.6, 0.77)	0.89		(0.83, 0.95)
Large central metro	1.12	(0.98, 1.27)	0.77		(0.67, 0.87)	0.90		(0.81, 0.98)
ED size
Small EDs	1.15	(0.95, 1.36)	0.72		(0.60, 0.84)	0.94		(0.85, 1.02)
Medium EDs	1.00	(0.89, 1.10)	0.69		(0.60, 0.79)	0.87		(0.80, 0.95)
Large EDs	0.92	(0.78, 1.06)	0.70		(0.60, 0.80)	0.88		(0.81, 0.96)
ED type
Community hospitals	1.00	(0.93, 1.07)	0.71		(0.64, 0.78)	0.90		(0.85, 0.95)
Academic hospitals	0.93	(0.62, 1.24)	0.74		(0.57, 0.91)	0.91		(0.81, 1.00)
Hemorrhagic stroke
All EDs	0.91	(0.83, 0.99)	0.78		(0.67, 0.90)	0.95		(0.89, 1.01)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	0.81	(0.56, 1.05)	0.93		(0.54, 1.31)	0.94		(0.75, 1.13)
Medium metro	0.94	(0.82, 1.05)	0.75		(0.6, 0.90)	0.95		(0.87, 1.03)
Large central metro	0.90	(0.78, 1.01)	0.79		(0.59, 0.99)	0.94		(0.84, 1.04)
ED size
Small EDs	1.28	(0.99, 1.58)	0.92		(0.58, 1.27)	1.10		(1.01, 1.19)
Medium EDs	0.81	(0.69, 0.92)	0.72		(0.58, 0.86)	0.87		(0.75, 0.98)
Large EDs	0.95	(0.82, 1.09)	0.79		(0.60, 0.99)	0.97		(0.88, 1.07)
ED type
Community hospitals	0.87	(0.78, 0.95)	0.78		(0.64, 0.92)	0.93		(0.86, 1.00)
Academic hospitals	1.07	(0.92, 1.22)	0.80		(0.66, 0.93)	0.99		(0.92, 1.07)
Heart failure
All EDs	1.08	(1.00, 1.15)	0.68		(0.63, 0.73)	0.98		(0.92, 1.03)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	1.07	(0.89, 1.26)	0.73		(0.64, 0.81)	1.05		(0.87, 1.23)
Medium metro	1.06	(0.97, 1.16)	0.66		(0.6, 0.72)	0.97		(0.9, 1.05)
Large central metro	1.11	(0.97, 1.25)	0.68		(0.56, 0.80)	0.94		(0.88, 1.01)
ED size
Small EDs	1.19	(1.01, 1.37)	0.66		(0.52, 0.81)	0.94		(0.81, 1.07)
Medium EDs	1.09	(1.00, 1.18)	0.63		(0.58, 0.68)	0.94		(0.86, 1.01)
Large EDs	1.01	(0.87, 1.15)	0.73		(0.62, 0.84)	1.00		(0.90, 1.09)
ED type
Community hospitals	1.09	(1.01, 1.17)	0.68		(0.62, 0.73)	0.97		(0.91, 1.03)
Academic hospitals	1.03	(0.84, 1.22)	0.68		(0.54, 0.83)	1.02		(0.90, 1.14)
Any serious cardiac condition
All EDs	1.04	(0.99, 1.09)	0.70		(0.67, 0.74)	0.93		(0.90, 0.96)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	1.06	(0.96, 1.17)	0.75		(0.69, 0.81)	0.99		(0.91, 1.06)
Medium metro	1.02	(0.95, 1.08)	0.68		(0.64, 0.72)	0.93		(0.89, 0.96)
Large central metro	1.07	(1.01, 1.14)	0.73		(0.66, 0.79)	0.91		(0.86, 0.96)
ED size
Small EDs	1.12	(1.02, 1.23)	0.70		(0.61, 0.80)	0.96		(0.89, 1.02)
Medium EDs	1.02	(0.97, 1.08)	0.68		(0.64, 0.72)	0.90		(0.85, 0.95)
Large EDs	1.00	(0.90, 1.11)	0.71		(0.63, 0.78)	0.93		(0.88, 0.97)
ED type

Community hospitals	1.05	(1.01, 1.09)	0.70	(0.67, 0.74)	0.93	(0.90, 0.97)
Academic hospitals	0.98	(0.82, 1.13)	0.69	(0.61, 0.78)	0.93	(0.88, 0.98)

Notes: Large central metro (N = 26), medium metro, including hospitals in non-central areas of large metro areas (N = 54), small metro and non-metro (N = 28); small EDs (N = 36), medium EDs (N = 57), large EDs (N = 18); community hospitals (N = 101), academic hospitals (N = 7).

Appendix 3. Weekly means for serious conditions by facility characteristics

Jan 1 – Mar 10 Mar 11 – Apr 21 Apr 22 -Oct 27

Means (SD) Means (SD) Means (SD)

	2019		2020			2019		2020			2019		2020
STEMI visits/week
All EDs	1.36	(1.36)	1.31	(1.28)		1.35	(1.31)	1.13	(1.21)		1.33	(1.37)	1.21	(1.29)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	1.12	(1.26)	1.01	(1.16)		1.19	(1.37)	1.01	(1.23)		1.09	(1.24)	1.01	(1.15)
Medium metro	1.46	(1.42)	1.47	(1.31)		1.54	(1.39)	1.24	(1.24)		1.50	(1.46)	1.37	(1.36)
Large central metro	1.32	(1.29)	1.21	(1.25)		1.12	(1.06)	1.02	(1.11)		1.18	(1.24)	1.03	(1.18)
ED size
Small EDs	0.60	(0.79)	0.57	(0.81)	0.60		(0.79)	0.41	(0.67)	0.51		(0.77)	0.53	(0.77)
Medium EDs	1.27	(1.25)	1.13	(1.15)	1.25		(1.21)	1.08	(1.09)	1.22		(1.26)	1.07	(1.17)
Large EDs	1.95	(1.55)	1.98	(1.37)	1.97		(1.46)	1.57	(1.41)	2.01		(1.52)	1.78	(1.46)
ED type
Community hospitals	1.30	(1.32)	1.28	(1.28)	1.32		(1.30)	1.11	(1.20)	1.28		(1.32)	1.18	(1.27)
Academic hospitals	1.84	(1.58)	1.55	(1.27)	1.62		(1.38)	1.36	(1.28)	1.79		(1.62)	1.46	(1.39)
NSTEMI visits/week
All EDs	2.65	(2.50)	2.88	(2.53)	2.78		(2.71)	1.84	(1.76)	2.57		(2.42)	2.24	(2.03)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	2.09	(2.10)	2.62	(2.56)	2.28		(2.29)	1.68	(1.68)	2.12		(2.06)	1.93	(1.80)
Medium metro	2.95	(2.80)	3.11	(2.70)	3.17		(3.14)	2.01	(1.87)	2.94		(2.70)	2.55	(2.22)
Large central metro	2.46	(2.00)	2.61	(2.13)	2.36		(1.86)	1.64	(1.54)	2.19		(1.92)	1.87	(1.69)
ED size
Small EDs	1.05	(1.13)	0.99	(1.25)	0.90		(1.21)	0.66	(0.85)	0.92		(1.10)	0.86	(1.03)
Medium EDs	2.57	(2.26)	2.62	(2.00)	2.45		(1.92)	1.72	(1.58)	2.44		(2.00)	2.11	(1.77)
Large EDs	3.70	(2.96)	4.25	(3.05)	4.46		(3.60)	2.64	(1.97)	3.76		(3.03)	3.13	(2.38)
ED type
Community hospitals	2.47	(2.32)	2.79	(2.51)	2.63		(2.66)	1.81	(1.73)	2.41		(2.26)	2.17	(2.00)
Academic hospitals	4.06	(3.26)	3.57	(2.60)	3.92		(2.77)	2.11	(1.93)	3.86		(3.11)	2.78	(2.20)
Ischemic stroke visits/week
All EDs	4.13	(3.64)	4.08	(3.32)	3.99		(3.63)	2.84	(2.60)	4.02		(3.38)	3.61	(3.00)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	2.93	(2.49)	3.03	(2.56)	2.85		(2.47)	2.06	(2.08)	3.02		(2.58)	2.83	(2.47)
Medium metro	4.85	(4.23)	4.48	(3.31)	4.72		(4.07)	3.25	(2.72)	4.50		(3.65)	4.00	(3.09)
Large central metro	3.55	(2.67)	3.98	(3.59)	3.38		(3.03)	2.60	(2.52)	3.78		(3.15)	3.38	(3.00)
ED size
Small EDs	1.21	(1.24)	1.40	(1.42)	1.41		(1.51)	1.01	(1.20)	1.35		(1.41)	1.27	(1.42)
Medium EDs	3.82	(3.10)	3.80	(3.16)	3.57		(2.90)	2.47	(2.15)	3.75		(3.02)	3.27	(2.66)
Large EDs	6.35	(4.16)	5.84	(3.24)	6.27		(4.44)	4.38	(2.98)	6.05		(3.64)	5.34	(3.15)
ED type
Community hospitals	3.80	(3.22)	3.80	(2.92)	3.72		(3.07)	2.63	(2.33)	3.71		(2.98)	3.32	(2.63)
Academic hospitals	6.70	(5.36)	6.23	(5.06)	6.14		(6.12)	4.53	(3.74)	6.52		(4.97)	5.91	(4.40)
Hemorrhagic stroke visits/week
All EDs	1.30	(1.57)	1.18	(1.46)	1.17		(1.44)	0.91	(1.27)	1.13		(1.49)	1.07	(1.45)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	0.79	(1.09)	0.64	(0.88)	0.66		(0.90)	0.61	(0.94)	0.64		(0.88)	0.61	(0.89)
Medium metro	1.39	(1.59)	1.30	(1.46)	1.25		(1.45)	0.94	(1.28)	1.23		(1.50)	1.17	(1.44)
Large central metro	1.46	(1.70)	1.31	(1.64)	1.32		(1.61)	1.05	(1.40)	1.26		(1.69)	1.19	(1.69)
ED size
Small EDs	0.37	(0.62)	0.47	(0.70)	0.41		(0.66)	0.38	(0.57)	0.34		(0.62)	0.38	(0.66)
Medium EDs	1.23	(1.47)	0.99	(1.30)	1.06		(1.34)	0.76	(1.10)	1.04		(1.37)	0.90	(1.31)
Large EDs	1.97	(1.80)	1.87	(1.71)	1.80		(1.66)	1.43	(1.59)	1.76		(1.78)	1.71	(1.71)
ED type
Community hospitals	1.16	(1.35)	1.00	(1.17)	1.04		(1.24)	0.81	(1.07)	0.98		(1.18)	0.91	(1.13)
Academic hospitals	2.44	(2.43)	2.62	(2.41)	2.15		(2.28)	1.71	(2.18)	2.35		(2.66)	2.34	(2.63)
Heart failure visits/week
All EDs 8.57		(5.76)	9.24	(5.84)	8.10		(5.25)	5.48	(4.17)	7.16		(4.74)	6.99	(5.19)
ED location
Small metro and non-metro	7.77	(5.59)	8.35	(6.24)	7.27		(4.70)	5.29	(3.97)	6.42		(4.81)	6.73	(5.49)
Medium metro	9.15	(6.31)	9.74	(6.10)	8.74		(5.89)	5.78	(4.58)	7.65		(5.12)	7.45	(5.62)
Large central metro	8.00	(4.60)	8.89	(4.96)	7.43		(4.04)	5.06	(3.41)	6.71		(3.78)	6.33	(3.98)
ED size
Small EDs	2.93	(2.27)	3.49	(2.86)	3.24		(2.24)	2.15	(2.00)	2.62		(2.10)	2.46	(2.06)
Medium EDs	8.31	(4.73)	9.07	(5.36)	8.27		(4.65)	5.22	(3.43)	7.04		(4.07)	6.61	(4.27)
Large EDs	12.18	(6.32)	12.30	(5.54)	10.41		(5.80)	7.55	(4.90)	9.88		(5.07)	9.85	(5.92)
ED type
Community hospitals	8.05	(5.35)	8.76	(5.77)	7.63		(4.77)	5.15	(3.95)	6.73		(4.45)	6.52	(4.68)
Academic hospitals	12.66	(7.09)	13.05	(4.94)	11.81		(7.08)	8.08	(4.88)	10.55		(5.51)	10.75	(7.14)

Any serious cardiac condition visits/week

All EDs 18.00 (11.06) 18.69 (10.64) 17.38 (10.51) 12.21 (7.62) 16.22 (9.80) 15.12 (9.46)

ED location

(continued on next page)

(continued)

Jan 1 – Mar 10 Mar 11 – Apr 21 Apr 22 -Oct 27

Means (SD) Means (SD) Means (SD)

	2019		2020			2019		2020			2019		2020
Small metro and non-metro	14.70	(9.53)	15.64	(10.11)		14.24	(8.93)	10.64	(7.19)		13.30	(8.69)	13.11	(9.08)
Medium metro	19.80	(12.44)	20.10	(11.21)		19.42	(11.90)	13.22	(8.23)		17.82	(10.85)	16.54	(10.31)
Large central metro	16.78	(8.33)	18.01	(9.36)		15.62	(7.52)	11.36	(6.36)		15.12	(7.67)	13.80	(7.47)
ED size
Small EDs	6.15	(3.66)	6.92	(4.22)	6.56		(3.95)	4.62	(3.17)	5.75		(3.55)	5.51	(3.49)
Medium EDs	17.20	(8.41)	17.61	(8.68)	16.60		(7.52)	11.25	(5.74)	15.49		(7.46)	13.96	(7.14)
Large EDs	26.15	(11.95)	26.26	(10.00)	24.91		(12.25)	17.57	(8.21)	23.45		(10.52)	21.80	(10.17)
ED type
Community hospitals	16.78	(9.62)	17.64	(9.96)	16.34		(9.06)	11.51	(6.91)	15.10		(8.55)	14.10	(8.27)
Academic hospitals	27.70	(15.88)	27.02	(12.06)	25.63		(16.07)	17.78	(10.20)	25.06		(13.81)	23.24	(13.47)

Notes: Weekly means are weighted by 2019 ED volume at each facility. Large central metro (N = 26), medium metro (N = 54), small metro and non-metro (N = 28); small EDs (N = 36), medium EDs (N = 57), large EDs (N = 18); community hospitals (N = 101), academic hospitals (N = 7).

Appendix 4. Total visit counts

Jan 1 – Mar 10 Mar 11 – Apr 21 Apr 22 – Aug 25

	No. (%)					No. (%)					No. (%)
	2019		2020			2019		2020			2019		2020
ED Visits/Week
All ED Visits	707,859	(100.0)	713,603	(100.0)		428,892	(100.0)	286,039	(100.0)		1,918,400	(100.0)	1,512,141	(100.0)
Ages
18-44 y	312,935	(44.2)	314,403	(44.1)		188,353	(43.9)	129,969	(45.4)		856,783	(44.7)	667,249	(44.1)
45-64 y	204,956	(29.0)	204,178	(28.6)		124,269	(29.0)	83,765	(29.3)		554,003	(28.9)	439,271	(29.0)
65+ y	189,968	(26.8)	195,022	(27.3)		116,270	(27.1)	72,305	(25.3)		507,614	(26.5)	405,621	(26.8)
Gender
Male	299,499	(42.3)	306,625	(43.0)		182,566	(42.6)	132,768	(46.4)		830,078	(43.3)	686,995	(45.4)
Female	408,360	(57.7)	406,978	(57.0)		246,326	(57.4)	153,271	(53.6)		1,088,322	(56.7)	825,146	(54.6)
Facility Characteristics ED Location
Small metro and non-metro (N = 28)	207,054	(29.3)	210,118	(29.4)	125,700		(29.3)	82,680	(28.9)	564,727		(29.4)	429,802	(28.4)
Medium metro (N = 54)	373,536	(52.8)	376,678	(52.8)	226,546		(52.8)	151,375	(52.9)	1,012,294		(52.8)	807,153	(53.4)
Large central metro (N = 26)	127,269	(18.0)	126,807	(17.8)	76,646		(17.9)	51,984	(18.2)	341,379		(17.8)	275,186	(18.2)
ED Size
Small (<30,000 visits/y, N = 36)	108,456	(15.3)	107,310	(15.0)	66,034		(15.4)	42,810	(15.0)	292,254		(15.2)	235,788	(15.6)
Medium (30,000-59,999 visits/y, N = 57)	402,158	(56.8)	388,655	(54.5)	243,876		(56.9)	156,339	(54.7)	1,089,301		(56.8)	818,496	(54.1)
Large (60,000 visits/y, N = 18)	197,245	(27.9)	217,638	(30.5)	118,982		(27.7)	86,890	(30.4)	536,845		(28.0)	457,857	(30.3)
Type
Community hospital (N = 101)	629,311	(88.9)	634,571	(88.9)	381,194		(88.9)	253,383	(88.6)	1,700,923		(88.7)	1,339,016	(88.6)
Academic Hospital (N = 7)	78,548	(11.1)	79,032	(11.1)	47,698		(11.1)	32,656	(11.4)	217,477		(11.3)	173,125	(11.4)
ED Visits for Serious Cardiac Conditions
STEMI	1148	(0.2)	1114	(0.2)	691		(0.2)	583	(0.2)	2995		(0.2)	2779	(0.2)
NSTEMI	2233	(0.3)	2404	(0.3)	1351		(0.3)	923	(0.3)	5794		(0.3)	5097	(0.3)
Ischemic Stroke	3332	(0.5)	3379	(0.5)	1941		(0.5)	1407	(0.5)	8859		(0.5)	8026	(0.5)
Hemorrhagic Stroke	1031	(0.1)	947	(0.1)	563		(0.1)	444	(0.2)	2411		(0.1)	2304	(0.2)
Heart Failure	7136	(1.0)	7843	(1.1)	4172		(1.0)	2784	(1.0)	16,217		(0.8)	15,808	(1.0)
Any serious cardiac condition	14,880	(2.1)	15,687	(2.2)	8718		(2.0)	6141	(2.1)	36,276		(1.9)	34,014	(2.2)

Appendix 5. International classification of diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10) codes used for serious cardiac conditions

Condition ICD-10 codes

STEMI I21.XX, I22.XX, excluding I21.4 and I22.2

NSTEMI I21.4, I22.2

Ischemic stroke G46.0-G46.7, I63.00-I63.9, I67.81, I67.82, I67.89

Hemorrhagic stroke

I60.00-I60.9, I61.0-I61.9, I62.00-I62.03, I62.1, I62.9

Heart failure I09.81, I11.0, I13.0, I13.2, I50.1, I50.20, I50.21, I50.22, I50.23, I50.30, I50.31, I50.32, I50.33, I50.40, I50.41, I50.42, I50.43, I50.810, I50.811, I50.812, I50.813, I50.814, I50.82, I50.83, I50.84, I50.89, I50.9

References

1. Wong LE, Hawkins JE, Langness S, Murrell KL, Iris P, Sammann A. Where are all the patients? Addressing Covid-19 fear to encourAge SIck patients to seek emergency

care. New England J Med Catalyst May. 2020;14. https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.20. 0193 Available at:. accessed February 27, 2021.

1. Hartnett KP, Kite-Powell A, DeVies J, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department visits – United States, January 1, 2019-May 30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:699-704.
2. Jeffery MM, D’Onofrio G, Paek H, Platts-Mills TF, Soares 3rd WE, Hoppe JA, et al. Trends in emergency department visits and hospital admissions in health care sys- tems in 5 states in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. JAMA In- tern Med. 2020 Oct 1;180(10):1328-33.
3. Pines JM, Zocchi MS, Black BS, Carlson JN, Celedon P, Moghtaderi A, et al. Character- izing pediatric emergency department visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;41:201-4.
4. Pines JM. COVID-19, medicare for all, and the uncertain future of emergency medi- cine. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;76:459-61.
5. Lange SJ, Ritchey MD, Goodman AB, Dias T, Twentyman E, Fuld J, et al. Potential in- direct effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on use of emergency departments for acute life-threatening conditions – United States, January-May 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jun 26;69(25):795-800.
6. Garcia S, Albaghdadi MS, Meraj PM, Schmidt C, Garberich R, Jaffer FA, et al. Reduction in ST-segment elevation cardiac Catheterization laboratory activations in the United States during COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 9;75(22):2871-2.
7. Kansagra AP, Goyal MS, Hamilton S, Albers GW. Collateral effect of Covid-19 on stroke evaluation in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 23;383(4):400-1.
8. Solomon MD, McNulty EJ, Rana JS, Leong TK, Lee C, Sung SH, et al. The Covid-19 pan- demic and the incidence of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 13; 383(7):691-3.
9. Metzler B, Siostrzonek P, Binder RK, Bauer A, Reinstadler SJ. Decline of acute coro- nary syndrome admissions in Austria since the outbreak of COVID-19: the pandemic response causes cardiac collateral damage. Eur Heart J. 2020 May 14;41(19):1852-3.
10. Sokolski M, Gajewski P, Zymlinski R, Biegus J, JMT Berg, Bor W, et al. Impact of coro- navirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on acute admissions at the emergency and cardiology departments across Europe. Am J Med. 2020(Sep 30) S0002-9343 (20)30825-1.
11. De Rosa S, Spaccarotella C, Basso C, Calabro MP, Curcio A, Filardi PP, et al. Societa Italiana di Cardiologia and the CCU Academy investigators group. Reduction of hos- pitalizations for myocardial infarction in Italy in the COVID-19 era. Eur Heart J. 2020 Jun 7;41(22):2083-8.
12. De Filippo O, D’Ascenzo F, Angelini F, Bocchino PP, Conrotto F, Saglietto A, et al. Re- duced Rate of Hospital Admissions for ACS during Covid-19 outbreak in Northern Italy. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(1):88-9 Jul 2.
13. Avila J, Long B, Holladay D, Gottlieb M. thrombotic complications of COVID-19. Am J Emerg Med. 2020(Oct 1) S0735-6757(20)30860-3.
14. Menees DS, Peterson ED, Wang Y, Curtis JP, Messenger JC, Rumsfeld JS, et al. Door-to- balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing Primary PCI. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):901-9.
15. Tersalvi G, Winterton D, Cioffi GM, Ghidini S, Roberto M, Biasco L, et al. Telemedicine in heart failure during COVID-19: a step into the future. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 9;7:612818. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.612818.
16. Salzano A, D’Assante R, Stagnaro FM, Valente V, Crisci G, Giardino F, et al. Heart fail- ure management during the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy: a telemedicine experience from a heart failure university tertiary referral Centre. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(6): 1048-50.
17. Carlson JN, Foster KM, Pines JM, et al. Provider and practice factors associated with emergency physicians’ being named in a malpractice claim. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71 157-164.e4.
18. Ingram DD, Franco SJ. NCHS urban-rural classification scheme for counties. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat. 2013;2(166):2014 Available at: https:// www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_166.pdf. [Accessed 27 February 2021].
19. Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19. National Center for Health Statistics, Cen- ters for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm. accessed February 27, 2021.
20. Gluckman TJ, Wilson MA, Chiu ST, Penny BW, Chepuri VB, Waggoner JW, et al. Case rates, treatment approaches, and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7;5(12):1-6.
21. Hermann LK, Weingart SD, Yoon YM, Genes NG, Nelson BP, Shearer PL, et al. Com- parison of frequency of inducible myocardial ischemia in patients presenting to emergency department with typical versus atypical or nonanginal chest pain. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105(11):1561-4.
22. Allabban A, Hollander JE, Pines JM. Gender, race and the presentation of acute coro- nary syndrome and serious cardiopulmonary diagnoses in ED patients with chest pain. Emerg Med J. 2017 Oct;34(10):653-8.
23. Medicare Telemedicine Health Care Provider Fact Sheet. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Available at. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/ medicare-telemedicine-health-care-provider-fact-sheet. accessed February 27, 2021.
24. Canto JG, Rogers WJ, Goldberg RJ, Peterson ED, Wenger NK, Vaccarino V, et al. Asso- ciation of age and sex with myocardial infarction symptom presentation and in- hospital mortality. JAMA. 2012 Feb 22;307(8):813-22.
25. Sax DR, Vinson DR, Yamin CK, Huang J, Falck TM, Bhargava R, et al. Tele-triage out- comes for patients with chest pain: comparing physicians and registered nurses. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Dec;37(12):1997-2004.
26. Pines JM, Zocchi M, Black B, Carlson JN, Celedon P, Moghtaderi A, et al. How emer- gency department visits for Substance use disorders have evolved during the early COVID-19 pandemic. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021 [in press].