Review Article

Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Deviations from Guidelines and Pragmatic Considerations for Patients and Healthcare Workers

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare:

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit to start a request.

For author reprints, please email
Information image
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating


Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is forcing cardiology departments to rapidly adapt existing clinical guidelines to a new reality and this is especially the case for acute coronary syndrome pathways. In this focused review, the authors discuss how COVID-19 is affecting acute cardiology care and propose pragmatic guideline modifications for the diagnosis and management of acute coronary syndrome patients, particularly around the appropriateness of invasive strategies as well as length of hospital stay. The authors also discuss the use of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers in cardiology. Based on shared global experiences and growing peer-reviewed literature, it is possible to put in place modified acute coronary syndrome treatment pathways to offer safe pragmatic decisions to patients and staff.

Disclosure:HS has received research funding from Amgen. SS has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Philips Volcano, and an educational grant from Medtronic. SN has received speaking fees from Philips Volcano. RAL has received speaking fees from Philips Volcano. RP has acted as a consultant for Philips. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.



Published online:

Acknowledgements:The authors are grateful for the infrastructural support from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London.

Correspondence Details:Ricardo Petraco, The Hammersmith Hospital, B-Block South, 2nd Floor, Du Cane Rd, London W12 0NN, UK. E:

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

International guidelines provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations on how to manage patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Guidance includes the appropriateness and optimal timing for percutaneous interventions as well as the ideal length of hospital stay.1–5 However, the current global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has posed an unprecedented challenge to acute and intensive care units (ICU), and forced many previously accepted clinical guidelines to be revisited and adapted across all medical and surgical specialties.6

In these circumstances, cardiology services and clinical pathways equally had to be rapidly modified and implemented.6,7 In this focused review, we discuss how COVID-19 has affected acute cardiology services, with particular focus on ACS. We propose pragmatic deviations from guidelines based on our local experience, as well as on those shared by other countries.8–10 Finally, we suggest strategies for the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff when dealing with ACS patients. Whenever possible, we aim to provide support to proposed changes based on peer-reviewed literature.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Acute Cardiology Care

Global pandemics, such as COVID-19, can affect cardiology services at many levels, with some effects being particularly relevant to the care of ACS patients.

Firstly, there has been a need for a drastic adaptation of inpatient care and redistribution of beds, with many wards transformed into dedicated COVID-19 units. This shift has impacted inpatient cardiology capacity, led to cancellation and delays of elective work and affected the normally acceptable length of hospital stay for acute cardiology patients. Secondly, as ICUs have become largely dedicated to severely ill COVID-19 patients, there remains limited capacity for the recovery of cardiothoracic surgery patients or acute cardiology patients (e.g. cardiogenic shock following MI).

Another challenge is that patients with COVID-19 can present with ECG changes and a clinical syndrome of myopericarditis that mimics ACS, potentially increasing the number of false-positive ACS calls.11–13 Troponin elevation is observed in 18–23% of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, even in the absence of chest pain, with fulminant myocarditis being reported as directly responsible for up to 7% of COVID-19-related deaths.14–16 As per data available on 9 April 2020, close to 20,000 COVID-19 patients were hospitalised in the UK, which would create approximately 4,000 new ‘false diagnoses’ of ACS.17 Thus, while the incidence of true ACS cases has fallen since the beginning of the pandemic – possibly due to patients’ reluctance to attend hospital – cases of late-presenting MI and its complications have been described.18–20

Finally, healthcare workers working in cardiology face a higher than average risk of contamination, particularly those involved in potential aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs).21 This risk is especially high during ambulance transportation and echocardiography (because of close patient interaction) and urgent percutaneous interventions.7,22,23,24

Proposed Adaptations of Acute Coronary Syndrome Pathways

For ease of display we present the ACS pathways being used at our centre (Imperial College NHS Healthcare Trust, London, UK) as schematic flowcharts. Figure 1 displays the adapted pathway for the treatment of patients presenting with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and high-risk ACS and Figure 2 shows the modified pathway for non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and ACS.

We briefly discuss the reasoning behind the most important deviations from guidelines, providing peer-reviewed evidence whenever possible. Our ACS pathways have been subjected to regional debates at the pan-London Heart Attack Centre Group and open public discussions at the Imperial College COVID-19 webinar, as well as on social media platforms and societal web content.25–27 Figure 3 summarises and displays our suggested protocol for the use of PPE by the cardiology team and catheter laboratory staff.

STEMI and High-risk Acute Coronary Syndrome

Our modified pathway to treat patients presenting with a STEMI or high-risk ACS is presented in Figure 1. The most relevant points for discussion are described in the following sections.

Reperfusion Strategies in Critically Ill Patients

Due to their high mortality and risk of transportation (for patients and staff), severely ill COVID-19 patients in ICU (patients requiring invasive organ support) who develop a STEMI or high-risk ACS should not be considered immediate candidates for emergency percutaneous revascularisation. Fibrinolysis could be considered on an individual basis following discussion with a senior colleague. If feasible, a rapid electronic multidisciplinary team meeting should occur between the clinicians involved, including intensivist, interventional cardiologist and general cardiologist, so that therapy can be administered in a timely fashion.

Triage of Patients Arriving From Ambulance Services

Up to the point of this paper being drafted, there is no approved point-of-care test for COVID-19 infection. Therefore, we suggest that patients presenting via ambulance with suspected STEMI should be assessed outside the arriving centre. In the UK, Heart Attack Centres such as our own are often based in separate units without general emergency care and so triage accordingly. If the case is clearly not cardiac based upon clinical grounds and ECG, patients should be diverted to the appropriate emergency department. This will avoid unnecessary viral exposure of hospital staff and ambulance crew caused by taking patients out of the ambulance. In centres with both emergency medicine and STEMI care, the decision is made between departments rather than between centres.

Identification of True STEMI Versus Myocarditis

COVID-19 can present as a STEMI-mimic myocarditis picture.13 Although this will result in emergency angiograms showing non-occluded coronaries, we judge that the only way of accurately reaching this diagnosis is via exclusion of STEMI. Therefore, the consideration of myocarditis as a differential diagnosis should not delay efforts to offer percutaneous reperfusion in possible COVID-19 patients presenting with chest pain and regional ST elevation on ECG. Radial angiography is recommended to reduce the risk of femoral bleeding complications.

Consideration of Lysis for COVID-19 Patients

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) should remain the preferred choice of revascularisation for STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, confirmed or highly suspicious COVID-19 patients (red box category on Figure 1) should be considered for fibrinolysis with staged PCI, particularly if the following clinical and/or logistical circumstances are present: the patient is not in a cardiac centre and transportation is likely to increase door-to-balloon time by more than 60–90 minutes; STEMI is not anterior and not involving a large myocardial territory on ECG; bleeding risk is low; patient is hypoxic and a potential high risk for generating aerosols during high-flow oxygen therapies, intubation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and there are no contraindications for thrombolysis.

The rationale for considering lysis therapy in such circumstances is the following: the survival benefit of PPCI over lysis is important but small – in the region of 2% absolute risk reduction in non-COVID-19 patients.28,29 Therefore it is likely that such benefit may be smaller or even abolished when an underlying pathology of high mortality, such as COVID-19 is present leading to inevitable delays in PCI reperfusion, caused by the inevitable delays in patient transportation and the extra time needed for protecting catheter laboratory staff members.30

In addition, transportation (from a general hospital to a cardiac centre) of highly infective COVID-19 patients, particularly those requiring high flow oxygen therapy, imposes a very high risk of contamination to healthcare workers, including ambulance crew and catheter laboratory staff.31–33

Finally, it is possible that offering PCI after COVID-19 infection has settled (fever, hypoxia, inflammation, etc) would reduce the risk of stent thrombosis. However, we believe it is important that pathways that include fibrinolysis are put in place in advance.

Firstly, decisions must be individualised and made by more than one senior physician, with the reasoning for offering lysis over PPCI being clearly documented in the patients’ medical records. Secondly, there should be a clear upfront revascularisation plan as to what to do if lysis is effective and – more importantly – if it is not and rescue PCI is needed. Finally, fibrinolysis protocols (agents, doses, contraindications, etc) should be reviewed and staff should be retrained, particularly if the centre does not use such reperfusion strategy routinely. In our pathway we present two possible drugs for lysis therapy (bottom of Figure 1).

Suggested Pathway for the Management of ST-elevation MI

Article image

Suggested Clinical Pathway for the Management

Article image

Routine Use of CT before Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

While this has been suggested in some algorithms, our internal pathway does not involve routine use of chest CT to confirm the diagnosis of COVID-19 before PPCI. At a pre-PPCI stage, CT would not change immediate management for patients or staff (who will be offered full PPE in all STEMI cases, as per below PPE section) and it would delay reperfusion time significantly.34 We believe that CT should be considered after PPCI for further stratification and inpatient management if clinicians believe it would support diagnosis of COVID-19 or would alter management.35

Early Discharge of Low-risk Patients

Following STEMI revascularisation of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, early discharge will likely reduce the risk of contamination between patients and to healthcare workers.36 Therefore, low-risk patients (those with normal left ventricular [LV] function, no haemodynamic compromise and no evidence of malignant arrhythmias) should be offered discharge within 48 hours of presentation. Such an early discharge approach has already been documented to be safe in non-COVID-19 cohorts.2,37 More formal risk scores such as the Zwolle risk score could be used to help decision-making.38–39

Personal Protective Equipment for Staff and Subsequent Management

For STEMI and high-risk ACS patients, we propose to offer the catheter laboratory staff full PPE in all cases, regardless of their COVID-19 status (see Figure 3 and PPE section below). Protection with full PPE should also apply to any close clinical and echocardiographic assessment prior to transfer to the catheter laboratory. Subsequent inpatient management and ward allocation will still be determined by their COVID-19 status or probability of disease; those patients with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 should be transferred to appropriate COVID-19 wards.

On-call Rota Adaptations and Multidisciplinary Team Discussions

During the pandemic, it is reasonable to adopt a buddy system for rotas, with one consultant on-call and a second on stand-by in case the first one falls ill. In addition, social distancing measures have affected routine implementation of face-to-face discussions among physicians. Therefore, adoption of virtual multidisciplinary teams and data compliant group messaging allows for rapid decision-making deliberations during the pandemic. All discussions should be clearly documented in patients’ medical records.

Non-STEMI and Acute Coronary Syndrome

The NSTEMI–ACS pathway is presented in Figure 2. The points in the following sections should be highlighted.

Identification of False-positive Acute Coronary Syndrome Cases

COVID-19 infection in hospitalised patients is associated with elevation in cardiac troponin in a significant proportion of cases – up to 23% of cases in a Chinese cohort.15 The precise pathophysiological mechanisms behind this myocardial injury has not yet been established, hence optimal management remains unknown. Therefore, the management of raised troponin in COVID-19 patients should be individualised and guided by their clinical presentation: if the syndrome is infective and typical of COVID-19, there is no need for specific cardiology input, targeted ACS treatment or invasive angiography. Equally, although assessment of LV function in these patients might be of prognostic value in high-risk patients, routine inpatient echocardiography studies for all cases should be avoided as it would increase the risk of transmission to staff without affecting clinical management.40 There are ongoing studies assessing the role of antiplatelets and anticoagulation on COVID-19.41,42

Management of True Acute Coronary Syndrome Cases

If the clinical picture is typical of ACS, management should remain as standard as possible for stable patients, regardless of COVID-19 status.1–5 This includes prompt initiation of pharmacological therapy and transfer to a cardiac unit with catheter laboratory facilities.

We propose that patients should be offered invasive angiography before discharge, particularly those with raised cardiac biomarkers, high-risk ECG features or regional ventricular abnormalities on echocardiography. While an early conservative discharge on medical therapy alone would reduce hospital stay, the risk of reinfarction is considerable.43

Furthermore, because a significant proportion of patients will be unwilling to seek hospital attention again because of fears of acquiring COVID-19, we judge that early medical discharge would pose an unacceptably high mortality risk during the pandemic.44–47 Finally, most cardiology units have reduced elective work, therefore there should be capacity for early angiography to all suitable patients. The timing for invasive angiography should be guided by the patient’s COVID-19 status and infectiveness. Those with acute viral symptoms, high fever, cough and sepsis are most likely highly contagious. Therefore delaying angiography until such markers are settled should be safer for staff and should also in theory reduce the risk of immediate procedural complications, such as stent thrombosis.48

In confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients, we believe bedside echocardiography should be offered judiciously for those patients with a clear clinical indication, such as clinical heart failure or suspected valvular disease.22 Also, to minimise exposure for the operator, we agree with current society guidelines that echocardiographic studies should be focused and covered by full PPE.22,31 Finally, it is expected that short turnaround point-of-care COVID-19 testing will be available soon to help decision making. The timing of testing is important and we aimed for testing at the time of first clinical contact but no later than exit from the catheter laboratory.

Early Discharge

Following invasive angiography, the aim should be for an early discharge of all uncomplicated ACS patients, ideally within 24 hours of the procedure. This strategy has been previously demonstrated to be safe and would decrease the risk of infection transmission in hospital.37,49

Personal Protective Equipment and Strategies for Staff

WHO and Public Health England have issued guidelines on the use of PPE for healthcare workers.50–51 Hospitals and cardiology units have had to adapt them to their local acute and catheter laboratory circumstances, taking into account equipment availability and costs.52

In our view, it is prudent to assume that all ACS cases have a high probability of becoming AGPs (possibly requiring high flow oxygen therapy, airway intubation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation), posing a high risk of exposure to staff. Also, emerging evidence supports the idea that many other benign physiological phenomena such as coughing and talking loudly can potentially generate droplets and aerosols.53 Finally, experience from other centres and in our own have taught us that a significant proportion of acute patients coming in via ambulance who are not known to have COVID-19, develop symptoms while in hospital and a diagnosis of the infection will be made at a later stage.54

Suggested Use of Personal Protective Equipment

Article image

Therefore, we judge that during the peak of the pandemic, and if financially and logistically viable, the following PPE strategies should be adopted for ACS cases regardless of the patient’s COVID-19 status (Figure 3):

  • Patients should wear a surgical mask during the entire hospital stay, providing it will not affect clinical care.55 Patients who require oxygen should have controlled doses administered via nasal cannula under the mask. Those requiring higher flows should be considered as an AGP.
  • Close (<2 m) contact with patients should be restricted to the minimum necessary during ward rounds.
  • It is reasonable to offer full PPE to all ambulance crew, catheter laboratory staff and echocardiography operators, as well as to acute workers with close clinical contact with the patient (Figure 3, left panel).
  • For all other healthcare workers involved with direct patient care, a minimum of basic PPE should be provided (Figure 3, right panel).
  • Thought should be given to the ventilation of catheter laboratory and ward areas as a way of promoting aerosol elimination.21,31,49

If departments face an issue of availability of PPE, it would be reasonable to offer basic PPE (Figure 3) to all staff when treating patients with very low probability of COVID-19 infection (green box on Figures 1 and 2). Importantly, this should be switched to full PPE in the event of AGP during PCI or hospital stay. For instance, patients suffering cardiac arrest would require staff in basic PPE to don full PPE before coming to provide support.


Where possible, we have used high quality peer-reviewed data to guide these recommendations. However, at the time of writing, there was an urgent need to respond to an unprecedented medical emergency, which did not allow time for much data of this kind to emerge. Accordingly, we were required to make use of the pool of data available through direct communication, social media and preprints. We have maintained these in our references to remain true to the challenges of that period.


The COVID-19 pandemic has forced cardiology departments to review previously established guidelines, particularly those affecting the care of ACS patients. However, based on shared global experiences and growing peer-reviewed literature, it is possible to put in place ACS treatment pathways that offer evidence-based decisions to patients and staff. While pathway modifications could be implemented more rapidly in the future, only further COVID-19 studies will guide us as to whether further modifications are needed.


  1. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. 2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2018;39:119–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet J-P, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016;37:267–315.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;130:e344–426.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011;124:2574–609.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2013;127:e362–425.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. European Society of Cardiology. ESC Guidance for the Diagnosis and Management of CV Disease during the COVID-19 Pandemic. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  7. Cosentino N, Assanelli E, Merlino L, et al. An in-hospital pathway for acute coronary syndrome patients during the covid-19 outbreak: Initial experience under real-world suboptimal conditions. Can J Cardiol 2020;36:961–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Tam CCF, Cheung KS, Lam S, et al. Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction care in Hong Kong, China. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020;13:e006631.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Jing ZC, Zhu HD, Yan XW, et al. Recommendations from the Peking Union Medical College Hospital for the management of acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 outbreak. Eur Heart J 2020;41:1791–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Stefanini GG, Azzolini E, Condorelli G. Critical organizational issues for cardiologists in the Covid-19 outbreak: a frontline experience from Milan, Italy. Circulation 2020;141:1597–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2020;395:1054–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Santoso A, Pranata R, Wibowo A, et al. Cardiac injury is associated with mortality and critically ill pneumonia in COVID-19: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2020;S0735-6757(20)30280-1.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Bangalore S, Sharma A, Slotwiner A, et al. ST-segment elevation in patients with covid-19 – a case series. N Engl J Med 2020;382:2478–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Ruan Q, Yang K, Wang W, et al. Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China. Intensive Care Med 2020;46:846–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, 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.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Driggin E, Madhavan MV, Bikdeli B, et al. Cardiovascular considerations for patients, health care workers, and health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:2352–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. UK Government. UK government press conference accompanying data. 9 April 2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  18. Metzler B, Siostrzonek P, Binder RK, et al. Decline of acute coronary syndrome admissions in Austria since the outbreak of COVID-19: the pandemic response causes cardiac collateral damage. Eur Heart J 2020;41:1852–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. De Filippo O, D’Ascenzo F, Angelini F, et al. Reduced rate of hospital admissions for ACS during Covid-19 outbreak in northern Italy. N Engl J Med 2020;383:88–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Garcia S, Albaghdadi MS, Meraj PM, et al. Reduction in ST-segment elevation cardiac catheterization laboratory activations in the United States during COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:2871–2.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, et al. Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections to healthcare workers: a systematic review. PLoS One 2012;7:e35797.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. British Society of Echocardiography. Updated guidance on provision of echocardiography 25/03/2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  23. Wood DA, Sathananthan J, Gin K, et al. Precautions and procedures for coronary and structural cardiac interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: guidance from Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology. Can J Cardiol 2020;36:780–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Mahmud E, Dauerman HL, Welt FG, et al. Management of acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1375–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Imperial College COVID-19 Cardiovascular Conference, Webinar. 2 April 2020. (accessed 5 November 2020).
  26. Petraco R. Huge effort from the int cardio team at @ImperialNHS. ACS #COVID–19 COVID SOP. Under discussion. Previous Twitter peer review made us change 1st lysis agent to tenecteplase. Comments welcome. Twitter 23 March 2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  27. Malik I. Protect the team: Modify ACS treatment with use of thrombolysis if needed. YouTube 17 April 2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  28. Weaver WD, Simes RJ, Betriu A, et al. Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review. JAMA 1997;278:2093–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials. Lancet 2006;367:579–88.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Armstrong PW, Gershlick AH, Goldstein P, et al. Fibrinolysis or primary PCI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1379–87.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Schwartz J, King CC, Yen MY. Protecting healthcare workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) coronavirus outbreak: lessons from Taiwan’s severe acute respiratory syndrome response. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71:858–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Boehronger B, O’Meara P, Wingrove G, Nudell N. An emergency amendment to the national scope of practice for paramedics in the setting of a global pandemic. J Rural Health 2020.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Buick JE, Cheskes S, Feldman M, et al. COVID-19: what paramedics need to know! CJEM 2020;22:426–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Perotte R, Lewin GO, Tambe U, et al. Improving emergency department flow: reducing turnaround time for emergent CT scans. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2018;2018:897–906.
  35. Zeng J, Huang J, Pan L. How to balance acute myocardial infarction and COVID-19: the protocols from Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital. Intensive Care Med 2020;46:1111–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Chen X, Tian J, Li G, et al. Initiation of a new infection control system for the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20:397–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Wang G, Zhao Q, Cheng Q, et al. Comparison short time discharge with long time discharge following uncomplicated percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2019;19:109.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. De Luca G, Suryapranata H, van’t Hof AWJ, et al. Prognostic assessment of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty: implications for early discharge. Circulation 2004;109:2737–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Tralhão A, Ferreira AM, Madeira S, et al. Applicability of the Zwolle risk score for safe early discharge after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Rev Port Cardiol 2015;34:535–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Inciardi RM, Lupi L, Zaccone G, et al. Cardiac involvement in a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol 2020;5:819–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Preventing cardiac complication of COVID-19 disease with early acute coronary syndrome therapy: a randomised controlled trial. (C-19-ACS). (accessed 29 September 2020).
  42. A randomized trial of anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  43. Fox KAA, Clayton TC, Damman P, et al. Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2435–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Thornton J. Covid-19: A&E visits in England fall by 25% in week after lockdown. BMJ 2020;369:m1401.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Mitchell J. NHS urges public to get care when they need it. British Heart Foundation 25 April 2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  46. Tam CCF, Cheung K-S, Lam S, et al. Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on outcome of myocardial infarction in Hong Kong, China. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Kwok CS, Gale CP, Kinnaird T, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Heart 2020; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Ahmed I, Nelson WB, Biring TS, et al. Acute coronary thrombosis in a patient with septic shock without any evidence of disseminated intravascular coagulation. BMJ Case Rep 2009;2009:bcr05.2009.1887.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Guo ZD, Wang ZY, Zhang SF, et al. Aerosol and surface distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in hospital wards, Wuhan, China, 2020. Emerging Infect Dis 2020;26:1583–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. WHO. Rational use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Geneva: WHO, 19 March 2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  51. Public Health England. New personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance for NHS teams. 2 April 2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  52. Curzen N, Ray S, Slade A. Interpretation of Public Health England (PHE) PPE guidelines in cardiology-specific scenarios. British Cardiovascular Intervention Society 6 April 2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  53. Broom D. This Japanese experiment shows how easily coronavirus can spread – and what you can do about it. World Economic Forum 14 April 2020. (accessed 29 September 2020).
  54. Sutton D, Fuchs K, D’Alton M, et al. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 in women admitted for delivery. N Engl J Med 2020;382:2163–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, et al. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. BMJ 2020;369:m1435.
    Crossref | PubMed