AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Rebekah Lantz, DO 1 Wyoming St Dayton OH 45409 United States of America.
Citation: Rebekah Lantz, Casey Walk, Dylan Hefner, Karley Fischer, Michael Bottomley, Srikanth Sadhu (2022). Differences in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) presentation and outcomes between 2019-2021 related to COVID-19. J. Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, 5(9); DOI:10.31579/2641-0419/287
Copyright: © Rebekah Lantz, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 15 November 2022 | Accepted: 28 November 2022 | Published: 05 December 2022
Keywords: stemi; covid; outcomes; pandemic; cva
Background and Aims: COVID-19 accounted for 12.2% deaths in the United States between March 2020 and October 2021, while heart disease deaths increased by 4.1% from 2019 to 2020. Our study analyses the differences in STEMI presentation from 2019-2021 and the potential outcome differences for years related to the COVID pandemic.
Materials and Methods: A five-site retrospective study included 1001 STEMI-activated patients from January 2019 to December 2021. Patient demographics, risk factors, details of presentation and rationale for cath-lab activation were obtained as presentation details. Discharge status, intraprocedural death, major bleeding requiring transfusion, CABG status and indication, and time variables were obtained to evaluate outcomes.
Results: For 1001 STEMI-activated patients, risk factors were cerebrovascular accident (CVA), for 2019 versus 2020. New onset angina was significant in 2019 and 2021 versus 2020. Worsening angina was significant in 2019 versus 2020 as rationale. Patients were similarly discharged alive and required similar transfusion. CABG indications were similar, with no between-year differences. There were not differences in time variables for patients Discharged-alive but for patients Discharged-deceased, there was increased procedure to discharge and length of stay (LOS) for 2021 versus 2020. Also, patients Discharged-alive in all three years had shorter mean door-to-balloon (DTB) times than patients who were discharged-deceased in 2021.
Discussion: For COVID-relevant years 2019-2021, patients had similar backgrounds for a STEMI-activated presentation. Patients were 1.84 times more likely to have history of CVA when they presented in 2019 versus 2020. New onset angina was higher in 2019 and 2021 and worsening angina was significant in 2019. Therefore, 2019 seemed to be more representative of typical angina presentation, compared to COVID peak 2020 and afterward to 2021. There was no increased rate of deaths attributed to STEMI hospitalization indicating that patients may have delayed to seek care, possibly attributed to the impact of the COVID lockdown or died at home related to cardiac event rather than seek medical care. For secondary outcomes, transfusion was equally likely. There were delays in procedure to discharge, LOS, and DTB times for 2021 versus 2020, which may be related to overall resource limitations.
Cardiac outcomes are important to consider in a COVID-19 pandemic era. COVID-19 accounted for 12.2% of all deaths between March 2020 and October 2021. This made the novel virus the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer during this period.[1] Concomitant with COVID-19-attributed mortality, heart disease deaths also increased by 4.1% from 2019 to 2020.[2] Patients who had pre-existing cardiovascular disease had more than a 10-fold increase in mortality compared to those without cardiovascular comorbidities.[3,4] In part attributing to death rates, it was found that treatment complications were higher among secondary cardiac injury in COVID-19-positive patients.[4] This is considered alongside the other important COVID-19 complications of respiratory distress, acute kidney injury, and coagulation disorders.[1-4]
Arrhythmias are commonly seen in patients admitted after COVID-19 infection. Unspecified arrhythmias at a weighted mean average of 9.3%, followed by supraventricular, 8.5%, and ventricular arrhythmias, 2.7%, were predominant.[5] New onset heart failure has been found in as much as a third of patients admitted for COVID-19.[6] In addition, clotting disorders notably venous thromboembolism, while commonly found in any critical illness, were especially true in COVID-19 cases, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was associated in 71.4% of patients who died of COVID-19.[7]
Elevated levels of CRP, fibrinogen, d-dimer, factor VIII, vWF, and protein C, are associated with more severe forms of COVID-19 infection. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) trended to be higher in those with COVID-19-positive infection, suggesting a possible increased risk for myocarditis.[8] There are several case studies elaborating on myocarditis and COVID-19. [9-11]
COVID-19 has a direct and indirect effect on the cardiovascular system. Directly, SARS-CoV-2 incorporates into cells by way of the ACE type 2 (ACE-2) receptor, which is also found in 7.5% of myocardial cells. The COVID-19 spike protein is activated and internalized by the type 2 transmembrane protease receptor after binding to ACE-2.[12] The effect is subsequent hyperstimulation of the ACE-2 pathway and inflammation followed by fibrosis.[13] Indirectly, this cytokine storm can incite a dysregulated immune response including destabilizing cardiac plaques that rupture and lead to coronary artery thrombosis or spontaneous coronary artery dissection. Also contributory is an associated oxygen demand-perfusion mismatch. Downstream activation of RAAS or inflamed myocardium can alter resting membrane potentials leading to left ventricular dysfunction and acidosis with reduced perfusion. Resultant arrhythmias can lead to complications.[12]
Given what is known now regarding the virus, we desired to elaborate clinically. The study aims to compare a STEMI-presenting background of patients between the years 2019 and 2021, observe outcome details in pre-, peri-, and post-pandemic lockdown periods, and consider time and quality measures. We made several hypotheses such as that the background comorbidities of patients would be similar between the observed years, but that severity of presentation would be worse for patients presenting in 2020, during the COVID lockdown period. We suspected that patients presented later in a cardiac event due to fear of hospitalization or lockdown protocol and therefore with worser cardiac severity.[14] We hypothesized that time from presentation to procedure would be longer in 2020 as well as the length of hospitalization. We predicted that the mortality rate would be higher in 2020 when presenting as a STEMI alert.
The study was approved by Wright State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and entailed an observational study of 1001 patients who were STEMI-activated between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 at 5 hospital sites in Southwest Ohio. Subjects were STEMI-activated in COVID-significant years 2019- 2021. All patients were aged 18 years or older and STEMI-activated upon presentation.
Seven categories of interest including: baseline characteristics, details of presentation, procedure details, diagnostic values, rationale, time variables, and outcomes were obtained and evaluated to determine if there were significant differences in various patient characteristics between the three years. These details were gathered from the Epic electronic medical record (EMR) using the Microsoft SQL Server Manager [15] and from National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) for our institution.[16] SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) and RStudio version 2022.07.1 (RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA) were used for all analyses. [17-18] A level of significance of α = 0.05 was used throughout to assess statistical significance.
A first multinomial logistic regression was run for each of baseline characteristics with year (2019, 2020, and 2021) as the response variable and all variables of interest (age, gender, BMI, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, chronic lung disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, tobacco use, currently on dialysis, heart failure, and heart failure newly diagnosed) as predictor variables. 2020 was used at the reference level since the comparisons of the other two years to 2020 are of primary interest. There fore the results are expressed in terms of whether there are significant differences or associations between the independent variables of interest in 2020 compared to 2019 and 2020 compared to 2021. This model predicts the odds of a patient presenting with the given baseline characteristic in 2019 or 2021 compared to 2020.
A second multinomial logistic regression was run for details of presentation, with year (2019, 2020, and 2021) as the response variable. Independent variables were included for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA), cardiac arrest at transfer, and inpatient cardiac arrest. This model predicts the odds of patient cardiac arrest presentation in 2019 or 2021 compared to 2020.
A third multinomial logistic regression was run for procedure details, with year (2019, 2020, and 2021) as the response variable. Independent variables were included for contrast volume and concomitant procedures performed. This model predicts the odds of patient procedure details in 2019 or 2021 to 2020.
A fourth multinomial logistic regression was run for diagnostic values, with year (2019, 2020, and 2021) as the response variable. Independent variables were included for systolic blood pressure, troponin T pre-procedure, creatinine pre-procedure, hemoglobin pre-procedure, creatinine post-procedure, and hemoglobin post-procedure. This model predicts the odds of patient presenting with given diagnostic values in 2019 or 2021 compared to 2020.
A fifth multinomial logistic regression was run for intervention rationale, with year (2019, 2020, and 2021) as the response variable. Independent variables were included for OOHCA, cardiac arrest at transfer, and inpatient cardiac arrest. This model predicts the odds of given rationale in 2019 or 2021 compared to 2020.
A sixth multinomial logistic regression was run for outcomes, with year (2019, 2020, and 2021) as the response variable. Independent variables were included for discharge status and packed red blood cell transfusion. Given that a disproportionate number of patients were discharged as alive, alive and deceased patients were divided into distinct groups for accurate statistical analysis. This model predicts the odds of patients with a given outcome in 2019 or 2021 compared to 2020. These same divisions for Discharged-alive, Discharged-deceased were used for time variables.
Because the number of patients who were COVID-positive was significantly limited in our data set (N=21), it ultimately was not possible to run a meaningful statistical analysis. For example, in 2020 there were 59 female patients who tested negative for COVID, which represents 35.33% of all patients in 2020 who tested negative for COVID. This indicates highly skewed data due to the limited size of our COVID-tested sample. We could not include 2019 data given the COVID test became available in February 2020.[13].
A total of 1001 patients who were STEMI activated were included in the study: 336 in 2019, 317 in 2020, and 348 in 2021. This included all patients who were admitted as adults 18 years and older at our institution and within facility STEMI-activation, where duplicate patients were removed from the sample. The average age of presentation was 63.5 years old, body mass index (BMI) was 30.2 kg/m2, and preprocedural ejection fraction was 51.3%. Year of presentation was the independent predictor for outcomes in our model with 2019 as the pre-COVID lockdown period, 2020 as the peri-COVID lockdown period, and 2021 as the post-COVID lockdown period.
Table 1 shows data results from descriptive statistics of STEMI presentation in pre, peri and post COVID lockdown. We saw no association in the following descriptive statistics of STEMI presentation during the pre, peri and post COVID lockdown period 2019-2021. In an analysis of demographics including age and BMI we saw no association. This is also true for risk factors including male gender, hypertension (HTN), dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus (DM), peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic lung disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), tobacco use, dialysis patients, history of congestive heart failure (CHF) or newly diagnosed CHF.[19] We also saw no significant associations in the details of presentation including OOHCA, cardiac arrest at transfer, and inpatient cardiac arrest. All the p-values are greater than 0.05 therefore, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest there are any significant relationships between these variables of interest and the year.
There was strong evidence to suggest a significant association between a history of cerebrovascular disease (CVA) and STEMI presentation during 2019 compared to 2020 (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.12-3.02, p=0.0138). The odds were 84% higher for patients with a background history of CVA who presented with STEMI in 2019 than 2020.
Analysis of the rationale for STEMI presentation compared patients’ presentation to the hospital including new onset angina, worsening angina, resuscitation, cardiac arrhythmia, suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), syncope, cardiovascular instability and STEMI or STEMI equivalent on first EKG, with year of presentation at the independent predictor. New onset angina and worsening angina were both found to be statistically significant rationales for 2019 compared to 2020 (OR 2.23, 95% CI of 1.42-3.50, p = 0.0005). The odds were 123% higher for a patient to present as a STEMI-activation with new onset angina in 2019 than 2020. The opposite was true for 2021 in which new onset angina 2021 vs 2020 (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17- 0.62, p = 0.0005) was 67% lower for patients in 2021. Worsening angina was of significance for 2019 vs 2020 (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.49- 4.96, p = 0.0011) when presenting with STEMI, that is, an odds of 172% for worsening angina in 2019 compared to 2020. No other significant associations were detected in regard to rationale for presentation.
Table 2 compares outcome details as well as time variables in the discharge status of both alive and deceased patients. Details of discharged-alive patients included hospice care, intraprocedural death, packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion, transfusion during PCI, emergency CABG, and CABG indications including PCI/CABG hybrid, PCI failure, recommended following LHC and PCI complications. Amongst details including discharge status and need for pRBC transfusion, all p-values are greater than 0.05, therefore, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest significant relationships between these variables of interest and the year.
Time variables for both Discharged-alive and Discharged-deceased patients included door to balloon time (DTB) time in minutes, arrival to procedure time in minutes, procedure to discharge time in hours, and length of stay (LOS) in hours. All time variables are reported as natural log secondary to data skewedness. Two results were found to be statistically significant. First, there was a significant mean difference in the natural log of procedure to discharge time for patients who were Discharged-deceased in 2021 and patients who were Discharged-deceased in 2020 (p = 0.0085). The estimated mean difference in the natural logs is 1.05 higher for patients who were Discharged-deceased in 2021. Second, there was also strong evidence to suggest a significant mean difference in the natural log of the LOS for patients who were Discharged-deceased in 2021 and patients who were Discharged-deceased in 2020 (p = 0.0071). The estimated mean difference in the natural logs is 1.04 higher for patients who were Discharged-deceased in 2021.
Regarding the COVID separate model of data, we wished to discuss in further detail for our site, similarly to Wang et al in their comparative meta-analysis in which COVID was noted to have a deep impact on therapeutic management and clinical outcomes[20] as well as Saad et al which observed in-hospital mortality for COVID-positive status patients compared to their COVID-negative or not-tested counterparts.[21] However there appear to be glaring differences between COVID-positive status and many of the time variables given the within chart limitation of COVID-positive sample N=21. Additional safety features or quarantining that needed to take place with COVID positive patients may have been a contributing factor.
During the COVID lockdown, concern in medical communities was for those infected with the virus but also for the impact on other medical problems. Concern was that patients delayed presentation to the hospital to avoid COVID contact and hospital stays, admission, or care due to either fear of the virus or inability to seek normal routes of care. This is not a new phenomenon as it was well documented during the Ebola crisis when hospital utilization in areas dropped by 18%.[14] Concerns during the COVID pandemic were seen internationally, with late presentations for a variety of reasons including concern for contact with another person infected with the virus, hospital availability, and confusion regarding COVID protocols. [22-24]
The longer a STEMI remains undiagnosed and untreated, the more severe the presentation. Elements of the extensive Charleson Comorbidity Index which include age, history of cardiac event, heart failure, PVD, CVA, dementia, COPD, connective tissue disease, liver disease, peptic ulcer disease, liver disease, diabetes, CKD, solid tumor, leukemia, lymphoma, AIDS, COVID were used [19] as well as new onset designation of heart failure and hemodynamics for cardiogenic shock on arrival. We wished to determine if the designated COVID years were worse in severity compared to each other. Patients with a history of CVA presented 1.87 times more likely in 2019 compared to 2020, as an indicator that patients with co-morbidities either avoided medical care or sought alternative ways of treatment, such as not treating, during the COVID lockdown. They may have died at home due to another primary cause.
There was no difference in severity between 2019-2021. However, the indication for arrival did change. As noted, worsening angina and new onset angina were significant in 2019 compared to 2020-2021. Patients would have either more at-home cardiac events or deaths by delaying care.[25-26] Patients were less likely to present with worsening angina in 2020 and 2021 as the documented rationale for pursuit of cardiac catheterization. This may reflect a change in mental indicator of when to seek medical care that has changed in the aftermath of the COVID peak or the data collector may have annotated differently for later years.
No between-year differences in mortality were noted, but there were significant differences regarding increased length of time in procedure to discharge, LOS, and DTB times in 2021 compared to 2020.[27-30] Some notable difficulties with the COVID lockdown in 2020 had been limited physical resources as well as less staffing and hospital bed availability. The goal at the time was to decrease the number of admissions to avoid straining the PPE and other resources available for COVID and non-COVID patients. In the United States, there was increased mortality for all patients admitted to hospitals, not limited to COVID-positive, supporting this concern.[31] A possible explanation for delay in DTB time, delay in procedure to discharge, and overall LOS is related to strain in healthcare resources and not in severity of presentation or patient-related variables.
Many limitations and methodological biases exist, mainly this is a retrospective observation for a database-driven study. Presentation and delay of presentation are inferences based on the apparent severity at presentation and the time of symptoms to arrival is not measured. The number of COVID-positive patients in this study were also significantly limited (N=21) in our EMR, which did not allow for a statistically significant analysis of outcomes given skewed values compared to the total sample (N=1001). A larger study, likely multicentered, would be better to evaluate outcomes in COVID-positive STEMI-activated patients.
In summary, history of CVA was a significant background of patients who were more likely to present overall. The literature supports that presentation of STEMI patients was delayed during the COVID pandemic while our data did not support a delay in presentation. We did see a change in new onset angina and worsening angina as typical STEMI presentation in 2019 compared to 2020-2021. This could represent patients presenting less often for new angina and worsening angina as a result of the COVID pandemic. There may be a change in mentality of patients when it is appropriate to seek medical attention, with new onset symptoms decreased in 2021. There was no change in outcomes based on mortality, although by time variables, increased LOS, intervention to discharge, and DTB in the 2021 may be related to overall resource limitations due to the COVID pandemic.
This research did not receive grant funding from agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
The primary author contributed to the entirety of the IRB protocol, data collection, discussion with statisticians, creation of figures and tables, manuscript writing, and editing. Coauthors contributed in decreasing order to IRB protocol, data collection, discussion with statisticians, manuscript writing and editing. Our faculty advisor provided oversight for the project as a seasoned cardiologist. We wish to thank our statistician, Michael Bottomley, for his careful handling of the data and any changes we needed to make along the way, as medicine and statistics can be very different languages.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
