Longitudinal study of interventional radiology activity in a large metropolitan Italian tertiary care hospital: how the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has changed our activity

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Radiology in Germany

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on interventional radiology (IR) in Germany in 2020 and 2021.

MATERIALS UND METHODS

This retrospective study is based on the nationwide interventional radiology procedures documented in the quality register of the German Society for Interventional Radiology and Minimally Invasive Therapy (DeGIR-QS-Register). The nationwide volume of interventions in the pandemic years 2020 and 2021 was compared with the pre-pandemic period (Poisson-test, Mann-Whitney test). The aggregated data were additionally evaluated by intervention type with differentiated consideration of the temporal epidemiological infection occurrence.

RESULTS

During the two pandemic years 2020 and 2021, the number of interventional procedures increased by appr. 4 % compared to the same period of the previous year (n = 190 454 and 189 447 vs. n = 183 123, respectively, p < 0.001). Only the first pandemic wave in spring 2020 (weeks 12-16) showed a significant temporary drop in the number of interventional procedures by 26 % (n = 4799, p < 0.05). This primarily involved interventions that were not immediately medically urgent, such as pain treatments or elective arterial revascularization. In contrast, interventions in the field of interventional oncology, such as port catheter implantations and local tumor ablations, remained unaffected. The decline of the first wave of infection was accompanied by a rapid recovery and a significant, partly compensatory, 14 % increase in procedure numbers in the second half of 2020 compared to the same period of the previous year (n = 77 151 vs. 67 852, p < 0.001). Subsequent pandemic waves had no effect on intervention numbers.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic in Germany led to a significant short-term decrease in interventional radiology procedures in the initial phase. A compensatory increase in the number of procedures was observed in the subsequent period. This reflects the adaptability and robustness of IR and the high demand for minimally invasive radiological procedures in medical care.

KEY POINTS

· The study shows the nationwide pandemic-related effects on interventional radiology in Germany.. · In quantitative terms, the ongoing pandemic caused a significant, temporary decline in intervention cases only in the initial phase.. · Subsequent waves of infections had no effect on the scope of services provided by interventional radiology.. · Short-term deficits, especially in elective interventions, could be partially compensated..

CITATION FORMAT

· Schmidbauer M, Busjahn A, Paprottka P et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Radiology in Germany. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2023; 195: 597 - 604.

Imaging volumes during COVID-19: A Victorian health service experience

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organisation declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic on March 11, 2020. While globally, the relative caseload has been high, Australia’s has been relatively low. During the pandemic, radiology services have seen significant changes in workflow across modalities and a reduction in imaging volumes.

AIM

To investigate differences in modality imaging volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic across a large Victorian public health network.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis from January 2019 to December 2020 compared imaging volumes across two periods corresponding to the pandemic’s first and second waves. Weekly volumes across patient class, modality and mobile imaging were summed for periods: wave 1 (weeks 11 to 16 for 2019; weeks 63 to 68 for 2020) and wave 2 (weeks 28 to 43 for 2019; weeks 80 to 95 for 2020). Microsoft Power Business Intelligence linked to the radiology information system was used to mine all completed examinations.

RESULTS

Summed weekly data during the pandemic’s first wave showed the greatest decrease of 29.8% in adult outpatient imaging volumes and 46.3% in paediatric emergency department imaging volumes. Adult nuclear medicine demonstrated the greatest decrease of 37.1% for the same period. Paediatric nuclear medicine showed the greatest decrease of 47.8%, with angiography increasing by 50%. The pandemic’s second wave demonstrated the greatest decrease of 23.5% in adult outpatient imaging volumes, with an increase of 18.2% in inpatient imaging volumes. The greatest decrease was 28.5% in paediatric emergency department imaging volumes. Nuclear medicine showed the greatest decrease of 37.1% for the same period. Paediatric nuclear medicine showed the greatest decrease of 36.7%. Mobile imaging utilisation increased between 57.8% and 135.1% during the first and second waves. A strong correlation was observed between mobile and non-mobile imaging in the emergency setting (Spearman’s correlation coefficient = -0.743, P = 0.000). No correlation was observed in the inpatient setting (Spearman’s correlation coefficient = -0.059, P = 0.554).

CONCLUSION

Nuclear medicine was most impacted, while computed tomography and angiography were the least affected by the pandemic. The impact was less during the pandemic’s second wave. Mobile imaging shows continuous growth during both waves.

The impact of COVID-19 on radiological findings in patients accessing the emergency department: a multicentric study

Purpose

The aim of this multicentric study is to illustrate how the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown affected the workload and outcomes of radiological examinations in emergency radiology.

Material and methods

The exams performed in the radiology departments of 4 Italian hospitals during 3 weeks of the Italian lockdown were retrospectively reviewed and compared to the exams conducted during the same period in 2019. Only exams from the emergency department (ED) were included. Two radiologists from each hospital defined the cases as positive or negative findings, based on independent blind readings of the imaging studies. In the case of differences in the evaluation, consensus was reached amongst them via discussion. Continuous measurements are presented as median and interquartile range, while categorical measurements are presented as frequency and percentage; p-values were calculated using the t-test, Mann-Whitney test, and the c² test.

Results

There were 745 patients (53% male; 62 years [44-78]) who underwent radiological examinations in 2020 vs. 2623 (52% male; 56 years [35-76]) in 2019 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the total number of ED exams dropped from 3206 (2019) to 939 (2020), with a relative increase of CT examinations from 23% to 33% (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with a positive finding was significantly higher in 2020 (355, 48%) compared to 2019 (684, 26%) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our findings show that despite the reduction of emergency radiological examinations, there was a rela-tive increase in the number of positive cases. These significant findings are crucial to ensure better organization of radiology departments and improve patient management during similar health emergencies in the future.

Appropriateness of radiological diagnostic tests in otolaryngology

Objective

To evaluate the appropriateness of imaging tests associated with radiation in the field of otolaryngology according to the available recommendations, and to estimate the effective radiation dose associated.

Method

Cross-sectional epidemiological study of the totality of the imaging test requests carried out by two Spanish hospitals (n = 1931). We collected the following information: patient demographic data, type of imaging test, imaging tests referred in the previous 12 months, referrer department and diagnostic suspicion. In accordance with the available guidelines, we considered the requests: (a) Appropriate; (b) Inappropriate; (c) Not adequately justified; (d) Not included in the guidelines. We calculated the prevalence of each category and their variation according to the different variables. Collective and per capita effective dose were calculated for each category.

Results

Of the 538 requests, 42% were considered appropriate, 34.4% inappropriate, 11.9% not adequately justified and 11.7% not included in the guidelines. Imaging tests requested by general partitioners (aOR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06–0.50) and clinical departments (aOR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11–0.60) were less likely to be considered appropriate than those requested by the Otolaryngology department. Patients with a diagnosis suspicion of tumour pathology were more likely to have a requested imaging test classified as appropriate (aOR: 7.12; 95% CI: 3.25–15.61). The cumulative effective dose was 877.8 mSv, of which 40% corresponded to tests classified as inappropriate.

Conclusions

A high percentage of imaging tests are considered as inappropriate in the field of otolaryngology, with a relevant frequency of associated effective radiation dose. Type of department, the diagnostic suspicion and the type of imaging tests were variables associated to the inappropriateness of the test.

Adequacy of physician clinical rounds and nursing care elements for non-COVID-19 infected patients admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic created many challenges for healthcare systems. Frontline workers and especially healthcare professionals were the most severely affected through increased working hours, burnout and major psychological distress.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the changes in standard care elements which occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically the physician clinical rounds and nursing care provided to non-COVID-19 infected patients.

DESIGN

Observational retrospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh Saudi Arabia. KAMC is a 1200 bed tertiary care referral academic medical center.

PATIENTS (MATERIALS) AND METHODS

We compared the physician clinical rounds and nursing care elements in all admissions due to non-COVID-19 pneumonia and ST elevation myocardial infarction during the lockdown period with similar admissions in a baseline period in the same weeks in the previous pre-lockdown.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

To evaluates the changes occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the standard care elements, such as the physician rounds and nursing care.

SAMPLE SIZE

Total of 113 patients records were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the lock down period, a total of 113 patients were admitted to the medical and cardiology wards, (95 patients with pneumonia and 18 patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)) compared to 89 patients in the pre lockdown period (74 patients with pneumonia and 15 patients with STEMI). Both groups were similar in age, gender, disposition, length of stay, goal of care planning and outcome. Chronic respiratory disease and Diabetes were more present in patients admitted on the pre lockdown time. Azithromycin was more frequently used as part of the initial antibiotic regimen for pneumonia during the pre-lockdown while doxycycline was significantly more during the lockdown. For the 95 patients admitted in the medical wards during the lockdown, there were a total of 820 physicians' clinical rounds opportunities for senior and junior physicians each. The residents missed 133 (16.2%) and consultant missed 252 (30.7%) of those clinical rounds opportunities. Missed clinical rounds opportunities during the pre-lock down period was higher for residents and consultants at 19.3% (P = 0.429 ) and 36.3% respectively (P = 0.027 ). Similarly, missed clinical rounds opportunities was less during the lockdown period from 35.2% to 25% (p 0.022) and from 38.8% to 30.6% (p = 1 ) for junior staff and consultant cardiology respectively compared to pre lockdown period. For nursing care elements, there was a decrease in missed opportunities in vital signs measurement (p 0.47 and p 0.226), pain assessment (p 0.088 and p 0,366) and skin care (p 0.249 and p 0.576) for patients admitted during the lockdown period in medical and cardiology wards.

CONCLUSIONS

Caring for patients admitted for non COVID 19 infection reasons, physicians' clinical rounds did marginally increase compared to pre lockdown period while nurses monitoring for those patients was significantly higher. No difference in mortality was observed for patients admitted pre and during lockdown. The number of missed opportunities to do clinical rounds by physicians remains high during both periods and measures to improve adherence of physicians to performed clinical rounds are needed.

One-year COVID-19 outcomes on the oncology care patient pathway: Results of a French descriptive, cross-sectional comprehensive study (ONCOCARE-COV)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a widely documented disruption in cancer care pathway. Since a resurgence of the pandemic was expected after the first lockdown in France, the global impact on the cancer care pathway over the year 2020 was investigated.

AIMS

This study aimed to describe the changes in the oncology care pathway for cancer screening, diagnosis, assessment, diagnosis annoucement procedure and treatment over a one-year period.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The ONCOCARE-COV study was a comprehensive, retrospective, descriptive, and cross-sectional study comparing the years 2019 and 2020. All key indicators along the cancer care pathway assessing the oncological activity over four periods were described. This study was set in a high-volume, public, single tertiary care center divided in two complementary sites (Reims University Hospital and Godinot Cancer Institute, Reims, France) which was located in a high COVID-19 incidence area during both peaks of the outbreak.

RESULTS

A total of 26,566 patient's files were active during the year 2020. Breast screening (-19.5%), announcement dedicated consultations (-9.2%), Intravenous and Hyperthermic Intraoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPECs) (-25%), and oncogeriatric evaluations (-14.8%) were heavily disrupted in regard to 2020 activity. We identified a clear second outbreak wave impact on medical announcement procedures (October, -14.4%), radiotherapy sessions (October, -16%), number of new health record discussed in multidisciplinary tumor board meeting (November, -14.6%) and HIPECs (November, -100%). Moreover, 2020 cancer care activity stagnated compared to 2019.

DISCUSSION

The oncological care pathway was heavily disrupted during the first and second peaks of the COVID-19 outbreak. Between lockdowns, we observed a remarkable but non-compensatory recovery as well as a lesser impact from the pandemic resurgence. However, in absence of an increase in activity, a backlog persisted.

CONCLUSION

Public health efforts are needed to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the oncology care pathway.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Nasal Cavity and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Detection via Rapid Antigen Test According to Specimen Collection Timing and Viral Load

The rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is an essential aspect in the detection and control of the spread of COVID-19. We evaluated the accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) using samples from the nasal cavity and nasopharynx based on sample collection timing and viral load. We enrolled 175 patients, of which 71 patients and 104 patients had tested positive and negative, respectively, based on real time-PCR. Nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal swab samples were tested using STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag tests (Q Ag, SD Biosensor, Korea). The sensitivity of the Q Ag test was 77.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.8−87.2%) for the nasal cavity and 81.7% (95% [CI, 72.7−90.7%) for the nasopharyngeal specimens. The RAT results showed a substantial agreement between the nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal specimens (Cohen’s kappa index = 0.78). The sensitivity of the RAT for nasal cavity specimens exceeded 89% for <5 days after symptom onset (DSO) and 86% for Ct of E and RdRp < 25. The Q Ag test performed fairly well, especially in the early DSO when a high viral load was present, and the nasal cavity swab can be considered an alternative site for the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Interventional Radiology Practice Worldwide: Results from a Global Survey

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on clinical practice and healthcare professionals. We aimed to assess how interventional radiology services (IR services) were impacted by the pandemic and describe adaptations to services and working patterns across the first two waves.

Methods

An anonymous six-part survey created using an online service was distributed as a single-use web link to 7125 members of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe via email. Out of 450 respondents, 327 who completed the survey at least partially including 278 who completed the full survey were included into the analysis.

Results

Interventional radiologists (IRs) reported that the overall workload decreased a lot (18%) or mildly (36%) or remained stable (29%), and research activities were often delayed (30% in most/all projects, 33% in some projects). Extreme concerns about the health of families, patients and general public were reported by 43%, 34% and 40%, respectively, and 29% reported having experienced significant stress (25% quite a bit; 23% somewhat). Compared to the first wave, significant differences were seen regarding changes to working patterns, effect on emergency work, outpatient and day-case services in the second wave. A total of 59% of respondents felt that their organisation was better prepared for a third wave. A total of 19% and 39% reported that the changes implemented would be continued or potentially continued on a long-term basis.

Conclusion

While the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected IR services in terms of workload, research activity and emotional burden, IRs seem to have improved the own perception of adaptation and preparation for further waves of the pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00270-022-03090-6.

Un año completo de pandemia COVID-19 y su impacto en la Unidad de Radiología Intervencionista

Objetivos

Describir el impacto que la pandemia de COVID-19 ha supuesto en la Unidad de Radiología Intervencionista de nuestro hospital a lo largo de un año.

Materiales y métodos

Se ha realizado un estudio observacional prospectivo en 83 pacientes consecutivos con infección confirmada por COVID-19 a los cuales se les realizó algún tipo de procedimiento de radiología intervencionista durante el periodo comprendido entre el 13 de marzo del 2020 y el 13 de marzo de 2021. Se describe la repercusión de la situación en la actividad total de la unidad, así como en las diferentes fases de la pandemia.

Resultados

Se alcanzó el éxito técnico y clínico en el 96,43% y 82,14% de los casos, respectivamente. Durante el seguimiento a lo largo de un año, 68 pacientes seguían vivos y 15 fallecieron a causa de su enfermedad de base. No se produjeron complicaciones relacionadas con los procedimientos intervencionistas y nuestra actividad decayó solo un 12% en comparación con el mismo período del año 2019-2020 (no-COVID). Asimismo, solo se produjo una reducción en unidades relativas de valor y unidades de actividad radiológica del 13% y del 12%, respectivamente.

Conclusión

La pandemia de COVID-19 ha supuesto un desafío en nuestro trabajo diario condicionando una reducción general en el número de procedimientos. No obstante, la radiología intervencionista ha participado activamente en la atención de los pacientes con COVID-19 mediante la realización de una amplia variedad de intervenciones necesarias. La atención de la radiología intervencionista pudo realizarse de forma segura durante la pandemia, siguiendo una serie de medidas y protocolos específicos.

Impact of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on an interventional radiology unit

Objectives

To describe the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the interventional radiology unit at our hospital in the first year of the pandemic.

Material and methods

This prospective observational study included 83 consecutive patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections who underwent an interventional radiology procedure in the period comprising March 13, 2020 through March 13, 2021. We describe the repercussions of the situation on the unit's total activity, as well as on its activity during the different phases of the pandemic.

Results

Technical and clinical success were achieved in 96.43% and 82.14% of cases, respectively. During follow-up throughout the year, 68 patients remained alive and 15 died from their underlying disease. No complications related with interventional procedures occurred, and activity declined by only 12% in comparison with the same period in the previous year (2019-2020, without COVID). Similarly, the decrease in relative value units and radiology activity units was only 13% and 12%, respectively.

Conclusion

The Covid-19 pandemic has been a challenge in our daily work, leading to an overall decrease in the number of procedures. Nevertheless, the interventional radiology unit has been actively involved in caring for Covid-19 patients, performing a wide variety of necessary procedures. Following a series of specific measures and protocols has enabled us to perform interventional radiology procedures safely during the pandemic.

COVID-19 Intelligence-Driven Operational Response Platform: Experience of a Large Tertiary Multihospital System in the Middle East

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in global disruptions within healthcare systems, leading to quick dynamic fluctuations in hospital operations and supply chain management. During the early months of the pandemic, tertiary multihospital systems were highly viewed as the go-to hospitals for handling these rapid healthcare challenges caused by the rapidly increasing number of COVID-19 cases. Yet, this pandemic has created an urgent need for coordinated mechanisms to alleviate increasing pressures on these large multihospital systems and ensure services remain high-quality, accessible, and sustainable. Digital health solutions have been identified as promising approaches to address these challenges. This case report describes results for developing multidisciplinary visualizations to support digital health operations in one of the largest tertiary multihospital systems in the Middle East. The report concludes with some lessons and insights learned from the rapid development and delivery of this user-centric COVID-19 multihospital operations intelligent platform.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on radiology education, training, and practice: A narrative review

Radiology education and training is of paramount clinical importance given the prominence of medical imaging utilization in effective clinical practice. The incorporation of basic radiology in the medical curriculum has continued to evolve, focusing on teaching image interpretation skills, the appropriate ordering of radiological investigations, judicious use of ionizing radiation, and providing exposure to interventional radiology. Advancements in radiology have been driven by the digital revolution, which has, in turn, had a positive impact on radiology education and training. Upon the advent of the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many training institutions and hospitals adhered to directives which advised rescheduling of non-urgent outpatient appointments. This inevitably impacted the workflow of the radiology department, which resulted in the reduction of clinical in-person case reviews and consultations, as well as in-person teaching sessions. Several medical schools and research centers completely suspended face-to-face academic activity. This led to challenges for medical teachers to complete the radiology syllabus while ensuring that teaching activities continued safely and effectively. As a result, online teaching platforms have virtually replaced didactic face-to-face lectures. Radiology educators also sought other strategies to incorporate interactive teaching sessions while adopting the e-learning approach, as they were cognizant of the limitations that this may have on students’ clinical expertise. Migration to online methods to review live cases, journal clubs, simulation-based training, clinical interaction, and radiology examination protocolling are a few examples of successfully addressing the limitations in reduced clinical exposure. In this review paper, we discuss (1) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiology education, training, and practice; (2) Challenges and strategies involved in delivering online radiology education for undergraduates and postgraduates during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (3) Difference between the implementation of radiology education during the COVID-19 pandemic and pre-COVID-19 era.

Dreams and Nightmares during the First and Second Wave of the COVID-19 Infection: A Longitudinal Study

Recent literature shows that the Coronovirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has provoked significant changes in dreaming. The current study intends to provide an update about dream variable changes during the second wave of COVID-19. A total of 611 participants completed a web survey from December 2020 to January 2021. Statistical comparisons showed that subjects had lower dream-recall frequency, nightmare frequency, lucid-dream frequency, emotional intensity, and nightmare distress during the second than the first wave of the pandemic. Dreams had a higher negative tone during the second than first wave. We revealed significant differences concerning post-traumatic growth, sleep-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and sleep measures between groups obtained as a function of the changes in the oneiric frequency between the first and second waves. We also found significant correlations between qualitative/emotional dream features and COVID-19-related factors (job change, forced quarantine, having COVID-19 infected relatives/friends, or asking for mental health help). Overall, we found that the second wave affected fewer quantitative features of dream activity and there was less emotional intensity. Moreover, we confirmed the relationship between nightmares and the high risk of PTSD when subjects were grouped as a function of the increasing/decreasing frequency. Finally, our findings are partly coherent with the continuity hypothesis between oneiric and waking experiences.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interventional radiology services across the world

AIM

To review data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interventional radiology (IR) services.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the available studies was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. IR caseload reduced between 16.8-80%, with elective activity affected more than emergency work. Trainees also experienced a 11-51.9% reduction in case volumes and many were redeployed to critical care. IR departments re-organised operations and personnel, and many continued to offer 24/7 services and support critical care areas through redeployment of staff. The majority of studies report no significant issues with the availability of personal protective equipment and that local or national governing body or radiology society guidelines were followed.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic reduced case volumes and training opportunities. IR departments showed flexibility in service delivery. The lessons learned offer novel insights into how services and training can be reorganised to ensure that IR continues to thrive.

Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Health Care Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review

PURPOSE

There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally.

METHODS

This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented.

RESULTS

Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%).

CONCLUSION

The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Radiology Practice—A Multicenter Observational Study

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to health care services including interventional radiology (IR). Treating COVID-19 infected patients became a priority; furthermore, government policies of differing elective procedures and the public’s fear of contacting COVID-19 have impacted IR workload worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the workflow in six vascular IR centers located across India.

Methods The data were collected retrospectively from April 1 to June 30, 2020. All the six centers were staffed by the alumni of a single parent center located in India. Data was also collected from the same time period in 2019 for comparison.

Results A total of 893 patients were treated from April 1 to June 30, 2019, and 419 were treated during the same period in 2020 during the pandemic, a 53% case volume reduction (95% CI:28. 56–129.44; p < 0.001). The month of April had the largest case volume reduction (66%, 95% CI: 13.57–50.43; p < 0.001). Elective procedures showed an 85% reduction (95% CI: 9.62–91.71; p < 0.001). Venous interventions showed the highest reduction of 76% (95% CI: 0.75–67.75; p < 0.001). Neurological emergencies, dialysis-related interventions, and nonvascular procedures did not show a significant change. No patient tested positive for COVID-19 prior to the procedure; however, one patient who was treated emergently was found to be positive later.

Conclusion COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted IR practice across India. Workload reduction was more profound at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic with a gradual improvement over time.

How the Workload and Outcome of Imaging Examinations Changed During the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown

Background:

On March 9^th, 2020, the Italian government decided to go into lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to changes in the workflow of radiological examinations.

Aims:

Aim of the study is to illustrate how the workload and outcome of radiological exams changed in a community hospital during the pandemic.

Methods and Material:

The exams performed in the radiology department from March 9^th to March 29^th, 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and compared to the exams conducted during the same time-period in 2019. Only exams coming from the emergency department (ED) were included. Two radiologists defined the cases as positive or negative findings, based on independent blind readings of the imaging studies. Categorical measurements are presented as frequency and percentages, and p-values are calculated using the Chi-squared test.

Results and Conclusions:

There was a significant reduction in the amount of exams performed in 2020: there were 143 (93|65% male, 60.7±21.5 years) patients who underwent radiological examinations from the ED vs. 485 (255|53% male, 51.2±24.8 years) in 2019. Furthermore, the total number of ED exams dropped from 699 (2019) to 215 (2020). However, the percentage of patients with a positive result was significantly higher in 2020 (69|48%) compared to 2019 (151|31%) (p<.001). The reduction of emergency radiological examinations might be a result of the movement restrictions enforced during the lockdown, and possible fear of the hospital as a contagious place. This translated to a relative increase of positive cases as only patients with very serious conditions were accessing the ED. (www.actabiomedica.it)