COVID-19 reduced scleral buckling training in fellows and shifted young ophthalmologists' preference toward vitrectomy: An Asia-Pacific survey.

BACKGROUND: To assess rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) surgery trends and training among young ophthalmologists (YOs, vitreoretinal fellows or attendings/consultants with ≤10 years of independent practice) and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was completed by 117 YOs in the Asia-Pacific regarding their RRD surgery experiences in 2021-2022. RESULTS: To achieve a 90% probability of surgical competency, 91 vitrectomy and 34 scleral buckling (SB) completions during fellowship were needed. In total, 49 (41.9%) YOs had fellowship affected by COVID-19. In the COVID versus pre-COVID era, however, the volume of SB completions per fellowship year decreased significantly (median [IQR] 3.3 [1.5, 9] vs. 13 [6.5, 23]; p < 0.001) and was lower than the required volume to achieve competency. YOs were less confident in conducting SB versus vitrectomy (3.5 ± 1.1 vs. 4.2 ± 0.8, p < 0.001), and they reported a decrease in the proportion of SB (-3.1%, p = 0.047) and an increase in the proportion of vitrectomy (+4.8%, p < 0.001) after the pandemic outbreak. Apart from RRD clinical characteristics, surgical confidence is among the main factors that affect surgical method decisions. During the pandemic, more YOs may have avoided SB due to the need for general anaesthesia, leading to longer surgical time and risk of viral transmission during intubation/extubation. CONCLUSIONS: SB surgical exposure is suboptimal in most fellowship programs in the 11 Asia-Pacific countries/regions we surveyed and further declined during the COVID-19 pandemic. YOs are less confident in performing SB, leading to a trend toward primary vitrectomy since the COVID-19 outbreak.

Acceptance and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Usability in Eye Care (APPRAISE) for Ophthalmologists: A Multinational Perspective.

Background: Many artificial intelligence (AI) studies have focused on development of AI models, novel techniques, and reporting guidelines. However, little is understood about clinicians' perspectives of AI applications in medical fields including ophthalmology, particularly in light of recent regulatory guidelines. The aim for this study was to evaluate the perspectives of ophthalmologists regarding AI in 4 major eye conditions: diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataract. Methods: This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning. Results: One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10-12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63-0.83. Conclusion: Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.

Acceptance and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Usability in Eye Care (APPRAISE) for Ophthalmologists: A Multinational Perspective

Background Many artificial intelligence (AI) studies have focused on development of AI models, novel techniques, and reporting guidelines. However, little is understood about clinicians' perspectives of AI applications in medical fields including ophthalmology, particularly in light of recent regulatory guidelines. The aim for this study was to evaluate the perspectives of ophthalmologists regarding AI in 4 major eye conditions: diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataract. Methods This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning. Results One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10–12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63–0.83. Conclusion Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.

Reduction in Ophthalmic Presentations to Australian Emergency Departments During the COVID-19 Period: Are We Seeing the Full Picture?

PURPOSE: To examine changing patterns of ophthalmic presentations to emergency departments (EDs) during the lockdowns associated with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and the two months immediately following lockdown relaxation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective audit of triage coding and ICD-10-AM coding for all patient presentations to four Australian EDs from March 29 to May 31 in 2019 and 2020 (the COVID-19 lockdown period and the corresponding period in 2019), and from June 1 to July 31 in 2019 and 2020 (the post-lockdown period and the corresponding period in 2019). Number of ophthalmic presentations triaged per day and number of seven common and/or time-sensitive, vision threatening ophthalmic diagnoses were examined. Differences in mean daily presentation numbers were assessed with non-paired Student's t-test with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Total ophthalmic presentations per day during COVID-19 lockdowns fell by 16% compared to the corresponding period in 2019 (13.0 ± 4.0 in 2019 vs 10.8 ± 3.3 in 2020, mean ± standard deviation; p=0.01). There was also a significant decrease in presentations of atraumatic retinal detachment, conjunctivitis, and eye pain. In the two months following easing of lockdown restrictions, total ophthalmic presentations per day returned to the same level as that of the corresponding period in 2019 (12.2 ± 4.3 in 2019 vs 12.3 ± 4.1 in 2020, p=0.97). CONCLUSION: Total ophthalmic presentations and presentations of atraumatic retinal detachment, conjunctivitis and, eye pain to EDs fell during the lockdowns associated with the first wave of COVID-19 in Australia. These may represent delays in patients seeking appropriate medical attention and may have implications on patient morbidity long after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unmasking the mask: the role of personal protective equipment for ophthalmologists caring for asymptomatic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for ophthalmologists caring for asymptomatic patients remains controversial. This commentary reviews the latest emerging evidence. This is paramountly important in shaping health policies in countries which is not currently recommended.

Managing central venous access during a health care crisis.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19. RESULTS: Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.

Keeping an eye on COVID-19: Ophthalmic care and triage for general practitioners.

The ability of general practitioners to triage ophthalmic conditions appropriately is critical in our fight against COVID-19.