Trends in Utilization of Vitreoretinal Services Following the Initial Phase of the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To identify vitreoretinal practice patterns in the months following the initial 2020 national shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (US). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of vitreoretinal practice patterns from multiple retinal centers across the US from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: The lowest utilization of retina care occurred during the week of March 23, 2020, after which utilization returned to pre-pandemic levels by July 2020. Patients with retinal detachments (RDs) presented with worse visual acuity during March, April, and May 2020 compared to the same time periods of 2018 and 2019 (P values < 0.05). However, only comparing eyes that presented in March 2018 to March 2020, was the year 1 vision significantly worse (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted vitreoretinal care. The vision of patients with RDs may not have been affected by the delayed presentation. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:15-23.].

Survey of Vitreoretinal Specialists in the United States Regarding Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: To evaluate the attitudes, beliefs, and practice patterns of vitreoretinal specialists regarding the utilization of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify features which may predict future telemedicine use. Methods: An 11-question anonymous survey was completed electronically in July 2020 by vitreoretinal specialists practicing in the United States. Results: The survey response rate was 13.0% (361/2,774). Thirty-five respondents (9.7%) had used telemedicine before March 1, 2020; after March 1, 2020, 170 (47.1%) reported using telemedicine (p < 0.001). Of the 170 respondents who reported telemedicine use, a majority (65.3%;111/170) performed 0-5 patient visits per week. Female retina specialists, younger physicians, and those with prior telemedicine usage were more likely to use telemedicine. Barriers to telemedicine use included concern for misdiagnosis (332/361, 92.0%), inability to obtain optical coherence tomography imaging (330/361, 91.4%), inability to obtain fundus imaging (327/361, 90.6%), lack of access to and/or comfort with the technology (261/361, 72.3%), potential legal liability (229/361, 63.4%), and low reimbursement (227/361, 62.9%). The majority of respondents (225/361; 62.3%) reported that telemedicine without ancillary imaging was not an acceptable way to evaluate patients. However, 59.2% (214/361) would find telemedicine acceptable if remote imaging was available. Conclusions: The pandemic led to a rapid adoption of telemedicine by vitreoretinal specialists. The majority of specialists using telemedicine performed five or fewer visits per week. The availability of remote imaging may increase confidence in clinical outcomes with a subsequent increase in utilization of telemedicine by vitreoretinal specialists.

Patient Understanding of Nonapproved Stem Cell Therapies for Retinal Disease.

This prospective survey study demonstrates a lack of retina clinic patient knowledge about appropriate stem cell therapy applications for retinal disease.

REGIONAL POPULATION MOBILITY AND OUTPATIENT RETINA VISITS IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

PURPOSE: To characterize how community mobility patterns across the United States correlate with local changes in retina visits during the pandemic. METHODS: Outpatient retina clinic visits were linked to population mobility by combining multiple public data sets, including the Google Community Mobility Reports and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Infection. Percentage change from baseline in daily-average number of retina visits by county and mobility were measured by county. RESULTS: A total of 2,159,689 patient visits were examined across 332 counties. Daily-average retina visits decreased by 7.0%, 19.0%, 5.0%, and 4.0% from Quarter 1 to 4 of 2020. This decrease was negatively correlated with increased incident of COVID-19 deaths for Quarters 1 to 3 (r = -0.13, r = -0.16, and r = -0.15, respectively, P < 0.001) and increased incident cases for Quarters 1 and 2 (r = -0.18, r = -0.13, respectively, P < 0.001). Daily-average retina visits relative to baseline were significantly lower for metropolitan counties in Quarters 1 and 2, compared with urban and rural (P < 0.001). The decline in retina visits had greatest association with decline in workplace visits in Quarters 1 to 3 (r = 0.27, r = 0.09, r = 0.12, respectively, P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into how regional mobility patterns may help to explain and predict patient behaviors and retina outpatient visit responses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers to Follow-Up Retinal Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient-identified barriers to care in those non-compliant with retina appointments during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria included non-compliant patients from March 1, 2020 to May 1, 2020. Ultimately, 1,345 patients were invited to complete a 14-question survey. A retrospective chart review correlated clinical and demographic information. Univariate logistic regression, independent-samples t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficient identified differences among subgroups. RESULTS: Of the 1,345 patients, 181 (13.5%) completed the survey. The most significant barriers to care included fear of COVID (76/181; 42.0%), wait times (21/181; 11.6%), and costs (11/181; 6.1%). Patients who got their COVID information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (7.8 ± 2.4) and televised news (8.0 ± 2.0) had higher levels of fear. Finally, patients with diabetic retinopathy and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores had greater concerns of COVID (P = .034 and P = .047, respectively). CONCLUSION: This survey study suggests fear of COVID-19 is a prominent new barrier to retinal care. Identifying those at risk for loss to follow-up can guide practices as the pandemic continues. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2021;52:526-533.].

Rationale for American Society of Retina Specialists Best Practice Recommendations for Conducting Vitreoretinal Surgery during the COVID-19 Era.

PURPOSE: To detail the rationale behind recommendations recently published by the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) outlining best practices for safety of vitreoretinal surgeons and staff while performing vitreoretinal surgery during the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic. METHODS: The committee for ASRS Best Practices for Retinal Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic reviewed existing evidence and information on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and risk factors during vitreoretinal surgery. Recommendations were based on best available published data, cumulative clinical experiences, and recommendations and policies from other organizations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the strength of recommendations and confidence in the evidence. These serve as interim recommendations which are routinely updated given gaps of knowledge and lack of high-quality data on this evolving subject. RESULTS: Relevant existing literature related to methods of transmission, and ocular manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 are summarized. The data and clinical experiences driving recommendations for pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative surgical considerations, anesthesia choice, as well as considerations for intravitreal injections are provided. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are provided with the goal of protecting vitreoretinal surgeons and associated personnel from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during interventional vitreoretinal procedures. This is a rapidly evolving topic with numerous remaining gaps in our current knowledge. As such, recommendations will evolve and the current manuscript is intended to serve as a foundation for continued dialogue on best practices.

Bacterial Dispersion Associated With Various Patient Face Mask Designs During Simulated Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate bacterial dispersion with patient face mask use during simulated intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fifteen healthy subjects were recruited for this single-center study. Each participant was instructed not to speak for 2 minutes, simulating a "no-talking" policy, while in an ophthalmic examination chair with an blood agar plate secured to the forehead and wearing various face masks (no mask, loose fitting surgical mask, tight-fitting surgical mask without tape, tight-fitting surgical mask with adhesive tape securing the superior portion of the mask, N95 mask, and cloth mask). Each scenario was then repeated while reading a 2-minute script, simulating a talking patient. The primary outcome measures were the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) and microbial species. RESULTS: During the "no-talking" scenario, subjects wearing a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape developed fewer CFUs compared with subjects wearing the same mask without tape (difference 0.93 CFUs [95% confidence interval 0.32-1.55]; P = .003). During the speech scenarios, subjects wearing a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape had significantly fewer CFUs compared with subjects without a face mask (difference 1.07 CFUs; P = .001), subjects with a loose face mask (difference 0.67 CFUs; P = .034), and subjects with a tight face mask without tape (difference 1.13 CFUs; P < .001). There was no difference between those with a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape and an N95 mask in the "no-talking" (P > .99) and "speech" (P = .831) scenarios. No oral flora were isolated in "no-talking" scenarios but were isolated in 8 of 75 (11%) cultures in speech scenarios (P = .02). CONCLUSION: The addition of tape to the superior portion of a patient's face mask reduced bacterial dispersion during simulated intravitreal injections and had no difference in bacterial dispersion compared with wearing N95 masks.

Practice Patterns and Responsiveness to Simulated Common Ocular Complaints Among US Ophthalmology Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically changed how comprehensive ophthalmology practices care for patients. OBJECTIVE: To report practice patterns for common ocular complaints during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic among comprehensive ophthalmology practices in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cross-sectional study, 40 private practices and 20 university centers were randomly selected from 4 regions across the US. Data were collected on April 29 and 30, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Investigators placed telephone calls to each ophthalmology practice office. Responses to 3 clinical scenarios-refraction request, cataract evaluation, and symptoms of a posterior vitreous detachment-were compared regionally and between private and university centers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary measure was time to next appointment for each of the 3 scenarios. Secondary measures included use of telemedicine and advertisement of COVID-19 precautions. RESULTS: Of the 40 private practices, 2 (5%) were closed, 24 (60%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 14 (35%) remained open to all patients. Of the 20 university centers, 2 (10%) were closed, 17 (85%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 1 (5%) remained open to all patients. There were no differences for any telemedicine metric. University centers were more likely than private practices to mention preparations to limit the spread of COVID-19 (17 of 20 [85%] vs 14 of 40 [35%]; mean difference, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; P < .001). Private practices had a faster next available appointment for cataract evaluations than university centers, with a mean (SD) time to visit of 22.1 (27.0) days vs 75.5 (46.1) days (mean difference, 53.4; 95% CI, 23.1-83.7; P < .001). Private practices were also more likely than university centers to be available to see patients with flashes and floaters (30 of 40 [75%] vs 8 of 20 [40%]; mean difference, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of investigator telephone calls to ophthalmology practice offices, there were uniform recommendations for the 3 routine ophthalmic complaints. Private practices had shorter times to next available appointment for cataract extraction and were more likely to evaluate posterior vitreous detachment symptoms. As there has not been a study examining these practice patterns before the COVID-19 pandemic, the relevance of these findings on public health is yet to be determined.

Real-world vitreoretinal practice patterns during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide, aggregated health record analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge to the healthcare community. To reduce disease transmission, national regulatory agencies temporarily recommended curtailment of all nonurgent office visits and elective surgeries in March 2020, including vitreoretinal outpatient care in the USA. The effect of these guidelines on utilization of vitreoretinal care has not been explored to date. RECENT FINDINGS: Retinal outpatient visits, new patient visits, intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor injections and in-office multimodal retinal imaging has seen a significant decline in utilization in the early phase of the pandemic. Intravitreal injections were performed at a comparatively higher rate than office visits. Utilization appeared to steadily increase in April 2020. Telemedicine visits, enabled by new national legislation for all areas of medicine, have been adopted to a modest degree by the retina community. SUMMARY: In-office retinal care declined in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and national regulatory guidelines limiting nonurgent care. These trends in practice patterns and care utilization may be of interest to vitreoretinal providers and all ophthalmologists at large.