COVID-19 and Stroke Recurrence by Subtypes: A Propensity-Score Matched Analyses of Stroke Subtypes in 44,994 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cerebrovascular diseases (CVDs), including varying strokes, can recur in patients upon coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis, but risk factor stratification based on stroke subtypes and outcomes is not well studied in large studies using propensity-score matching. We identified risk factors and stroke recurrence based on varying subtypes in patients with a prior CVD and COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed data from 45 health care organizations and created cohorts based on ICDs for varying stroke subtypes utilizing the TriNetX Analytics Network. We measured the odds ratios and risk differences of hospitalization, ICU/critical care services, intubation, mortality, and stroke recurrence in patients with COVID-19 compared to propensity-score matched cohorts without COVID-19 within 90-days. RESULTS: 22,497 patients with a prior history of CVD within 10 years and COVID-19 diagnosis were identified. All cohorts with a previous CVD diagnosis had an increased risk of hospitalization, ICU, and mortality. Additionally, the data demonstrated that a history of ischemic stroke increased the risk for hemorrhagic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) (OR:1.59, 1.75, p-value: 0.044*, 0.043*), but a history of hemorrhagic stroke was associated with a higher risk for hemorrhagic strokes only (ORs 3.2, 1.7, 1.7 and p-value: 0.001*, 0.028*, 0.001*). History of TIA was not associated with increased risk for subsequent strokes upon COVID-19 infection (all p-values: ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 was associated with an increased risk for hemorrhagic strokes and TIA among all ischemic stroke patients, an increased risk for hemorrhagic stroke in hemorrhagic stroke patients, and no associated increased risk for any subsequent strokes in TIA patients.

A History of Cerebrovascular Disease Is Independently Associated with Increased Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with COVID-19: A Cohort Study of 369,563 COVID-19 Cases in the USA.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to evaluate the risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and subsequent cerebrovascular disease (CVD) in the population with a prior diagnosis of CVD within the past 10 years. METHODS: We utilized the TriNetX Analytics Network to query 369,563 CO-VID-19 cases up to December 30, 2020. We created 8 cohorts of patients with COVID-19 diagnosis based on a previous diagnosis of CVD. We measured the odds ratios, relative risks, risk differences for hospitalizations, ICU/critical care services, intubation, mortality, and CVD recurrence within 90 days of COVID-19 diagnosis, compared to a propensity-matched cohort with no prior history of CVD within 90 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: 369,563 patients had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with a subset of 22,497 (6.09%) patients with a prior diagnosis of CVD within 10 years. All cohorts with a CVD diagnosis had an increased risk of hospitalization, critical care services, and mortality within 90 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Additionally, the data demonstrate that any history of CVD is associated with significantly increased odds of subsequent CVD post-COVID-19 compared to a matched control. CONCLUSIONS: CVD, a known complication of CO-VID-19, is more frequent in patients with a prior history of CVD. Patients with any previous diagnosis of CVD are at higher risks of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection. In patients admitted to the ED due to COVID-19 symptoms, these risk factors should be promptly identified as delayed or missed risk stratification and could lead to an ineffective and untimely diagnosis of subsequent CVD, which would lead to protracted hospitalization and poor prognosis.

Virtual education in neurosurgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgical education in the US has changed significantly as a consequence of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Institutional social distancing requirements have resulted in many neurosurgical programs utilizing video conferencing for educational activities. However, it is unclear how or if these practices should continue after the pandemic. The objective of this study was to characterize virtual education in neurosurgery and understand how it should be utilized after COVID-19. METHODS: A 24-question, 3-part online survey was administered anonymously to all 117 US neurosurgical residency programs from May 15, 2020, to June 15, 2020. Questions pertained to the current use of virtual conferencing, preferences over traditional conferences, and future inclinations. The Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree) was used. Comparisons were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Statistical significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: One-hundred eight responses were recorded. Overall, 38 respondents (35.2%) were attendings and 70 (64.8%) were trainees. Forty-one respondents (38.0%) indicated attending 5-6 conferences per week and 70 (64.8%) attend national virtual conferences. When considering different conference types, there was no overall preference (scores < 3) for virtual conferences over traditional conferences. In regard to future use, respondents strongly agreed that they would continue the practice at some capacity after the pandemic (median score 5). Overall, respondents agreed that virtual conferences would partially replace traditional conferences (median score 4), whereas they strongly disagreed with the complete replacement of traditional conferences (median score 1). The most common choices for the partial replacement of tradition conferences were case conferences (59/108, 55%) and board preparation (64/108, 59%). Lastly, there was a significant difference in scores for continued use of virtual conferencing in those who attend nationally sponsored conferences (median score 5, n = 70) and those who do not (median score 4, n = 38; U = 1762.50, z = 2.97, r = 0.29, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual conferences will likely remain an integral part of neurosurgical education after the COVID-19 pandemic has abated. Across the country, residents and faculty report a preference for continued use of virtual conferencing, especially virtual case conferences and board preparation. Some traditional conferences may even be replaced with virtual conferences, in particular those that are more didactic. Furthermore, nationally sponsored virtual conferences have a positive effect on the preferences for continued use of virtual conferences.

Ambulatory neurosurgery in the COVID-19 era: patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine.

OBJECTIVE: Telemedicine has rapidly expanded in the recent years as technologies have afforded healthcare practitioners the ability to diagnose and treat patients remotely. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, nonessential clinical visits were greatly limited, and much of the outpatient neurosurgical practice at the authors' institution was shifted quickly to telehealth. Although there are prior data suggesting that the use of telemedicine is satisfactory in other surgical fields, data in neurosurgery are limited. This study aimed to investigate both patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine and its strengths and limitations in outpatient neurosurgery visits. METHODS: This quality improvement study was designed to analyze provider and patient satisfaction with telemedicine consultations in an outpatient neurosurgery clinic setting at a tertiary care, large-volume, academic center. The authors designed an 11-question survey for neurosurgical providers and a 13-question survey for patients using both closed 5-point Likert scale responses and multiple choice responses. The questionnaires were administered to patients and providers during the period when the clinic restricted in-person visits. At the conclusion of the study, the overall data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. RESULTS: During the study period, 607 surveys were sent out to patients seen by telehealth at the authors' academic center, and 122 responses were received. For the provider survey, 85 surveys were sent out to providers at the authors' center and other academic centers, and 40 surveys were received. Ninety-two percent of patients agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with that particular telehealth visit. Eighty-eight percent of patients agreed that their telehealth visit was more convenient for them than an in-person visit, but only 36% of patients stated they would like their future visits to be telehealth. Sixty-three percent of providers agreed that telehealth visits were more convenient for them than in-person visits, and 85% of responding providers stated that they wished to incorporate telehealth into their future practice. CONCLUSIONS: Although the authors' transition to telehealth was both rapid and unexpected, most providers and patients reported positive experiences with their telemedicine visits and found telemedicine to be an effective form of ambulatory neurosurgical care. Not all patients preferred telemedicine visits over in-person visits, but the high satisfaction with telemedicine by both providers and patients is promising to the future expansion of telehealth in ambulatory neurosurgery.

Early Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Neurosurgical Training in the United States: A Case Volume Analysis of 8 Programs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on operative case volume in 8 U.S. neurosurgical residency training programs in early 2020 and to survey these programs regarding training activities during this period. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of monthly operative case volumes and types for 8 residency programs for 2019 and January through April 2020. Cases were grouped as elective cranial, elective spine, and nonelective emergent cases. Programs were surveyed regarding residents' perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical training, didactics, and research participation. Data were analyzed for individual programs and pooled across programs. RESULTS: Across programs, the 2019 monthly mean ± SD case volume was 211 ± 82; 2020 mean ± SD case volumes for January, February, March, and April were 228 ± 93, 214 ± 84, 180 ± 73, and 107 ± 45. Compared with 2019, March and April 2020 mean cases declined 15% (P = 0.003) and 49% (P = 0.002), respectively. COVID-19 affected surgical case volume for all programs; 75% reported didactics negatively affected, and 90% reported COVID-19 resulted in increased research time. Several neurosurgery residents required COVID-19 testing; however, to our knowledge, only 1 resident from the participating programs tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents a significant reduction in operative volume in 8 neurosurgery residency training programs in early 2020. During this time, neurosurgery residents engaged in online didactics and research-related activities, reporting increased research productivity. Residency programs should collect data to determine the educational impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on residents' operative case volumes, identify deficiencies, and develop plans to mitigate any effects.

Trends in academic productivity in the COVID-19 era: analysis of neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional literature.

BACKGROUND: Academic physicians aim to provide clinical and surgical care to their patients while actively contributing to a growing body of scientific literature. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in procedural-based specialties across the United States witnessing a sharp decline in their clinical volume and surgical cases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of COVID-19 on neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional academic productivity. METHODS: The study compared the neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional academic output during the pandemic lockdown with the same time period in previous years. Editors from a sample of neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional journals provided the total number of original manuscript submissions, broken down by months, from the year 2016 to 2020. Manuscript submission was used as a surrogate metric for academic productivity. RESULTS: 8 journals were represented. The aggregated data from all eight journals as a whole showed that a combined average increase of 42.3% was observed on original submissions for 2020. As the average yearly percent increase using the 2016-2019 data for each journal exhibited a combined average increase of 11.2%, the rise in the yearly increase for 2020 in comparison was nearly fourfold. For the same journals in the same time period, the average percent of COVID-19 related publications from January to June of 2020 was 6.87%. CONCLUSION: There was a momentous increase in the number of original submissions for the year 2020, and its effects were uniformly experienced across all of our represented journals.