Incidence of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Population-Based Study, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studying the baseline incidence of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) prior to COVID-19 and the limitations of how this has been previously reported in the literature will help improve understanding of this disease and how risks may have changed in the post-COVID era. METHODS: We examined CVT incidence using linked administrative data in British Columbia, Canada (population 5.2 million). To contextualize our findings, we also examined CVT incidence in the published literature and searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for article titles and abstracts up to Nov 2, 2021 on CVT incidence in adults. We performed abstract screening and full-text review prior to data extraction and explored associations between CVT incidence and year of study, geographic location, and study quality with meta-analyses and meta-regression. A random-effects restricted maximum likelihood model was used. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger tests and using visual inspection of the funnel plot for symmetry. RESULTS: There were 554 unique CVT cases (mean age 50.9 years, 55.4% women) in British Columbia from 2000 to 2017; overall annual incidence was 8.7 (95%CI' 8.0-9.4) per million. Incidence increased over time in men across the entire study period, and from 2011 to 2017 in women. We identified 22 other studies on CVT incidence before 2020 (21/23 total studies included in meta-analysis). Annual incidence overall was 12.1 (95% CI' 9.9-14.3) per million with significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 98.8%, Qp-value<0.001). There were no significant associations on meta-regression between incidence and study year, study quality score, or gross national income per capita of the study country. Visual inspection of the funnel plot and a significant Egger test (z=2.8, P<0.01) suggested possible publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of CVT in Canadian data increased over time but remained lower than in other population-based studies. Significant heterogeneity exists in the literature, which may be subject to publication bias.

Telemedicine use and outcomes after transient ischemic attack and minor stroke during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in telemedicine use. We compared care and outcomes in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke before and after the widespread adoption of telemedicine in Ontario, Canada, in 2020. METHODS: In a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data, we identified patients with TIA or ischemic stroke discharged from any emergency department in Ontario before the widespread use of telemedicine (Apr. 1, 2015, to Mar. 31, 2020) and after (Apr. 1, 2020, to Mar. 31, 2021). We measured care, including visits with a physician, investigations and medication renewal. We compared 90-day death before and after 2020 using Cox proportional hazards models, and we compared 90-day admission using cause-specific hazard models. RESULTS: We identified 47 601 patients (49.3% female; median age 73, interquartile range 62-82, yr) with TIA (n = 35 695, 75.0%) or ischemic stroke (n = 11 906, 25.0%). After 2020, 83.1% of patients had 1 or more telemedicine visit within 90 days of emergency department discharge, compared with 3.8% before. The overall access to outpatient visits within 90 days remained unchanged (92.9% before v. 94.0% after; risk difference 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.3 to 3.5). Investigations and medication renewals were unchanged. Clinical outcomes were also similar before and after 2020; the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.04) for 90-day all-cause admission, 1.06 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.20) for stroke admission and 1.07 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) for death. INTERPRETATION: Care and short-term outcomes after TIA or minor stroke remained stable after the widespread implementation of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest that telemedicine is an effective method of health care delivery that can be complementary to in-person care for minor ischemic cerebrovascular events.

Radiation therapy practice changes in the COVID-19 pandemic era: A pilot study in California.

PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate practice changes among Southern and Northern California's radiation oncology centers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: On the online survey platform SurveyMonkey, we designed 10 survey questions to measure changes in various aspects of medical physics practice. The questions covered patient load and travel rules; scopes to work from home; new protocols to reduce corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection risk; availability of telemedicine; and changes in fractionation schedules and/or type of treatment plans. We emailed the survey to radiation oncology centers throughout Northern and Southern California, requesting one completed survey per center. All responses were anonymized, and data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative research methods. RESULTS: At the end of a 4-month collection period (July 2, 2021 to October 11, 2021), we received a total of 61 responses throughout Southern and Northern California. On average, 4111 patients were treated per day across the 61 centers. New COVID-19-related department and hospital policies, along with hybrid workflow changes, infectious control policies, and changes in patient load have been reported. Results also showed changes in treatment methods during the pandemic, such as increased use of telemedicine, hypofractionation for palliative, breast cancer, and prostate cancer cases; and simultaneous boosts, compared to sequential boosts. CONCLUSION: Our California radiation oncology center population study shows changes in various aspects of radiation oncology practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study serves as a pilot study to identify possible correlations and new strategies that allow radiation oncology centers to continue providing quality patient care while ensuring the safety of both staff and patients.

Relationship of frailty with excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-level study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of the literature on the relationship between frailty and excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The entire community-dwelling adult population of Ontario, Canada, as of January 1st, 2018, was identified using the Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team (CANHEART) cohort. Residents of long-term care facilities were excluded. Frailty was categorized through the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG® System) frailty indicator. Follow-up was until December 31st, 2020, with March 11th, 2020, indicating the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using multivariable Cox models with patient age as the timescale, we determined the relationship between frailty status and pandemic period on all-cause mortality. We evaluated the modifier effect of frailty using both stratified models as well as incorporating an interaction between frailty and the pandemic period. RESULTS: We identified 11,481,391 persons in our cohort, of whom 3.2% were frail based on the ACG indicator. Crude mortality increased from 0.75 to 0.87% per 100 person years from the pre- to post-pandemic period, translating to ~ 13,800 excess deaths among the community-dwelling adult population of Ontario (HR 1.11 95% CI 1.09-1.11). Frailty was associated with a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality (HR 3.02, 95% CI 2.99-3.06). However, all-cause mortality increased similarly during the pandemic in frail (aHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09-1.16) and non-frail (aHR 1.15, 95% CI 1.13-1.17) persons. CONCLUSION: Although frailty was associated with greater mortality, frailty did not modify the excess mortality associated with the pandemic.

The risk of death or unplanned readmission after discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalization in Alberta and Ontario.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of readmissions after COVID-19 hospitalizations is uncertain, as is whether current readmission prediction equations are useful for discharge risk stratification of COVID-19 survivors or for comparing among hospitals. We sought to determine the frequency and predictors of death or unplanned readmission after a COVID-19 hospital discharge. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adults (≥ 18 yr) who were discharged alive from hospital after a nonpsychiatric, nonobstetric, acute care admission for COVID-19 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2021, in Alberta and Ontario. RESULTS: Of 843 737 individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction during the study period, 46 412 (5.5%) were adults admitted to hospital within 14 days of their positive test. Of these, 8496 died in hospital and 34 846 were discharged alive (30 336 discharged after an index admission of ≤ 30 d and 4510 discharged after an admission > 30 d). One in 9 discharged patients died or were readmitted within 30 days after discharge (3173 [10.5%] of those with stay ≤ 30 d and 579 [12.8%] of those with stay > 30 d). The LACE score (length of stay, acuity, Charlson Comorbidity Index and number of emergency visits in previous 6 months) for predicting urgent readmission or death within 30 days had a c-statistic of 0.60 in Alberta and 0.61 in Ontario; inclusion of sex, discharge locale, deprivation index and teaching hospital status in the model improved the c-statistic to 0.73. INTERPRETATION: Death or readmission after discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalization is common and had a similar frequency in Alberta and Ontario. Risk stratification and interinstitutional comparisons of outcomes after hospital admission for COVID-19 should include sex, discharge locale and socioeconomic measures, in addition to the LACE variables.

Emergency Department Visits, Care, and Outcome After Stroke and Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic Phases.

BACKGROUND: It is not known if initial reductions in hospitalization for stroke and myocardial infarction early during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic were followed by subsequent increases. We describe the rates of emergency department visits for stroke and myocardial infarction through the pandemic phases. METHODS: We used linked administrative data to compare the weekly age- and sex-standardized rates of visits for stroke and myocardial infarction in Ontario, Canada in the first 9 months of 2020 to the mean baseline rates (2015-2019) using rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We compared care and outcomes by pandemic phases (pre-pandemic was January-March, lockdown was March-May, early reopening was May-July, and late reopening was July-September). RESULTS: We identified 15,682 visits in 2020 for ischemic stroke (59.2%; n = 9279), intracerebral hemorrhage (12.2%; n = 1912), or myocardial infarction (28.6%; n = 4491). The weekly rates for stroke visits in 2020 were lower during the lockdown and early reopening than at baseline (RR 0.76, 95% CI [0.66, 0.87] for the largest weekly decrease). The weekly rates for myocardial infarction visits were lower during the lockdown only (RR 0.61, 95% CI [0.46, 0.77] for the largest weekly decrease), and there was a compensatory increase in visits following reopening. Ischemic stroke 30-day mortality was increased during the lockdown phase (11.5% pre-coronavirus disease; 12.2% during lockdown; 9.2% during early reopening; and 10.6% during late reopening, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: After an initial reduction in visits for stroke and myocardial infarction, there was a compensatory increase in visits for myocardial infarction. The death rate after ischemic stroke was higher during the lockdown than in other phases.

CONTEXTE: Nous ignorons si les réductions des taux d'hospitalisations pour un AVC et un infarctus du myocarde observées au début de la pandémie de coronavirus de 2019 ont été suivies d'une hausse de ces taux. Nous décrivons ici les taux de visites aux services des urgences pour un AVC et un infarctus du myocarde pendant toutes les phases de la pandémie. MÉTHODES: À partir de données administratives couplées, nous comparons les taux hebdomadaires de visites pour un AVC et un infarctus du myocarde, normalisés en fonction de l'âge et du sexe, en Ontario, au Canada, effectuées pendant les neuf premiers mois de 2020, avec les taux moyens de base (2015-2019), en utilisant des ratios des taux (RR) et des intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 %. Nous avons comparé les soins et les issues selon les phases de la pandémie (avant la pandémie : de janvier à mars; confinement : de mars à mai; début de la réouverture : de mai à juillet; phase tardive de la réouverture : de juillet à septembre). RÉSULTATS: Nous avons répertorié 15 682 visites effectuées en 2020 pour un AVC ischémique (59,2 %; n = 9 279), une hémorragie intracérébrale (12,2 %; n = 1 912) ou un infarctus du myocarde (28,6 %; n = 4 491). Les taux hebdomadaires de visites pour un AVC effectuées en 2020 étaient inférieurs pendant la période de confinement et le début de la réouverture comparativement à la période de base (RR : 0,76; IC à 95 % : 0,66-0,87 pour la plus grande baisse hebdomadaire). Les taux hebdomadaires de visites pour un infarctus du myocarde étaient inférieurs pendant la période de confinement seulement (RR : 0,61; IC à 95 % : 0,46-0,77 pour la baisse hebdomadaire la plus importante); une hausse compensatrice du nombre de visites a été notée après la réouverture. Le taux de mortalité à 30 jours des suites d'un AVC ischémique était plus élevé pendant la période de confinement (11,5 % avant la pandémie de coronavirus; 12,2 % pendant le confinement; 9,2 % au début de la période de réouverture; 10,6 % pendant la phase tardive de la réouverture, p = 0,015). CONCLUSION: Après une réduction initiale du nombre de visites motivées par un AVC et un infarctus du myocarde, on a noté une hausse compensatrice du nombre de visites motivées par un infarctus du myocarde. Le taux de mortalité des suites d'un AVC ischémique était plus élevé pendant la période de confinement que pendant les autres périodes.

COVID-19's impact on faculty and staff at a School of Medicine in the US: what is the blueprint for the future?

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused unprecedented challenges within medical centers, revealing inequities embedded in the medical community and exposing fragile social support systems. While faculty and staff faced extraordinary demands in workplace duties, personal responsibilities also increased. The goal of this study was to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on personal and professional activities of faculty and staff in order to illuminate current challenges and explore solutions. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured group interviews involved faculty and staff at four affiliate sites within the Department of Medicine at the University of Colorado, School of Medicine. Focus groups addressed the impact of COVID-19 on (1) Changes to roles and responsibilities at work and at home, (2) Resources utilized to manage these changes and, (3) Potential strategies for how the Department could assist faculty and staff. Thematic analysis was conducted using an inductive method at the semantic level to form themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts revealed themes of: (1) Challenges and disparities experienced during the pandemic, (2) Disproportionate impact on women personally and professionally, (3) Institutional factors that contributed to wellness and burnout, and (4) Solutions and strategies to support faculty and staff. Within each of these themes were multiple subthemes including increased professional and personal demands, concern for personal safety, a sense of internal guilt, financial uncertainty, missed professional opportunities, and a negative impact on mentoring. Solutions were offered and included an emphasis on addressing preexisting inequities, the importance of community, and workplace flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic created burdens for already challenged faculty and staff in both their personal and professional lives. Swift action and advocacy by academic institutions is needed to support the lives and careers of our colleagues now and in the future.