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.

COVID-19 pandemic and the effect of increased utilisation of mobile X-ray examinations on radiation dose to radiographers.

INTRODUCTION: The use of ionising radiation results in occupational exposure to medical imaging professionals, requiring routine monitoring. This study aims to assess the effect of increased utilisation of mobile X-ray units, mobile imaging of non-routine body regions and radiographer work practice changes for impact on staff radiation dose during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of general radiology departments across two metropolitan hospitals was performed. Personal radiation monitor exposure reports between January 2019 and December 2020 were analysed. Statistical analysis was conducted using a Mann-Whitney U test when comparing each quarter, from 2019 to 2020. Categorical data were compared using a Chi-squared test. RESULTS: Mobile X-ray use during the pandemic increased approximately 1.7-fold, with the peak usage observed in September 2020. The mobile imaging rate per month of non-routine body regions increased from approximately 6.0-7.8%. Reported doses marginally increased during Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2020 (in comparison to 2019 data), though was not statistically significant (Q2: P = 0.13; Q3: P = 0.31 and Q4 P = 0.32). In Q1, doses marginally decreased and were not statistically significant (P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Increased utilisation and work practice changes had no significant effect on reported staff radiation dose. The average reported dose remained significantly lower than the occupational dose limits for radiation workers of 20 mSv.

Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Emergent Reversal of Intracranial Hemorrhage in Patients with Ventricular Assist Devices.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is a devastating complication for patients with ventricular assist devices (VADs). The safety of emergent anticoagulation reversal with four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) and optimal timing of anticoagulation resumption are not clear. In addition, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is used as a biomarker for thromboembolic risk, but its utility in guiding anticoagulation management after reversal with PCC has not be described. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients with VADs presenting with ICH between 2014 and 2020 who received four-factor PCC for rapid anticoagulation reversal. We collected the timing of PCC administration, timing of resumption of anticoagulation, survival, occurrence of thromboembolic events, and LDH levels throughout hospitalization. RESULTS: We identified 16 ICH events in 14 patients with VADs treated with rapid anticoagulation reversal using four-factor PCC (11 intraparenchymal, 4 subdural, 1 subarachnoid hemorrhage). PCC was administered at a mean of 3.3 ± 0.3 h after imaging diagnosis of ICH. Overall mortality was 63%. Survivors had higher presenting Glasgow Coma Scale (median 15, interquartile range [IQR] 15-15 versus 14, IQR 8-14.7, P = 0.041). In all six instances where the patient survived, anticoagulation was resumed on average 9.16 ± 1.62 days after reversal. There were no thromboembolic events prior to resumption of anticoagulation. Three events occurred after anticoagulation resumption and within 3 months of reversal: VAD thrombosis in a patient with thrombosis at the time of reversal, ischemic stroke, and readmission for elevated LDH in the setting of subtherapeutic international normalized ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Our limited series found no thromboembolic complications immediately following anticoagulation reversal with PCC prior to resumption of anticoagulation. LDH trends may be useful to monitor thromboembolic risk after reversal.

Hemodynamic Safety of Continuous Infusion Labetalol Versus Esmolol Combination Therapies for Type B Aortic Dissections.

BACKGROUND: Medical management for type B aortic dissections (TBADs) require aggressive blood pressure and heart rate control to minimize further dissection extension and to restore perfusion to vital organs. Current guidelines recommend ß-blockers (BB) as first-line therapy, however do not differentiate an ideal agent for use. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the hemodynamic safety of continuous infusion labetalol compared to esmolol combination (EC) therapies for TBADs. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective analysis identified patients with a TBAD who received high dose continuous intravenous labetalol (HD-CIVL) or EC therapies. Patients who received HD-CIVL or EC therapies for a minimum of 2 hours, during which a minimum of 4 blood-pressure readings were recorded, were included. The primary end point was the incidence of hemodynamic instability with the use of HD-CIVL versus EC therapies. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients receiving HD-CIVL and 22 patients receiving EC therapy were included in the analysis. Ten (50%) of patients receiving HD-CIVL and 7 (32%) of patients receiving EC therapies met the clinical definition of hemodynamic instability (P = .23). Patients experiencing hemodynamic instability were all due to hypotension, with one also being due to bradycardia. Over half the patients in both groups had discontinued therapy ( P = .06) and were administered bolus fluids (P = .27). Only one patient receiving HD-CIVL required vasopressor administration while none in the EC group (P = .48). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that HD-CIVL is associated with a nonstatistical significant higher incidence of hemodynamic instability compared to an EC regimen in TBADs. Further studies are warranted in this patient population.