Longitudinal study of interventional radiology activity in a large metropolitan Italian tertiary care hospital: how the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has changed our activity

Abstract

Objectives To retrospectively analyze interventional radiology (IR) activity changes in the COVID-19 era and to describe how to safely and effectively reorganize IR activity. Methods All IR procedures performed between January 30 and April 8, 2020 (COVID-era group) and the same 2019 period (non-COVID-era group) were retrospectively included and compared. A sub-analysis for the lockdown period (LDP: 11 March-8 April) was also conducted. Demographic, hospitalization, clinical, and procedural data were obtained for both groups and statistically compared with univariable analysis. Results A total of 1496 procedures (non-COVID era, 825; COVID era, 671) performed in 1226 patients (64.9 ± 15.1 years, 618 women) were included. The number of procedures decreased by 18.6% between 2019 and 2020 (825 vs 671, p < .001), with a reduction by 48.2% in LDP (188 vs 363, p < .0001). In the LDP COVID era, bedside procedures were preferred (p = .013), with an increase in procedures from the intensive care unit compared with the emergency department and outpatients (p = .048), and an increased activity for oncological patients (p = .003). No incidents of cross-infection of non-infected from infected patients and no evidence of COVID-19 infection of healthcare workers in the IR service was registered. Conclusions Coronavirus disease outbreak changed the interventional radiology activity with an overall reduction in the number of procedures. However, this study confirms that interventional radiology continuum of care can be safely performed also during the pandemic, following defined measures and protocols, taking care of all patients. Key Points • Coronavirus disease pandemic determined a reduction of interventional radiology activity as compared to the same period of the previous year. • Interventional radiology procedures for life-threatening conditions and non-deferrable oncologic treatments were prioritized as opposed to elective procedures. • Strict adoption of safe procedures allowed us to have until now no incidents of cross-infection of non-infected from infected patients and no evidence of COVID-19 infection of HCWs in the IR service.

The Covid-19 Pandemic Constraints May Lead to Disease Progression for Patients with Liver Cancer Scheduled to Receive Locoregional Therapies: Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis in an Interventional Radiology Unit

“…As noted with prior studies [ 2 – 5 ], the LDP induced an overall reduction in the number of elective IR procedures, with a relative increase in emergency procedures. The present study showed that this interruption in IR procedures may have a negative impact for liver oncology patients.…”

“…The lockdown period (LDP) due to the Covid-19 pandemic was declared in Portugal from the 18 March until the 2 May 2020 [ 1 ], causing a reduction/suspension in non-urgent medical care during this period. Previous studies have confirmed the negative impact of the LDP in the workload at different Interventional Radiology (IR) units across Europe [ 2 , 3 ]. However, the potential impact on disease progression for oncology patients scheduled for loco-regional therapies (LRT) is mainly unknown, hence this report, which is a single-centre retrospective analysis on the impact of Covid-19 pandemic in an IR Unit.…”

Is IR an Essential Hospital Service? Analysis of Trauma Procedures at a Level 1 Centre During the First Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia

“…Some studies have shown that the overall workload in IR has suffered less from pandemic-related shutdown than for the total hospital workload [5]. This study showed that IR procedures performed on trauma patients during the first wave in Melbourne increased by 25%.…”

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Radiology Practice—A Multicenter Observational Study

“…A study published by Lezzi et al reported a 48% overall workload reduction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 14 Neurointerventions were among the least affected, as most of these procedures fall under emergencies such as stroke, SAH, and intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurointerventional procedures such as stroke thrombectomy and endovascular therapy for ruptured aneurysm increased marginally (31%, p = 0.409 and 14%, p = 0.625, respectively).…”