Role of interventional radiology in line insertion on intensive care during the Covid-19 pandemic

Cavenagh, Tom; Katsari, Sofia; Kawa, Bhavin; Karimaghaei, Raham; Pavlidis, Vyzantios; Patsiogiannis, Vasileios; Ntagiantas, Nikolaos; Chun, Joo-Young; Renani, Seyed Ameli; Mailli, Leto; Gonsalves, Michael; Ratnam, Lakshmi; Das, Raj; Morgan, Robert

doi:10.1186/s42155-020-00171-w

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on key publications, CIRSE has published a checklist for preparing interventional radiology services (IR services) for COVID-19 [1]. Recommendations also suggested the postponement of both non-urgent and elective procedures [2][3][4][5][6][7]. The published literature showed that during the first wave, the overall number of procedures performed by interventional radiologists (IRs) decreased by 16-62%, out-of-clinics hours and stress increased, and the number of outpatient cases was affected [8][9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of COVID-19 on Interventional Radiology Practice Worldwide: Results from a Global Survey

Gómez

Reimer

Pereira

et al. 2022

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on clinical practice and healthcare professionals. We aimed to assess how interventional radiology services (IR services) were impacted by the pandemic and describe adaptations to services and working patterns across the first two waves. Methods An anonymous six-part survey created using an online service was distributed as a single-use web link to 7125 members of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe via email. Out of 450 respondents, 327 who completed the survey at least partially including 278 who completed the full survey were included into the analysis. Results Interventional radiologists (IRs) reported that the overall workload decreased a lot (18%) or mildly (36%) or remained stable (29%), and research activities were often delayed (30% in most/all projects, 33% in some projects). Extreme concerns about the health of families, patients and general public were reported by 43%, 34% and 40%, respectively, and 29% reported having experienced significant stress (25% quite a bit; 23% somewhat). Compared to the first wave, significant differences were seen regarding changes to working patterns, effect on emergency work, outpatient and day-case services in the second wave. A total of 59% of respondents felt that their organisation was better prepared for a third wave. A total of 19% and 39% reported that the changes implemented would be continued or potentially continued on a long-term basis. Conclusion While the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected IR services in terms of workload, research activity and emotional burden, IRs seem to have improved the own perception of adaptation and preparation for further waves of the pandemic.

show abstract