Patient Satisfaction in the Era of COVID-19: Virtual Visit versus In-person Visit Satisfaction.

SIGNIFICANCE: Teleophthalmology became widely used during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic; however, the quality of this care remains to be understood. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare patient satisfaction levels from virtual and in-person visits based on post-visit surveys, as well as investigate demographic characteristics that may predict patient satisfaction with virtual visits. METHODS: Virtual (n = 2943) and in-person (n = 56,175) visits from March 19, 2020, to July 31, 2020, were identified using the electronic health record system. For in-person visits, a random subset of 3000 visits was acquired using a random number generator. Of these, 2266 virtual and 2590 in-person visits met the inclusion criteria. Patients who completed the Telemedicine for Medical Practice Survey and Medical Practice Survey were analyzed in this report. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare scores between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven virtual patients (9.31%; 82 phone, 115 video, 14 hybrid) and 307 in-person patients (11.85%) completed the Telemedicine for Medical Practice Survey and Medical Practice Survey, respectively. Satisfaction scores were similar and high in both groups-virtual visit satisfaction scores averaged 4.82, whereas in-person visit satisfaction averaged 4.85 (P = .80, θ = 0.501 [0.493 to 0.509]). Only one question yielded significantly different satisfaction scores, and no demographic variables were significant predictors of satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction is comparable between virtual and in-person visits, validating the continued usage of telemedicine for eye care visits.

Baseline factors and reason for cancellation of elective ophthalmic surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the baseline risk factors for elective ophthalmic surgery cancellations and characterise the reasons for cancellation. METHODS: This is a retrospective, non-randomised study performed at a large tertiary ophthalmic centre. It included a consecutive sample of patients above the age of 18 who had an ophthalmic surgery scheduled at Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH between January 2012 and December 2019. An automated search pull identified 75,908 scheduled surgeries (63,987 completed and 11,921 cancelled surgeries). Statistical analysis was performed using R (version 3.5.1). Main outcome measures were baseline factors that impact risk for surgery cancellation and reasons for surgery cancellation. RESULTS: Analysis was performed on 69,963 scheduled surgeries (57.37% Female, 42.63% Male; Mean age of 62.72 years; 59,959 completed and 10,004 cancelled surgeries). Of the 2384 cancelled surgeries with reasons provided, the most common causes of cancellation were patient refusal (38.42%), patient health condition (18.79%), and rescheduling of surgery (15.27%). Female sex, black race, patient age less than 50 years, non-cataract surgeries, regional mean household income greater than $82,900, Medicare insurance, and geographical distance of less than 10 miles from home to the surgery site were each associated with a significantly increased risk of surgery cancellation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully identified several baseline factors predicting elective ophthalmic surgery cancellation. The clinical insights gained from these lines of enquiry may be used to construct models that not only identify patients at greater risk for cancellation but also highlight which interventions have greatest efficacy in preventing ophthalmic surgery cancellations.

Meta-Analyses of Two Treatment Regimens for Retinal Vein Occlusion.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To pool available data on the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and number of injections as reported by treat and extend (T&E) and pro re nata (PRN) regimens for retinal vein occlusion (RVO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After PubMed was queried, separate random effect models were fitted to the data extracted and the Wald test was used to compare the estimates of the two independent meta-analyses. RESULTS: Fourteen T&E and 29 PRN studies were included in two independent meta-analyses. No significant difference was observed in BCVA (+14.74 [+11.52, +17.96] in T&E vs +15.90 [+14.24, + 17.56] in PRN, P = 0.530) or CRT improvements (-259.56 [-189.02, -330.09] in T&E vs -256.58 [-226.57, -286.48] in PRN, P = 0.939). More injections over 12 months were observed in T&E regimens (7.48 [6.32, 8.65] vs 5.13 [4.20, 6.06] in PRN, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Although more injections may be required, T&E achieves similar functional and anatomic benefits as compared to PRN regimens. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:244-250.].

Should We Stop Treating Patients With Eplerenone for Chronic CSCR? Commentary on the VICI Trial.

The VICI trial reported by Lotery et al. is a recent placebo-controlled, randomized trial that examined the efficacy of eplerenone treatment for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) in 104 patients. The study found no significant difference in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between the eplerenone-treated and placebo groups, prompting the VICI investigators to conclude that eplerenone should not be prescribed to treat CSCR. Limitations of the study include the patients' high baseline BCVA, use of a functional outcome like BCVA as the primary endpoint instead of an anatomical outcome, failure to account for rebound effect, and measuring subretinal fluid (SRF) thickness instead of the more informative SRF volume. Based on these reasons and evidence from multiple case series and prospective studies over the past 7 years, it is the opinion of the authors of this editorial that the VICI investigators' conclusion to stop prescribing eplerenone for CSCR is too severe. Future clinical trials should continue to explore the potential for eplerenone as long-term maintenance treatment in chronic CSCR. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2021;52:308-310.].

Examining the Necessity of Postoperative Day-1 Review After Pars Plana Vitrectomy: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the necessity of the postoperative day-1 (POD1) review after pars plana vitrectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis included available literature that documented medical and surgical interventions performed on POD1 review after pars plana vitrectomy. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using a binomial-normal model to analyze three data sets consisting of all interventions, medical interventions, and surgical interventions. Heterogeneity and publication bias analyses were performed. RESULTS: POD1 reviews of 2,262 patients across 14 studies were examined to yield a total POD1 intervention rate estimate of 4.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-13.9). When stratified by medical or surgical intervention, the intervention rate estimates were 4.1% (95% CI, 1.4-11.6) and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3-1.3), respectively. The most common complication requiring postoperative intervention was elevated intraocular pressure. CONCLUSION: Given the wide confidence intervals of the estimated intervention rates, variability in postoperative practices, and range of interventions performed, the POD1 review cannot be discarded in its entirety. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2021;52:513-518.].