Neurosurgical emergency management during the lockdown period in health care regions in Spain with different COVID-19 impact: lessons learned to improve outcomes on the future waves.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has overloaded health care systems, testing the capacity and response in every European region. Concerns were raised regarding the impact of resources' reorganization on certain emergency pathology management. The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of the outbreak (in terms of reduction of neurosurgical emergencies) during lockdown in different regions of Spain. METHODS: We analyzed the impact of the outbreak in four different affected regions by descriptive statistics and univariate comparison with same period of two previous years. These regions differed in their incidence level (high/low) and in the time of excess mortality with respect to lockdown declaration. That allowed us to analyze their influence on the characteristics of neurosurgical emergencies registered for every region. RESULTS: 1185 patients from 18 neurosurgical centers were included. Neurosurgical emergencies that underwent surgery dropped 24.41% and 28.15% in 2020 when compared with 2019 and 2018, respectively. A higher reduction was reported for the most affected regions by COVID-19. Non-traumatic spine experienced the most significant decrease in number of cases. Life-threatening conditions did not suffer a reduction in any health care region. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 affected dramatically the neurosurgical emergency management. The most significant reduction in neurosurgical emergencies occurred on those regions that were hit unexpectedly by the pandemic, as resources were focused on fighting the virus. As a consequence, life-threating and non-life-threatening conditions' mortality raised. Results in regions who had time to prepare for the hit were congruent with an organized and sensible neurosurgical decision-making.

Does Endovascular Treatment with Curative Intention Have Benefits for Treating High-Grade Arteriovenous Malformation versus Radiosurgery? Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of high-grade arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) remains challenging. Microsurgery provides a rapid and complete occlusion compared with other options but is associated with undesirable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the occlusion rates, incidence of unfavorable outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) as a curative treatment for high-grade AVMs. METHODS: A retrospective series of 57 consecutive patients with high-grade AVM treated with embolization or SRS, with the aim of achieving complete occlusion, was analyzed. Demographic, clinical, and angioarchitectonic variables were collected. Both treatments were compared for the occlusion rate and procedure-related complications. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty patients (52.6%) were men and 27 (47.4%) were women (mean age, 39 years). AVMs were unruptured in 43 patients (75.4%), and ruptured in 14 patients (24.6%). The presence of deep venous drainage, nidus volume, perforated arterial supply, and eloquent localization was more frequent in the SRS group. Complications such as hemorrhage or worsening of previous seizures were more frequent in the embolization group. No significant differences were observed in the occlusion rates or in the time necessary to achieve occlusion between the groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for endovascular treatment versus SRS was $53.279. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques achieved similar occlusion rates, but SRS carried a lower risk of complications. Staged embolization may be associated with a greater risk of hemorrhage, whereas SRS was shown to have a better cost-effectiveness ratio. These results support SRS as a better treatment option for high-grade AVMs.