Clinical and Economic Impact of COVID-19 in Vascular Surgery at a Tertiary University "Hub" Hospital of Italy.

BACKGROUND: Since the first cases of a novel respiratory disease were reported in December 2019, coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Emergency State (Cov-ES) caused a worldwide outbreak requiring a complete reorganization of the healthcare system and new management of its personnel; aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and financial impact of Cov-ES in the Department of Vascular Surgery at a Tertiary University "Hub" Hospital in northeast Italy. METHODS: Differences in clinical practice according to Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Related Health Problems and the financial impact of Cov-ES were considered. Vascular procedures performed between March 2019 and December 2019 (Prepandemic) were compared to those performed in the period March-December 2020 (Pandemic). Prepandemic and pandemic reimbursements of all vascular activities and the top 3 vascular diagnoses were evaluated. RESULTS: Prepandemic versus pandemic era documented a decrease of vascular consultations performed (2,882 vs. 2,270, -21.2%). The number of total vascular procedures decreased from 997 to 797 (-20.1%) with a higher reduction observed in outpatient surgical activities (247 to 136, -45.0%, P = 0.0005) rather than inpatient surgical activities (750 vs. 661, 11.9%, P = 0.02). Length of hospital stay (LOS) increased from 3.3 ± 2.7 days in prepandemic to 5.3 ± 3.9 in the pandemic era (P = 0.004). Among patients with limb-threatening ischemia, the rate of major limb amputation was higher in the pandemic (3.3% vs. 5.4%, respectively, P = 0.02), and a higher rate of elective hospitalization procedures was performed as urgent/emerging setting after clinical deterioration (2.8 % vs. 6.4%, P = 0.0002). According to DRG classification, an increase of "complicated" limb-threatening ischemia (DRG 554) and aortic aneurysm (DRG 110) was observed prepandemic to pandemic (+84.2% and +25.0%, respectively). Total reimbursement for vascular activities between pandemic versus prepandemic was 4,646,108€ vs. 5,054,398€, respectively (-8.0%). Management of "complicated" limb-threatening ischemia (DRG 554) and aortic aneurysm (DRG 110) required a higher clinical and financial support that was translated into higher economic reimbursement during the pandemic (273,035€ vs. 150,005€, +82.0% and 749,250€ vs. 603,680€, +24.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, the main resources were employed for the treatment of limb-threatening ischemia, aortic aneurysm, and carotid stenosis. Inpatient activities documented an increase in major limb amputation and LOS. An increased reimbursement for each vascular procedure and for all "complicated" diagnoses revealed that the more serious and resource-demanding pathology occurred in this period.

Comparison of Endovascular Versus Bypass Surgery in Femoropopliteal TASC II D Lesions: A Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe occlusive disease (Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II D [TASC II D]) of the femoropopliteal segment, the advantages of endovascular versus bypass revascularization still remain debated. Most reports available in literature comparing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) ± bare metal stent (BMS) versus synthetic bypass analyze patients with heterogeneous anatomical lesions creating possible bias when results of different treatments are matched. In this study, we compared early and midterm outcomes of PTA ± BMS versus heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft (Propaten-Gore) + Linton patch in patient affected by symptomatic femoropopliteal TASC II-D lesions. METHODS: Eighty limbs with symptomatic severe occlusive disease (TASC II D) of the femoropopliteal segment observed from January 2013 to January 2017 were included in this retrospective study. Indication to treatment was severe claudication in 17 limbs (21.2%) and critical limb ischemia (CLI) in 63 (78.8%). 36.2% of limbs presented at least 2 distal patent vessels, and 63.8% had only 1 patent vessel. Of these limbs, 40 were treated by means of PTA ± BMS (group A), and 40 were treated by means of femoropopliteal bypass with Propaten-Gore graft + Linton patch (group B). Patients were followed with a clinical assessment and duplex at 1, 6, and 12 months after procedure and then annually. A closer follow-up was performed in case of any complication. Patency, reintervention rate, and limb salvage were compared in the 2 groups. RESULTS: The mean length of arterial occlusion was 22.1 cm (range, 8-37) in group A versus 25.2 cm (range, 9-41) in group B, P = ns. A slight difference in mean procedural time was observed (83.5 min of group A versus 114 min of group B, minutes, P = 0.02). Mean follow-up was 26.7 months (range, 3-46). Primary patency at 6, 12, and 24 months of group A versus group B was 76.9% vs. 97.5% (P = 0.007), 65.7% vs. 89.1% (P = 0.05), and 52.6% vs. 78.1% (P = 0.005), respectively. Assisted primary patency was 76.9% vs. 97.5% (P = 0.007), 68.5% vs. 91.8% (P = 0.02), and 57.8% vs. 87.5% (P = 0.001), respectively. Secondary patency was 94.8% vs. 97.5% (P = ns), 85.7% vs. 97.2% (P = ns), 73.6% vs. 93.7% (P = 0.004), respectively. Rate of reintervention at 24 months was 45% in group A vs. 20% in group B (P = 0.03). Limb salvage rate at 24 months was 90% for group A vs. 92.5% for group B (P = ns). Univariate analysis showed CLI and poor runoff to be independent risk factors for significant restenosis/occlusion of target artery and reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe femoropopliteal occlusive disease (TASC II D), the surgical revascularization by means of Propaten-Gore bypass + Linton patch can be considered safe and effective. Early and midterm results of this approach seem to be superior to PTA ± BMS in terms of restenosis/occlusion and reintervention rates. Larger cohort and longer term results are mandatory to better define this advantage.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Mental Health of Healthcare Workers in Italy: Analyzing the Role of Individual and Workplace-Level Factors in the Reopening Phase After Lockdown.

Introduction: Italy is one of the high-income countries hit hardest by Covid-19. During the first months of the pandemic, Italian healthcare workers were praised by media and the public for their efforts to face the emergency, although with limited knowledge and resources. However, healthcare workers soon had to face new challenges at a time when the national health system was working hard to recover. This study focuses on this difficult period to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of Italian healthcare workers. Materials and Methods: Healthcare workers from all Italian regions [n = 5,502] completed an online questionnaire during the reopening phase after the first wave lockdown. We assessed a set of individual-level factors (e.g., stigma and violence against HCWs) and a set of workplace-level factors (e.g., trust in the workplace capacity to handle COVID-19) that were especially relevant in this context. The primary outcomes assessed were score ≥15 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and score ≥4 on the General Health Questionnaire-12, indicators of clinically significant depressive symptoms and psychological distress, respectively. Logistic regression analyses were performed on depressive symptoms and psychological distress for each individual- and workplace-level factor adjusting for gender, age, and profession. Results: Clinically significant depressive symptoms were observed in 7.5% and psychological distress in 37.9% of HCWs. 30.5% of healthcare workers reported having felt stigmatized or discriminated, while 5.7% reported having experienced violence. Feeling stigmatized or discriminated and experiencing violence due to being a healthcare worker were strongly associated with clinically significant depressive symptoms [OR 2.98, 95%CI 2.36-3.77 and OR 4.72 95%CI 3.41-6.54] and psychological distress [OR 2.30, 95%CI 2.01-2.64 and OR 2.85 95%CI 2.16-3.75]. Numerous workplace-level factors, e.g., trust in the workplace capacity to handle COVID-19 [OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.92-3.07] and close contact with a co-worker who died of COVID-19 [OR 2.05, 95%CI 1.56-2.70] were also associated with clinically significant depressive symptoms. Similar results were found for psychological distress. Conclusions: Our study emphasizes the need to address discrimination and violence against healthcare professionals and improve healthcare work environments to strengthen the national health system's capacity to manage future emergencies.

The Sustained Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers One Year after the Outbreak-A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey in a Tertiary Hospital of North-East Italy.

This study aimed to evaluate the mental health outcomes of health care workers (HCWs) of the Verona academic hospital trust (Italy) one year after the outbreak of COVID-19 and to identify predicted risk factors. A web-based survey was conducted from mid-April to mid-May 2021 on hospital workers one year after the first evaluation performed during the lock-down phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-traumatic stress, general anxiety, depression, and burnout were assessed by using, respectively, the impact of event scale (IES-R), the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each of the four mental health outcomes one year after the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 1033 HCWs participated. The percentage of HCWs scoring above the cut-off increased from 2020 to 2021 in all of the outcome domains (anxiety, 50.1% vs. 55.7, p < 0.05; depression, 26.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; burnout, 28.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; chi-square test), with the exception of post-traumatic distress. There was also an increase when stratifying by occupation and workplace, with a greater increase for depression and burnout. Multivariate analysis revealed that, one year after the COVID-19 outbreak, nurses were at the greatest risk of anxiety and depression, whereas residents were at the greatest risk of burnout (in terms of low professional efficacy). Working in intensive care units was associated with an increased risk of developing severe emotional exhaustion and a cynical attitude towards work.