Disproportionate Case Reduction After Ban of Elective Surgeries During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective case analysis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to illustrate the numerical effects of regulatory restrictions of elective surgery at an orthopaedic university hospital. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic all over the world places extraordinary demands on health care systems which are forced to ensure structural and personnel capacities. Consequently, hospitals may only perform urgent interventions. Spine patients, however, often need urgent surgery and, moreover, bear an above-average perioperative risk frequently requiring postoperative surveillance on intensive care units (ICUs). Facing this dilemma, we want to share our practice and its unexpected numerical effects. METHODS: We compare case statistics during normal operation, directly before and after implementation of regulatory measures. We also analyzed the differences in ICU utilization, complexity and duration of interventions and the patient population. RESULTS: Spine surgical interventions have been reduced by 42.7%. Regulatory restriction of "elective surgeries" in pandemic situations results in reduced ICU utilization, however in a disproportionate manner. Although other specialized surgeries can be reduced by 59%, surgical spine cases are only diminishable by 24%. The spine surgery-related ICU occupancy has been reduced by 35%. CONCLUSION: The disproportionate effect of case reduction needs to be considered while calculating resources released by regulatory limitation of "elective surgeries" on a (inter-)national level.

Intra-arterial thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke in octogenarians.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether octogenarians benefit from intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The aim of the present study was to compare baseline characteristics, clinical outcome and complications of patients aged ≥80 with those of patients aged <80 years. METHODS: Forty-three octogenarians and 524 younger patients with AIS were treated with IAT. The modified Rankin scale (mRS) score was used to assess 3-month outcome. RESULTS: There was a female preponderance among octogenarians (63 vs. 37%, p = 0.015). Stroke severity, occlusion site, and time from stroke onset to IAT did not differ between the groups. Good recanalization (TIMI 2-3) was achieved in 65% of older and in 71% of younger patients (p = 0.449). Rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were 6% in patients <80 years and 2% in octogenarians (p = 0.292). Favorable outcome (mRS 0-2) was less frequent among octogenarians (28 vs. 46%, p = 0.019), while mortality was higher (40 vs. 22%, p = 0.008). Octogenarians died more often from extracerebral complications than younger patients (59 vs. 27%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with younger patients, octogenarians did not have a significantly increased risk of symptomatic ICH after IAT. Although favorable outcome was less frequent and mortality rates were higher, IAT appeared to be safe in octogenarians. It seems reasonable to include octogenarians in randomized clinical trials to assess the balance of risk and benefit of IAT in this patient group.

Posterior versus anterior circulation strokes: comparison of clinical, radiological and outcome characteristics.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physicians treating patients with posterior circulation strokes (PCS) tended to debate more on whether or not to introduce anticoagulation rather than performing investigations to identify stroke aetiology, as in patients with anterior circulation strokes (ACS). Recent findings suggest that stroke aetiologies of PCS and ACS are more alike than dissimilar, suggesting that PCS deserve the same investigations as ACS. The characteristics and current diagnostic evaluation between patients with PCS and ACS were compared. METHODS: 312 consecutive patients with first ever ACS and 93 patients with first ever PCS were prospectively analysed. RESULTS: Patients with ACS and PCS did not differ in terms of demographic characteristics, prevalence of vascular risk factors, diagnostic evaluation or stroke aetiology. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 8 in ACS and 4 in PCS (p=0.004). Brain imaging revealed more often pathological findings in ACS than PCS. The proportion of non-thrombolysed patients with a favourable clinical outcome (modified Rankin score 0-2) was similar in ACS and PCS (67.0% vs 78.4%; p=0.08). In non-thrombolysed patients, stroke severity was an independent predictor of clinical outcome both in ACS (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.1; p<0.0001) and in PCS (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44; p=0.02) while age predicted poor outcome only in ACS (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; p=0.007). In thrombolysed patients, stroke severity was the only outcome predictor in ACS (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25; p=0.004) while we identified no statistically relevant predictor of PCS outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In PCS and ACS, baseline variables, aetiology and outcome are more alike than different.