1.Gaps and Similarities in Research Use LOINC Codes Utilized in Korean University Hospitals: Towards Semantic Interoperability for Patient Care
Kuenyoul PARK ; Min-Sun KIM ; YeJin OH ; John Hoon RIM ; Shinae YU ; Hyejin RYU ; Eun-Jung CHO ; Kyunghoon LEE ; Ha Nui KIM ; Inha CHUN ; AeKyung KWON ; Sollip KIM ; Jae-Woo CHUNG ; Hyojin CHAE ; Ji Seon OH ; Hyung-Doo PARK ; Mira KANG ; Yeo-Min YUN ; Jong-Baeck LIM ; Young Kyung LEE ; Sail CHUN
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2025;40(1):e4-
Background:
The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings.
Methods:
We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes.
Results:
A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%).
Conclusion
This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.
2.Gaps and Similarities in Research Use LOINC Codes Utilized in Korean University Hospitals: Towards Semantic Interoperability for Patient Care
Kuenyoul PARK ; Min-Sun KIM ; YeJin OH ; John Hoon RIM ; Shinae YU ; Hyejin RYU ; Eun-Jung CHO ; Kyunghoon LEE ; Ha Nui KIM ; Inha CHUN ; AeKyung KWON ; Sollip KIM ; Jae-Woo CHUNG ; Hyojin CHAE ; Ji Seon OH ; Hyung-Doo PARK ; Mira KANG ; Yeo-Min YUN ; Jong-Baeck LIM ; Young Kyung LEE ; Sail CHUN
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2025;40(1):e4-
Background:
The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings.
Methods:
We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes.
Results:
A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%).
Conclusion
This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.
3.Gaps and Similarities in Research Use LOINC Codes Utilized in Korean University Hospitals: Towards Semantic Interoperability for Patient Care
Kuenyoul PARK ; Min-Sun KIM ; YeJin OH ; John Hoon RIM ; Shinae YU ; Hyejin RYU ; Eun-Jung CHO ; Kyunghoon LEE ; Ha Nui KIM ; Inha CHUN ; AeKyung KWON ; Sollip KIM ; Jae-Woo CHUNG ; Hyojin CHAE ; Ji Seon OH ; Hyung-Doo PARK ; Mira KANG ; Yeo-Min YUN ; Jong-Baeck LIM ; Young Kyung LEE ; Sail CHUN
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2025;40(1):e4-
Background:
The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings.
Methods:
We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes.
Results:
A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%).
Conclusion
This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.
4.Gaps and Similarities in Research Use LOINC Codes Utilized in Korean University Hospitals: Towards Semantic Interoperability for Patient Care
Kuenyoul PARK ; Min-Sun KIM ; YeJin OH ; John Hoon RIM ; Shinae YU ; Hyejin RYU ; Eun-Jung CHO ; Kyunghoon LEE ; Ha Nui KIM ; Inha CHUN ; AeKyung KWON ; Sollip KIM ; Jae-Woo CHUNG ; Hyojin CHAE ; Ji Seon OH ; Hyung-Doo PARK ; Mira KANG ; Yeo-Min YUN ; Jong-Baeck LIM ; Young Kyung LEE ; Sail CHUN
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2025;40(1):e4-
Background:
The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings.
Methods:
We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes.
Results:
A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%).
Conclusion
This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.
5.Cost-effectiveness analysis of simple hysterectomy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: analysis from the GCIG/CCTG CX.5/SHAPE trial
Janice S. KWON ; Helen MCTAGGART-COWAN ; Sarah E. FERGUSON ; Vanessa SAMOUËLIAN ; Eric LAMBAUDIE ; Frédéric GUYON ; John TIDY ; Karin WILLIAMSON ; Noreen GLEESON ; Cor de KROON ; Willemien van DRIEL ; Sven MAHNER ; Lars HANKER ; Frédéric GOFFIN ; Regina BERGER ; Brynhildur EYJÓLFSDÓTTIR ; Jae-Weon KIM ; Lori A. BROTTO ; Reka PATAKY ; Shirley S.T. YEUNG ; Kelvin K.W. CHAN ; Matthew C. CHEUNG ; Juliana UBI ; Dongsheng TU ; Lois E. SHEPHERD ; Marie PLANTE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2024;35(6):e117-
Objective:
SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer.
Methods:
Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure.
Results:
Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates.
Conclusion
Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.
6.Cost-effectiveness analysis of simple hysterectomy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: analysis from the GCIG/CCTG CX.5/SHAPE trial
Janice S. KWON ; Helen MCTAGGART-COWAN ; Sarah E. FERGUSON ; Vanessa SAMOUËLIAN ; Eric LAMBAUDIE ; Frédéric GUYON ; John TIDY ; Karin WILLIAMSON ; Noreen GLEESON ; Cor de KROON ; Willemien van DRIEL ; Sven MAHNER ; Lars HANKER ; Frédéric GOFFIN ; Regina BERGER ; Brynhildur EYJÓLFSDÓTTIR ; Jae-Weon KIM ; Lori A. BROTTO ; Reka PATAKY ; Shirley S.T. YEUNG ; Kelvin K.W. CHAN ; Matthew C. CHEUNG ; Juliana UBI ; Dongsheng TU ; Lois E. SHEPHERD ; Marie PLANTE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2024;35(6):e117-
Objective:
SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer.
Methods:
Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure.
Results:
Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates.
Conclusion
Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.
7.Cost-effectiveness analysis of simple hysterectomy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: analysis from the GCIG/CCTG CX.5/SHAPE trial
Janice S. KWON ; Helen MCTAGGART-COWAN ; Sarah E. FERGUSON ; Vanessa SAMOUËLIAN ; Eric LAMBAUDIE ; Frédéric GUYON ; John TIDY ; Karin WILLIAMSON ; Noreen GLEESON ; Cor de KROON ; Willemien van DRIEL ; Sven MAHNER ; Lars HANKER ; Frédéric GOFFIN ; Regina BERGER ; Brynhildur EYJÓLFSDÓTTIR ; Jae-Weon KIM ; Lori A. BROTTO ; Reka PATAKY ; Shirley S.T. YEUNG ; Kelvin K.W. CHAN ; Matthew C. CHEUNG ; Juliana UBI ; Dongsheng TU ; Lois E. SHEPHERD ; Marie PLANTE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2024;35(6):e117-
Objective:
SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer.
Methods:
Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure.
Results:
Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates.
Conclusion
Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.
8.Specialty impact on residents’ perceived quality of life, stress, and job satisfaction: a comparative study
Bo Young KIM ; Inah YOON ; Seong John HAN ; Suk-Kyung HONG ; Sehoon CHOI ; Hyo-Jin KWON ; Eun Key KIM
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2023;105(4):188-197
Purpose:
Specialty choice in residency training has a significant impact on an individual’s career and satisfaction, as well as the supply-demand imbalance in the healthcare system. The current study aimed to investigate the quality of life (QOL), stress, self-confidence, and job satisfaction of residents, and to explore factors associated with such variables, including postgraduate year, sex, and especially specialty, through a cross-sectional survey.
Methods:
An online survey was administered to residents at 2 affiliated teaching hospitals. The survey had a total of 46 items encompassing overall residency life such as workload, QOL, stress, confidence, relationship, harassment, and satisfaction. Related survey items were then reconstructed into 4 key categories through exploratory factor analysis for comparison according to group classification.
Results:
The weekly work hours of residents in vital and other specialties were similar, but residents in vital specialties had significantly more on-call days per month. Residents in vital specialties had significantly lower scores for QOL and satisfaction. Specifically, vital-surgical residents had significantly lower QOL scores and higher stress scores than the other specialty groups. Satisfaction scores were also lowest among vital-surgical residents, with a marginal difference from vital-medical, and a significant difference from other-surgical residents. Female residents had significantly lower satisfaction scores than their male counterparts.
Conclusion
Residents in vital specialties, particularly vital-surgical specialties, experience significantly worse working conditions across multiple dimensions. It is necessary to improve not only the quantity but also the quality of the system in terms of resource allocation and prioritization.
9.Six Cases of Diabetic Foot Wounds with Concomitant Skin Malignancies
Tae Hun KWON ; Taeseung LEE ; Changsik JOHN PARK ; Yoon Hyo CHOI ; Kyoung Min LEE
Journal of Korean Foot and Ankle Society 2023;27(1):30-34
Diabetic foot wounds have a significant effect on the health-related quality of life of patients. As diabetic foot wounds are usually chronic and recurrent, it is possible that they can lead to skin malignancies. Several factors can make it difficult to make an early and accurate diagnosis of skin malignancies of the foot in patients with diabetes mellitus. Even though the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and diabetic foot wounds is increasing, currently there are no guidelines for the biopsy of diabetic foot wounds. We have evolved a criterion for the above based on six cases of diabetic foot wounds with concomitant skin malignancies. We recommend that clinicians should broadly consider implementing this criterion when managing patients with diabetic foot wounds.
10.Global Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cerebral Venous Thrombosis and Mortality
Thanh N. NGUYEN ; Muhammad M. QURESHI ; Piers KLEIN ; Hiroshi YAMAGAMI ; Mohamad ABDALKADER ; Robert MIKULIK ; Anvitha SATHYA ; Ossama Yassin MANSOUR ; Anna CZLONKOWSKA ; Hannah LO ; Thalia S. FIELD ; Andreas CHARIDIMOU ; Soma BANERJEE ; Shadi YAGHI ; James E. SIEGLER ; Petra SEDOVA ; Joseph KWAN ; Diana Aguiar DE SOUSA ; Jelle DEMEESTERE ; Violiza INOA ; Setareh Salehi OMRAN ; Liqun ZHANG ; Patrik MICHEL ; Davide STRAMBO ; João Pedro MARTO ; Raul G. NOGUEIRA ; ; Espen Saxhaug KRISTOFFERSEN ; Georgios TSIVGOULIS ; Virginia Pujol LEREIS ; Alice MA ; Christian ENZINGER ; Thomas GATTRINGER ; Aminur RAHMAN ; Thomas BONNET ; Noémie LIGOT ; Sylvie DE RAEDT ; Robin LEMMENS ; Peter VANACKER ; Fenne VANDERVORST ; Adriana Bastos CONFORTO ; Raquel C.T. HIDALGO ; Daissy Liliana MORA CUERVO ; Luciana DE OLIVEIRA NEVES ; Isabelle LAMEIRINHAS DA SILVA ; Rodrigo Targa MARTÍNS ; Letícia C. REBELLO ; Igor Bessa SANTIAGO ; Teodora SADELAROVA ; Rosen KALPACHKI ; Filip ALEXIEV ; Elena Adela CORA ; Michael E. KELLY ; Lissa PEELING ; Aleksandra PIKULA ; Hui-Sheng CHEN ; Yimin CHEN ; Shuiquan YANG ; Marina ROJE BEDEKOVIC ; Martin ČABAL ; Dusan TENORA ; Petr FIBRICH ; Pavel DUŠEK ; Helena HLAVÁČOVÁ ; Emanuela HRABANOVSKA ; Lubomír JURÁK ; Jana KADLČÍKOVÁ ; Igor KARPOWICZ ; Lukáš KLEČKA ; Martin KOVÁŘ ; Jiří NEUMANN ; Hana PALOUŠKOVÁ ; Martin REISER ; Vladimir ROHAN ; Libor ŠIMŮNEK ; Ondreij SKODA ; Miroslav ŠKORŇA ; Martin ŠRÁMEK ; Nicolas DRENCK ; Khalid SOBH ; Emilie LESAINE ; Candice SABBEN ; Peggy REINER ; Francois ROUANET ; Daniel STRBIAN ; Stefan BOSKAMP ; Joshua MBROH ; Simon NAGEL ; Michael ROSENKRANZ ; Sven POLI ; Götz THOMALLA ; Theodoros KARAPANAYIOTIDES ; Ioanna KOUTROULOU ; Odysseas KARGIOTIS ; Lina PALAIODIMOU ; José Dominguo BARRIENTOS GUERRA ; Vikram HUDED ; Shashank NAGENDRA ; Chintan PRAJAPATI ; P.N. SYLAJA ; Achmad Firdaus SANI ; Abdoreza GHOREISHI ; Mehdi FARHOUDI ; Elyar SADEGHI HOKMABADI ; Mazyar HASHEMILAR ; Sergiu Ionut SABETAY ; Fadi RAHAL ; Maurizio ACAMPA ; Alessandro ADAMI ; Marco LONGONI ; Raffaele ORNELLO ; Leonardo RENIERI ; Michele ROMOLI ; Simona SACCO ; Andrea SALMAGGI ; Davide SANGALLI ; Andrea ZINI ; Kenichiro SAKAI ; Hiroki FUKUDA ; Kyohei FUJITA ; Hirotoshi IMAMURA ; Miyake KOSUKE ; Manabu SAKAGUCHI ; Kazutaka SONODA ; Yuji MATSUMARU ; Nobuyuki OHARA ; Seigo SHINDO ; Yohei TAKENOBU ; Takeshi YOSHIMOTO ; Kazunori TOYODA ; Takeshi UWATOKO ; Nobuyuki SAKAI ; Nobuaki YAMAMOTO ; Ryoo YAMAMOTO ; Yukako YAZAWA ; Yuri SUGIURA ; Jang-Hyun BAEK ; Si Baek LEE ; Kwon-Duk SEO ; Sung-Il SOHN ; Jin Soo LEE ; Anita Ante ARSOVSKA ; Chan Yong CHIEH ; Wan Asyraf WAN ZAIDI ; Wan Nur Nafisah WAN YAHYA ; Fernando GONGORA-RIVERA ; Manuel MARTINEZ-MARINO ; Adrian INFANTE-VALENZUELA ; Diederik DIPPEL ; Dianne H.K. VAN DAM-NOLEN ; Teddy Y. WU ; Martin PUNTER ; Tajudeen Temitayo ADEBAYO ; Abiodun H. BELLO ; Taofiki Ajao SUNMONU ; Kolawole Wasiu WAHAB ; Antje SUNDSETH ; Amal M. AL HASHMI ; Saima AHMAD ; Umair RASHID ; Liliana RODRIGUEZ-KADOTA ; Miguel Ángel VENCES ; Patrick Matic YALUNG ; Jon Stewart Hao DY ; Waldemar BROLA ; Aleksander DĘBIEC ; Malgorzata DOROBEK ; Michal Adam KARLINSKI ; Beata M. LABUZ-ROSZAK ; Anetta LASEK-BAL ; Halina SIENKIEWICZ-JAROSZ ; Jacek STASZEWSKI ; Piotr SOBOLEWSKI ; Marcin WIĄCEK ; Justyna ZIELINSKA-TUREK ; André Pinho ARAÚJO ; Mariana ROCHA ; Pedro CASTRO ; Patricia FERREIRA ; Ana Paiva NUNES ; Luísa FONSECA ; Teresa PINHO E MELO ; Miguel RODRIGUES ; M Luis SILVA ; Bogdan CIOPLEIAS ; Adela DIMITRIADE ; Cristian FALUP-PECURARIU ; May Adel HAMID ; Narayanaswamy VENKETASUBRAMANIAN ; Georgi KRASTEV ; Jozef HARING ; Oscar AYO-MARTIN ; Francisco HERNANDEZ-FERNANDEZ ; Jordi BLASCO ; Alejandro RODRÍGUEZ-VÁZQUEZ ; Antonio CRUZ-CULEBRAS ; Francisco MONICHE ; Joan MONTANER ; Soledad PEREZ-SANCHEZ ; María Jesús GARCÍA SÁNCHEZ ; Marta GUILLÁN RODRÍGUEZ ; Gianmarco BERNAVA ; Manuel BOLOGNESE ; Emmanuel CARRERA ; Anchalee CHUROJANA ; Ozlem AYKAC ; Atilla Özcan ÖZDEMIR ; Arsida BAJRAMI ; Songul SENADIM ; Syed I. HUSSAIN ; Seby JOHN ; Kailash KRISHNAN ; Robert LENTHALL ; Kaiz S. ASIF ; Kristine BELOW ; Jose BILLER ; Michael CHEN ; Alex CHEBL ; Marco COLASURDO ; Alexandra CZAP ; Adam H. DE HAVENON ; Sushrut DHARMADHIKARI ; Clifford J. ESKEY ; Mudassir FAROOQUI ; Steven K. FESKE ; Nitin GOYAL ; Kasey B. GRIMMETT ; Amy K. GUZIK ; Diogo C. HAUSSEN ; Majesta HOVINGH ; Dinesh JILLELA ; Peter T. KAN ; Rakesh KHATRI ; Naim N. KHOURY ; Nicole L. KILEY ; Murali K. KOLIKONDA ; Stephanie LARA ; Grace LI ; Italo LINFANTE ; Aaron I. LOOCHTAN ; Carlos D. LOPEZ ; Sarah LYCAN ; Shailesh S. MALE ; Fadi NAHAB ; Laith MAALI ; Hesham E. MASOUD ; Jiangyong MIN ; Santiago ORGETA-GUTIERREZ ; Ghada A. MOHAMED ; Mahmoud MOHAMMADEN ; Krishna NALLEBALLE ; Yazan RADAIDEH ; Pankajavalli RAMAKRISHNAN ; Bliss RAYO-TARANTO ; Diana M. ROJAS-SOTO ; Sean RULAND ; Alexis N. SIMPKINS ; Sunil A. SHETH ; Amy K. STAROSCIAK ; Nicholas E. TARLOV ; Robert A. TAYLOR ; Barbara VOETSCH ; Linda ZHANG ; Hai Quang DUONG ; Viet-Phuong DAO ; Huynh Vu LE ; Thong Nhu PHAM ; Mai Duy TON ; Anh Duc TRAN ; Osama O. ZAIDAT ; Paolo MACHI ; Elisabeth DIRREN ; Claudio RODRÍGUEZ FERNÁNDEZ ; Jorge ESCARTÍN LÓPEZ ; Jose Carlos FERNÁNDEZ FERRO ; Niloofar MOHAMMADZADEH ; Neil C. SURYADEVARA, MD ; Beatriz DE LA CRUZ FERNÁNDEZ ; Filipe BESSA ; Nina JANCAR ; Megan BRADY ; Dawn SCOZZARI
Journal of Stroke 2022;24(2):256-265
Background:
and Purpose Recent studies suggested an increased incidence of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated the volume of CVT hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the preceding year.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study of 171 stroke centers from 49 countries. We recorded COVID-19 admission volumes, CVT hospitalization, and CVT in-hospital mortality from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. CVT diagnoses were identified by International Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) codes or stroke databases. We additionally sought to compare the same metrics in the first 5 months of 2021 compared to the corresponding months in 2019 and 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04934020).
Results:
There were 2,313 CVT admissions across the 1-year pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic year (2020); no differences in CVT volume or CVT mortality were observed. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT volumes compared to 2019 (27.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.2 to 32.0; P<0.0001) and 2020 (41.4%; 95% CI, 37.0 to 46.0; P<0.0001). A COVID-19 diagnosis was present in 7.6% (132/1,738) of CVT hospitalizations. CVT was present in 0.04% (103/292,080) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. During the first pandemic year, CVT mortality was higher in patients who were COVID positive compared to COVID negative patients (8/53 [15.0%] vs. 41/910 [4.5%], P=0.004). There was an increase in CVT mortality during the first 5 months of pandemic years 2020 and 2021 compared to the first 5 months of the pre-pandemic year 2019 (2019 vs. 2020: 2.26% vs. 4.74%, P=0.05; 2019 vs. 2021: 2.26% vs. 4.99%, P=0.03). In the first 5 months of 2021, there were 26 cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), resulting in six deaths.
Conclusions
During the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic, CVT hospitalization volume and CVT in-hospital mortality did not change compared to the prior year. COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with higher CVT in-hospital mortality. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT hospitalization volume and increase in CVT-related mortality, partially attributable to VITT.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail