1.The use of social media for student-led initiatives in undergraduate medical education: A cross-sectional study.
Nina Therese B. CHAN ; Leonard Thomas S. LIM ; Hannah Joyce Y. ABELLA ; Arlyn Jave B. ADLAWON ; Teod Carlo C. CABILI ; Iyanla Gabrielle C. CAPULE ; Gabrielle Rose M. PIMENTEL ; Raul Vicente O. RECTO JR. ; Blesile Suzette S. MANTARING ; Ronnie E. BATICULON
Acta Medica Philippina 2025;59(6):58-70
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
One of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education is an increased awareness and use of social media (SocMed) to facilitate learning. However, literature on the use of SocMed in medical education has focused primarily on educator-led teaching activities. Our study aimed to describe SocMed initiatives that were student-led, particularly for information dissemination and peer collaborative learning, and to elicit perceptions of medical students towards such activities.
METHODSAn online survey on SocMed usage in medical education was sent to all first- and second-year medical students at the University of the Philippines Manila College of Medicine from October to December 2021. The questionnaire collected data on demographics, SocMed habits and preferences, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of SocMed. Descriptive statistics were calculated while the free-text responses were grouped into prominent themes and summarized.
RESULTSWe received a total of 258 responses (71%) out of 361 eligible participants. Overall, 74% found SocMed platforms to be very and extremely helpful; 88% recommended its continued use. The most popular SocMed platforms for different tasks were as follows: Discord for independent study groups and for conducting peer tutoring sessions; Facebook Messenger for reading reminders; Telegram for reading announcements related to academics and administrative requirements, and for accessing material provided by classmates and professors.
CONCLUSIONThe high uptake of SocMed among medical students may be attributed to its accessibility and costefficiency. The use of a particular SocMed platform was dependent on the students’ needs and the platform's features. Students tended to use multiple SocMed platforms that complemented one another. SocMed also had disadvantages, such as the potential to distract from academic work and to become a source of fatigue. Educators must engage with students to understand how SocMed platforms can be integrated into medical education, whether in the physical or virtual learning environment.
Human ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate ; Social Media ; Online Learning ; Education, Distance
2.Genomics-driven derivatization of the bioactive fungal sesterterpenoid variecolin: Creation of an unnatural analogue with improved anticancer properties.
Dexiu YAN ; Jemma ARAKELYAN ; Teng WAN ; Ritvik RAINA ; Tsz Ki CHAN ; Dohyun AHN ; Vladimir KUSHNAREV ; Tsz Kiu CHEUNG ; Ho Ching CHAN ; Inseo CHOI ; Pui Yi HO ; Feijun HU ; Yujeong KIM ; Hill Lam LAU ; Ying Lo LAW ; Chi Seng LEUNG ; Chun Yin TONG ; Kai Kap WONG ; Wing Lam YIM ; Nikolay S KARNAUKHOV ; Richard Y C KONG ; Maria V BABAK ; Yudai MATSUDA
Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 2024;14(1):421-432
A biosynthetic gene cluster for the bioactive fungal sesterterpenoids variecolin ( 1) and variecolactone ( 2) was identified in Aspergillus aculeatus ATCC 16872. Heterologous production of 1 and 2 was achieved in Aspergillus oryzae by expressing the sesterterpene synthase VrcA and the cytochrome P450 VrcB. Intriguingly, the replacement of VrcB with homologous P450s from other fungal terpenoid pathways yielded three new variecolin analogues ( 5- 7). Analysis of the compounds' anticancer activity in vitro and in vivo revealed that although 5 and 1 had comparable activities, 5 was associated with significantly reduced toxic side effects in cancer-bearing mice, indicating its potentially broader therapeutic window. Our study describes the first tests of variecolin and its analogues in animals and demonstrates the utility of synthetic biology for creating molecules with improved biological activities.
3.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.
4.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.
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.
6.2021 Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations on the use of P2Y12 receptor antagonists in the Asia-Pacific Region: Special populations.
W E I C H I E H T A N TAN ; P C H E W CHEW ; L A M T S U I TSUI ; T A N TAN ; D U P L Y A K O V DUPLYAKOV ; H A M M O U D E H HAMMOUDEH ; Bo ZHANG ; Yi LI ; Kai XU ; J O N G ONG ; Doni FIRMAN ; G A M R A GAMRA ; A L M A H M E E D ALMAHMEED ; D A L A L DALAL ; T A N TAN ; S T E G STEG ; N N G U Y E N NGUYEN ; A K O AKO ; A L S U W A I D I SUWAIDI ; C H A N CHAN ; S O B H Y SOBHY ; S H E H A B SHEHAB ; B U D D H A R I BUDDHARI ; Zu Lv WANG ; Y E A N Y I P F O N G FONG ; K A R A D A G KARADAG ; K I M KIM ; B A B E R BABER ; T A N G C H I N CHIN ; Ya Ling HAN
Chinese Journal of Cardiology 2023;51(1):19-31
8.Lack of methylation changes in GJB2 and RB1 non-coding regions of cochlear implant patients with sensorineural hearing loss
Angelo Augusto M. Sumalde ; Ivana V. Yang ; Talitha Karisse L. Yarza ; Celina Ann M. Tobias-Grasso ; Ma. Leah C. Tantoco ; Elizabeth Davidson ; Abner L. Chan ; Mahshid S. Azamian ; Teresa Luisa G. Cruz ; Seema R. Lalani ; Maria Rina T. Reyes-Quintos ; Eva Maria Cutiongco-de la Paz ; Regie Lyn P. Santos-Cortez ; Charlotte M. Chiong
Acta Medica Philippina 2023;57(9):116-120
Objective:
Recent advances in epigenetic studies continue to reveal novel mechanisms of gene regulation and control, however little is known on the role of epigenetics in sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in humans. We aimed to investigate the methylation patterns of two regions, one in RB1 and another in GJB2 in Filipino patients with SNHL compared to hearing control individuals.
Methods:
We investigated an RB1 promoter region that was previously identified as differentially methylated in children with SNHL and lead exposure. Additionally, we investigated a sequence in an enhancer-like region within GJB2 that contains four CpGs in close proximity. Bisulfite conversion was performed on salivary DNA samples from 15 children with SNHL and 45 unrelated ethnically-matched individuals. We then performed methylation-specific real-time PCR analysis (qMSP) using TaqMan® probes to determine percentage methylation of the two regions.
Results:
Using qMSP, both our cases and controls had zero methylation at the targeted GJB2 and RB1 regions.
Conclusion
Our study showed no changes in methylation at the selected CpG regions in RB1 and GJB2 in the two comparison groups with or without SNHL. This may be due to a lack of environmental exposures to these target regions. Other epigenetic marks may be present around these regions as well as those of other HL-associated genes.
Hearing Loss
;
Methylation
9.Evaluation and treatment of facial feminization surgery: part II. lips, midface, mandible, chin, and laryngeal prominence
Brian N. DANG ; Allison C. HU ; Anthony A. BERTRAND ; Candace H. CHAN ; Nirbhay S. JAIN ; Miles J. PFAFF ; James C. LEE ; Justine C. LEE
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2022;49(1):5-11
Facial feminization surgery (FFS) refers to a set of procedures aimed at altering the features of a masculine face to achieve a more feminine appearance. In the second part of this twopart series, assessment and operations involving the midface, mandible, and chin, as well as soft tissue modification of the nasolabial complex and chondrolaryngoplasty, are discussed. Finally, we provide a review of the literature on patient-reported outcomes in this population following FFS and suggest a path forward to optimize care for FFS patients.
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