SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, COVID‐19 and timing of elective surgery

Lal B.K., Prasad N.K., Englum B.R., Turner D.J., Siddiqui T., Carlin M.M., Lake R., Sorkin J.D.

AbstractBackground Reports on emergency surgery performed soon after a COVID-19 infection that are not controlled for premorbid risk-factors show increased 30-day mortality and pulmonary complications. This contributed to a virtual cessation of elective surgery during the pandemic surge. To inform evidence-based guidance on the decisions for surgery during the recovery phase of the pandemic, we compare 30-day outcomes in patients testing positive for COVID-19 before their operation, to contemporary propensity-matched COVID-19 negative patients undergoing the same procedures. Methods This prospective multicentre study included all patients undergoing surgery at 170 Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals across the United States. COVID-19 positive patients were propensity matched to COVID-19 negative patients on demographic and procedural factors. We compared 30-day outcomes between COVID-19 positive and negative patients, and the effect of time from testing positive to the date of procedure (≤10 days, 11–30 days and >30 days) on outcomes. Results Between March 1 and August 15, 2020, 449 COVID-19 positive and 51,238 negative patients met inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 432 COVID-19 positive and 1256 negative patients among whom half underwent elective surgery. Infected patients had longer hospital stays (median seven days), higher rates of pneumonia (20.6%), ventilator requirement (7.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 17.1%), septic shock (13.7%), and ischemic stroke (5.8%), while mortality, reoperations and readmissions were not significantly different. Higher odds for ventilation and stroke persisted even when surgery was delayed 11–30 days, and for pneumonia, ARDS, and septic shock >30 days after a positive test. Discussion 30-day pulmonary, septic, and ischaemic complications are increased in COVID-19 positive, compared to propensity score matched negative patients. Odds for several complications persist despite a delay beyond ten days after testing positive. Individualized risk-stratification by pulmonary and atherosclerotic comorbidities should be considered when making decisions for delaying surgery in infected patients.

Nepogodiev D., Simoes J.F., Li E., Picciochi M., Glasbey J.C., Baiocchi G., Blanco‐Colino R., Chaudhry D., AlAmeer E., El‐Boghdadly K., Wuraola F., Ghosh D., Gujjuri R.R., Harrison E.M., Lule H., et. al.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

The Lancet Rheumatology

As health-care systems worldwide scrambled to cope with the first wave of COVID-19, many countries made the necessary decision to cancel all non-emergency surgical procedures to free up personnel and resources to care for patients with COVID-19. Nearly 10 million people in the UK are now waiting for surgical procedures, up from 4 million before the pandemic hit. Among them are nearly 100 000 patients whose joint replacement surgeries were cancelled during the first COVID-19 wave, many of whom are left struggling with daily activities because of severe pain and limited mobility.

Huang C., Huang L., Wang Y., Li X., Ren L., Gu X., Kang L., Guo L., Liu M., Zhou X., Luo J., Huang Z., Tu S., Zhao Y., Chen L., et. al.

SummaryBackground The long-term health consequences of COVID-19 remain largely unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the long-term health consequences of patients with COVID-19 who have been discharged from hospital and investigate the associated risk factors, in particular disease severity. Methods We did an ambidirectional cohort study of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who had been discharged from Jin Yin-tan Hospital (Wuhan, China) between Jan 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. Patients who died before follow-up, patients for whom follow-up would be difficult because of psychotic disorders, dementia, or re-admission to hospital, those who were unable to move freely due to concomitant osteoarthropathy or immobile before or after discharge due to diseases such as stroke or pulmonary embolism, those who declined to participate, those who could not be contacted, and those living outside of Wuhan or in nursing or welfare homes were all excluded. All patients were interviewed with a series of questionnaires for evaluation of symptoms and health-related quality of life, underwent physical examinations and a 6-min walking test, and received blood tests. A stratified sampling procedure was used to sample patients according to their highest seven-category scale during their hospital stay as 3, 4, and 5–6, to receive pulmonary function test, high resolution CT of the chest, and ultrasonography. Enrolled patients who had participated in the Lopinavir Trial for Suppression of SARS-CoV-2 in China received severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody tests. Multivariable adjusted linear or logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between disease severity and long-term health consequences. Findings In total, 1733 of 2469 discharged patients with COVID-19 were enrolled after 736 were excluded. Patients had a median age of 57·0 (IQR 47·0–65·0) years and 897 (52%) were men. The follow-up study was done from June 16, to Sept 3, 2020, and the median follow-up time after symptom onset was 186·0 (175·0–199·0) days. Fatigue or muscle weakness (63%, 1038 of 1655) and sleep difficulties (26%, 437 of 1655) were the most common symptoms. Anxiety or depression was reported among 23% (367 of 1617) of patients. The proportions of median 6-min walking distance less than the lower limit of the normal range were 24% for those at severity scale 3, 22% for severity scale 4, and 29% for severity scale 5–6. The corresponding proportions of patients with diffusion impairment were 22% for severity scale 3, 29% for scale 4, and 56% for scale 5–6, and median CT scores were 3·0 (IQR 2·0–5·0) for severity scale 3, 4·0 (3·0–5·0) for scale 4, and 5·0 (4·0–6·0) for scale 5–6. After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) 1·61 (95% CI 0·80–3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85–11·48) for scale 5–6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66–1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·77 (1·05–2·97) for scale 5–6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·74 (0·58–0·96) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·69 (1·46–4·96) for scale 5–6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. Of 94 patients with blood antibodies tested at follow-up, the seropositivity (96·2% vs 58·5%) and median titres (19·0 vs 10·0) of the neutralising antibodies were significantly lower compared with at the acute phase. 107 of 822 participants without acute kidney injury and with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 or more at acute phase had eGFR less than 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 at follow-up. Interpretation At 6 months after acute infection, COVID-19 survivors were mainly troubled with fatigue or muscle weakness, sleep difficulties, and anxiety or depression. Patients who were more severely ill during their hospital stay had more severe impaired pulmonary diffusion capacities and abnormal chest imaging manifestations, and are the main target population for intervention of long-term recovery. Funding National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, and Peking Union Medical College Foundation.

Cevik M., Tate M., Lloyd O., Maraolo A.E., Schafers J., Ho A.

Viral load kinetics and duration of viral shedding are important determinants for disease transmission. We aimed to characterise viral load dynamics, duration of viral RNA shedding, and viable virus shedding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in various body fluids, and to compare SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) viral dynamics.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, medRxiv, and bioRxiv, and the grey literature, for research articles published between Jan 1, 2003, and June 6, 2020. We included case series (with five or more participants), cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials that reported SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, or MERS-CoV infection, and reported viral load kinetics, duration of viral shedding, or viable virus. Two authors independently extracted data from published studies, or contacted authors to request data, and assessed study quality and risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist tools. We calculated the mean duration of viral shedding and 95% CIs for every study included and applied the random-effects model to estimate a pooled effect size. We used a weighted meta-regression with an unrestricted maximum likelihood model to assess the effect of potential moderators on the pooled effect size. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020181914.79 studies (5340 individuals) on SARS-CoV-2, eight studies (1858 individuals) on SARS-CoV, and 11 studies (799 individuals) on MERS-CoV were included. Mean duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding was 17·0 days (95% CI 15·5-18·6; 43 studies, 3229 individuals) in upper respiratory tract, 14·6 days (9·3-20·0; seven studies, 260 individuals) in lower respiratory tract, 17·2 days (14·4-20·1; 13 studies, 586 individuals) in stool, and 16·6 days (3·6-29·7; two studies, 108 individuals) in serum samples. Maximum shedding duration was 83 days in the upper respiratory tract, 59 days in the lower respiratory tract, 126 days in stools, and 60 days in serum. Pooled mean SARS-CoV-2 shedding duration was positively associated with age (slope 0·304 [95% CI 0·115-0·493]; p=0·0016). No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads, which were inferred from cycle threshold values. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appeared to peak in the first week of illness, whereas that of SARS-CoV peaked at days 10-14 and that of MERS-CoV peaked at days 7-10.Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples can be prolonged, duration of viable virus is relatively short-lived. SARS-CoV-2 titres in the upper respiratory tract peak in the first week of illness. Early case finding and isolation, and public education on the spectrum of illness and period of infectiousness are key to the effective containment of SARS-CoV-2.None.

Glasbey J.C., Nepogodiev D., Simoes J.F., Omar O., Li E., Venn M.L., PGDME, Abou Chaar M.K., Capizzi V., Chaudhry D., Desai A., Edwards J.G., Evans J.P., Fiore M., Videria J.F., et. al.

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.

Aydillo T., Gonzalez-Reiche A.S., Aslam S., van de Guchte A., Khan Z., Obla A., Dutta J., van Bakel H., Aberg J., García-Sastre A., Shah G., Hohl T., Papanicolaou G., Perales M., Sepkowitz K., et. al.

Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 after Immunosuppression The prolonged contagious period after viral infection in immunocompromised patients may affect how long precautions will be necessary to reduce furthe...

Kane A.D., Paterson J., Pokhrel S., Berry S.K., Monkhouse D., Brand J.W., Ingram M., Danjoux G.R.

Maintaining safe elective surgical activity during the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is challenging and it is not clear how COVID-19 may impact peri-operative morbidity and mortality in this population. Therefore, adaptations to normal care pathways are required. Here, we establish if implementation of a bespoke peri-operative care bundle for urgent elective surgery during a pandemic surge period can deliver a low COVID-19-associated complication profile. We present a single-centre retrospective cohort study from a tertiary care hospital of patients planned for urgent elective surgery during the initial COVID-19 surge in the UK between 29 March and 12 June 2020. Patients asymptomatic for COVID-19 were screened by oronasal swab and chest imaging (chest X-ray or computed tomography if aged ≥ 18 years), proceeding to surgery if negative. COVID-19 positive patients at screening were delayed. Postoperatively, patients transitioning to COVID-19 positive status by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing were identified by an in-house tracking system and monitored for complications and death within 30 days of surgery. Out of 557 patients referred for surgery (230 (41.3%) women; median (IQR [range]) age 61 (48-72 [1-89])), 535 patients (96%) had COVID-19 screening, of which 13 were positive (2.4%, 95%CI 1.4-4.1%). Out of 512 patients subsequently undergoing surgery, 7 (1.4%) developed COVID-19 positive status (1.4%, 95%CI 0.7-2.8%) with one COVID-19-related death (0.2%, 95%CI 0.0-1.1%) within 30 days. Out of these seven patients, four developed pneumonia, of which two required invasive ventilation including one patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Low rates of COVID-19 infection and mortality in the elective surgical population can be achieved within a targeted care bundle. This should provide reassurance that elective surgery can continue, where possible, despite high community rates of COVID-19.

Wong D.J., Harris S., Sahni A., Bedford J.R., Cortes L., Shawyer R., Wilson A.M., Lindsay H.A., Campbell D., Popham S., Barneto L.M., Myles P.S., Moonesinghe S.R.

Background Preoperative risk prediction is important for guiding clinical decision-making and resource allocation. Clinicians frequently rely solely on their own clinical judgement for risk prediction rather than objective measures. We aimed to compare the accuracy of freely available objective surgical risk tools with subjective clinical assessment in predicting 30-day mortality. Methods and findings We conducted a prospective observational study in 274 hospitals in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and New Zealand. For 1 week in 2017, prospective risk, surgical, and outcome data were collected on all adults aged 18 years and over undergoing surgery requiring at least a 1-night stay in hospital. Recruitment bias was avoided through an ethical waiver to patient consent; a mixture of rural, urban, district, and university hospitals participated. We compared subjective assessment with 3 previously published, open-access objective risk tools for predicting 30-day mortality: the Portsmouth-Physiology and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Surgical Risk Scale (SRS), and Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). We then developed a logistic regression model combining subjective assessment and the best objective tool and compared its performance to each constituent method alone. We included 22,631 patients in the study: 52.8% were female, median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46 to 73 years), median postoperative length of stay was 3 days (IQR 1 to 6), and inpatient 30-day mortality was 1.4%. Clinicians used subjective assessment alone in 88.7% of cases. All methods overpredicted risk, but visual inspection of plots showed the SORT to have the best calibration. The SORT demonstrated the best discrimination of the objective tools (SORT Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88–0.92; P-POSSUM = 0.89, 95% CI 0.88–0.91; SRS = 0.85, 95% CI 0.82–0.87). Subjective assessment demonstrated good discrimination (AUROC = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86–0.91) that was not different from the SORT (p = 0.309). Combining subjective assessment and the SORT improved discrimination (bootstrap optimism-corrected AUROC = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90–0.94) and demonstrated continuous Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06–0.20, p < 0.001) compared with subjective assessment alone. Decision-curve analysis (DCA) confirmed the superiority of the SORT over other previously published models, and the SORT–clinical judgement model again performed best overall. Our study is limited by the low mortality rate, by the lack of blinding in the ‘subjective’ risk assessments, and because we only compared the performance of clinical risk scores as opposed to other prediction tools such as exercise testing or frailty assessment. Conclusions In this study, we observed that the combination of subjective assessment with a parsimonious risk model improved perioperative risk estimation. This may be of value in helping clinicians allocate finite resources such as critical care and to support patient involvement in clinical decision-making.

Glasbey J.C., Nepogodiev D., Omar O., Simoes J.F., Ademuyiwa A., Fiore M., Minaya-Bravo A., Shaw R., Vidya R., Bhangu A., Glasbey J.C., Omar O., Bhangu A.A., Siaw-Acheampong K., Benson R., et. al.

Singanayagam A., Patel M., Charlett A., Lopez Bernal J., Saliba V., Ellis J., Ladhani S., Zambon M., Gopal R.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract peaks around symptom onset and infectious virus persists for 10 days in mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease (n = 324 samples analysed). RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values correlate strongly with cultivable virus. Probability of culturing virus declines to 8% in samples with Ct > 35 and to 6% 10 days after onset; it is similar in asymptomatic and symptomatic persons. Asymptomatic persons represent a source of transmissible virus.

Carfì A., Bernabei R., Landi F.

This case series describes COVID-19 symptoms persisting a mean of 60 days after onset among Italian patients previously discharged from COVID-19 hospitalization.

Zhao Y., Shang Y., Song W., Li Q., Xie H., Xu Q., Jia J., Li L., Mao H., Zhou X., Luo H., Gao Y., Xu A.

The long-term pulmonary function and related physiological characteristics of COVID-19 survivors have not been studied in depth, thus many aspects are not understood.COVID-19 survivors were recruited for high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the thorax, lung function and serum levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody tests 3 months after discharge. The relationship between the clinical characteristics and the pulmonary function or CT scores were investigated.Fifty-five recovered patients participated in this study. SARS-CoV-2 infection related symptoms were detected in 35 of them and different degrees of radiological abnormalities were detected in 39 patients. Urea nitrogen concentration at admission was associated with the presence of CT abnormalities (P = 0.046, OR 7.149, 95% CI 1.038 to 49.216). Lung function abnormalities were detected in 14 patients and the measurement of D-dimer levels at admission may be useful for prediction of impaired diffusion defect (P = 0.031, OR 1.066, 95% CI 1.006 to 1.129). Of all the subjects, 47 of 55 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG in serum, among which the generation of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody in female patients was stronger than male patients in infection rehabilitation phase.Radiological and physiological abnormalities were still found in a considerable proportion of COVID-19 survivors without critical cases 3 months after discharge. Higher level of D-dimer on admission could effectively predict impaired DLCO after 3 months discharge. It is necessary to follow up the COVID-19 patients to appropriately manage any persistent or emerging long-term sequelae.Key Scientific Research Projects of Henan Higher Education Institutions.

Marshall J.C., Murthy S., Diaz J., Adhikari N.K., Angus D.C., Arabi Y.M., Baillie K., Bauer M., Berry S., Blackwood B., Bonten M., Bozza F., Brunkhorst F., Cheng A., Clarke M., et. al.

Summary Clinical research is necessary for an effective response to an emerging infectious disease outbreak. However, research efforts are often hastily organised and done using various research tools, with the result that pooling data across studies is challenging. In response to the needs of the rapidly evolving COVID-19 outbreak, the Clinical Characterisation and Management Working Group of the WHO Research and Development Blueprint programme, the International Forum for Acute Care Trialists, and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium have developed a minimum set of common outcome measures for studies of COVID-19. This set includes three elements: a measure of viral burden (quantitative PCR or cycle threshold), a measure of patient survival (mortality at hospital discharge or at 60 days), and a measure of patient progression through the health-care system by use of the WHO Clinical Progression Scale, which reflects patient trajectory and resource use over the course of clinical illness. We urge investigators to include these key data elements in ongoing and future studies to expedite the pooling of data during this immediate threat, and to hone a tool for future needs.

El‐Boghdadly K., Wong D.J., Owen R., Neuman M.D., Pocock S., Carlisle J.B., Johnstone C., Andruszkiewicz P., Baker P.A., Biccard B.M., Bryson G.L., Chan M.T., Cheng M.H., Chin K.J., Coburn M., et. al.

Healthcare workers involved in aerosol-generating procedures, such as tracheal intubation, may be at elevated risk of acquiring COVID-19. However, the magnitude of this risk is unknown. We conducted a prospective international multicentre cohort study recruiting healthcare workers participating in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Information on tracheal intubation episodes, personal protective equipment use and subsequent provider health status was collected via self-reporting. The primary endpoint was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis or new symptoms requiring self-isolation or hospitalisation after a tracheal intubation episode. Cox regression analysis examined associations between the primary endpoint and healthcare worker characteristics, procedure-related factors and personal protective equipment use. Between 23 March and 2 June 2020, 1718 healthcare workers from 503 hospitals in 17 countries reported 5148 tracheal intubation episodes. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.7% over a median (IQR [range]) follow-up of 32 (18-48 [0-116]) days. The cumulative incidence within 7, 14 and 21 days of the first tracheal intubation episode was 3.6%, 6.1% and 8.5%, respectively. The risk of the primary endpoint varied by country and was higher in women, but was not associated with other factors. Around 1 in 10 healthcare workers involved in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 subsequently reported a COVID-19 outcome. This has human resource implications for institutional capacity to deliver essential healthcare services, and wider societal implications for COVID-19 transmission.

Al-Masri M., Safi Y., Alayyan O., Kardan R., Al Khraisat L., Massad A., Alsadi F.

Yang Y., Dang Z., Tang L., Lu P., Ma S., Hou J., Pan Z., Lau W.Y., Zhou W.

Lili W., Xueping W., Shanpeng Y., Feiyu W., Yunpeng B.

ABSTRACTObjectiveThis study was aimed at exploring the safety and timing of functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) in patients after mild‐to‐moderate SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.MethodsThe study group comprised 63 adult inpatients who underwent FESS in our department after mild‐to‐moderate SARS‐CoV‐2 infection between December 2022 and February 2023. Sixty adult patients without prior SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were randomly selected as the control group. The surgical time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative epithelialization time and postoperative complications in each group were recorded, and statistical analysis was conducted with independent sample t‐tests.ResultsStatistical analysis of the surgical time, intraoperative bleeding and postoperative epithelialization time showed no statistically significant differences between the study group and control group (p > 0.05). No postoperative complications were observed in either group.ConclusionFESS is safe and effective for patients after mild‐to‐moderate SARS‐CoV‐2 infection if the symptoms have essentially resolved at least 15 days before surgery.

Kato S., Sakai T., Kusano M., Koezuka S., Azuma Y., Iyoda A.

Xu Y., Dai Z., Zhou H., Li H., Du Y.

Saynhalath R., Sanford E.L., Kato M.A., Staffa S.J., Zurakowski D., Meier P.M., Alex G.A., Fuller C.L., Rossmann Beel E.N., Chhabada S., Poppino K.F., Szmuk P., Matava C.T., Efune P.N., Adams J.L., et. al.

Montella E., Marino M.R., Borrelli A., Trama U., Bellopede S., Cennamo L.M., Triassi M., Improta G.

Health systems have had to make significant personnel and procedure changes as a result of the need to prioritize Covid 19 over other diseases. The Department of Emergency Surgery is one of the many affected areas, where it was decided to prioritize urgent procedures that cannot be delayed over those that can be delayed in order to combat the pandemic. The effects of the infection on the wards of three hospitals are evaluated in this study: the AORN “Antonio Cardarelli” in Napoli, the AOU “Federico II” in Napoli, and the University Hospital “San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona” in Salerno. In particular, the “Ruggi d'Aragona” study, but not the “Antonio Cardarelli” study, saw a shift away from regular hospital admissions and toward pre-hospitalization. At the “Ruggi d'Aragona,” where there was no variation in the two years analyzed, this aspect was not highlighted; however, there was an increase in voluntary discharge.

Aguilera F., Wagner G., Bald M., Richman J., de la Torre J.I.

Background: The incidence of postoperative complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positivity undergoing elective surgical operations is poorly understood. This study aimed to identify differences in postoperative complications after elective abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with patients presenting prepandemic. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing AWR between January 2017 and September 2022. Patients were stratified by date: pre-COVID-19 (January 2017 to December 2019) and post-COVID-19 (January 2020 to September 2022). Patients confirmed as COVID-19-positive were also identified. Data collected included demographics, clinical characteristics, and complications. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: We included 168 patients. The mean age was 54 years, and the mean body mass index was 33 kg/m2. Seventy-five patients underwent surgery pre-COVID-19 and 93 patients after. Of 93 patients, 16 (17%) had a positive COVID-19 test before surgery or during the perioperative period. These 2 groups were risk-matched. Patients with COVID-19 had no significant increase in postoperative complications. Major complications occurred at 13.3% in the pre-COVID-19 group and 7.5% in the post-COVID-19 group. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be younger (48 versus 57; P = 0.049) and more likely to have a shorter length of stay in the hospital (3 versus 5.8; P = 0.038). Conclusions: In our case series, there was an associated increase in the incidence of overall pulmonary-related complications in the postpandemic group. This study is limited by its small sample size. Further investigation should be carried out on this topic.

Lai S., Min S.

Chen Y., Li Y., Meng H., Li C., Kong F.

IntroductionTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of microwave ablation (MWA) for high-risk pulmonary nodules in patients infected with the Omicron variant within 3 months, a retrospective study was conducted. MethodsThe study included patients with multiple high-risk nodules who underwent CT-guided MWA from April 2022 to April 2023. Patients were divided into an observation group and a control group. The primary endpoints were postoperative complications and hospital length of stay, while the secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsA total of 157 patients were included in the analysis, with 64 in the observation group and 93 in the control group. No deaths occurred within 30 days after MWA. In the observation group, the median follow-up time was 7 months, during which 5 patients experienced disease progression after MWA, including 3 cases of pulmonary metastases. Complications were primarily pneumothorax, pleural effusion, and hemorrhage, with an incidence rate of 57.8%, which was statistically significant (p=0.005). The median length of hospital stay was 5 days for the observation group and 6 days for the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the two groups after the removal of lung metastases (p=0.265).DiscussionCT-guided MWA is an alternative treatment for patients with high-risk lung nodules who have been infected with Omicron within the past 3 months.

Li Z., Shi J., Huang Q., Li S., Cheng X., Mailoga N.B., Hu Q., Zhao Y.

We evaluated the impact of preoperative SARS-CoV-2 infections on postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. This ambidirectional (retrospective and prospective) study was conducted among patients undergoing elective cancer surgery between December 2022 and March 2023. Patients with different time intervals between SARS-CoV-2 infection and surgery (0–6 weeks and ≥7 weeks) were compared with those without SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and other postoperative adverse outcomes. Of the 830 patients analyzed, 239 (28.8%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection 0–6 weeks before cancer surgery, and they had a higher incidence of PPCs (4.6% in no SARS-CoV-2 infection, 12.1% in 0–6 weeks, and 5.1% in ≥7 weeks, p = 0.001). The logistic regression model revealed that, compared with patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection, surgery performed 0–6 weeks after SARSCoV-2 infection was associated with a higher risk of PPCs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34–5.98), and surgery performed ≥7 weeks after SARSCoV-2 infection was associated with a similar risk of PPCs (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.54–2.64). However, preoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a risk of 30-day postoperative mortality, MACE, or other adverse postoperative outcomes. In patients with preoperative Omicron variant infection, nonemergency cancer surgery can be scheduled ≥7 weeks after the infection to decrease the risk of PPCs, but it can be advanced if the risk of delay exceeds the risk of proceeding with the surgery.

Wu F., Ibarburu G.H., Grimes C.

AbstractBackground and AimsThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has affected the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Elective operations and surveillance endoscopies were postponed for IBD patients to preserve healthcare resources and to prevent the spread of COVID‐19. This study aimed to describe the trends and outcomes of IBD surgery during the pandemic.MethodsThis was a retrospective propensity score‐matched analysis using data extracted from TriNetX, a multi‐institutional research database. IBD patients admitted for surgery were identified between March 2019 to February 2020 (prepandemic) and March 2020 to February 2023 (pandemic). The monthly volume of IBD surgical procedures was compared during the pandemic to the prepandemic period. After matching, the risk of adverse outcomes following IBD surgery was compared between the 3 years of the pandemic compared to the prepandemic cohort.ResultsThere was a reduction in both elective and emergency IBD operations during the pandemic. These trends were not significant. After matching, the risks of returning to theaters and hospital readmission were comparable across the 3 years of the pandemic. In the first and second years of the pandemic, elective patients were at a greater risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR], 2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.160–3.448 and RR, 1.778; 95% CI, 1.003–3.150, respectively) and the emergency cohort had a higher risk of critical care admission (RR, 1.759; 95% CI, 1.126–2.747 and RR, 1.742; 95% CI, 1.131–2.682, respectively).ConclusionOur study highlights the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the management of IBD patients undergoing surgery. These results provide insights into the management of IBD surgery during times of crisis and can help guide decision‐making and resource allocation for IBD patients requiring surgical intervention.

Liu Y., Hu C., Yang X., Zhang Y., Cao Y., Xiao F., Zhang J., Ma L., Zhou Z., Hou S., Wang E., Loepke A.W., Deng M.

To assess the impact of preoperative infection with the contemporary strain of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative mortality, respiratory morbidity and extrapulmonary complications after elective, noncardiac surgery. An ambidirectional observational cohort study. A tertiary and teaching hospital in Shanghai, China. All adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) who underwent elective, noncardiac surgery under general anesthesia at Huashan Hospital of Fudan University from January until March 2023 were screened for eligibility. A total of 2907 patients were included. Preoperative coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positivity. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. The secondary outcomes included postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), acute kidney injury (AKI), postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative sleep quality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity imposed by preoperative COVID-19. The risk of 30-day postoperative mortality was not associated with preoperative COVID-19 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40, 0.13–1.28, P = 0.123] or operation timing relative to diagnosis. Preoperative COVID-19 did not increase the risk of PPCs (aOR, 95% CI: 0.99, 0.71–1.38, P = 0.944), MINS (aOR, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.22–1.30; P = 0.168), or AKI (aOR, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.10–1.09; P = 0.070) or affect postoperative sleep quality. Patients who underwent surgery within 7 weeks after COVID-19 had increased odds of developing delirium (aOR, 95% CI: 2.26, 1.05–4.86, P = 0.036). Preoperative COVID-19 or timing of surgery relative to diagnosis did not confer any added risk of 30-day postoperative mortality, PPCs, MINS or AKI. However, recent COVID-19 increased the risk of POD. Perioperative brain health should be considered during preoperative risk assessment for COVID-19 survivors.

Wang Q., Wang Y., Wang Y., Chen H., Chen W., Chen Y.

Abstract Objective To explore the relationship between the timing of non-emergency surgery in mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infected individuals and the quality of postoperative recovery from the time of confirmed infection to the day of surgery. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 300 cases of mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected patients undergoing elective general anaesthesia surgery at Yijishan Hospital between January 9, 2023, and February 17, 2023. Based on the time from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to the day of surgery, patients were divided into four groups: ≤2 weeks (Group A), 2–4 weeks (Group B), 4–6 weeks (Group C), and 6–8 weeks (Group D). The primary outcome measures included the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scale scores at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative mortality, ICU admission, pulmonary complications, postoperative length of hospital stay, extubation time, and time to leave the PACU. Results Concerning the primary outcome measures, the QoR-15 scores at 3 days postoperatively in Group A were significantly lower compared to the other three groups (P < 0.05), while there were no statistically significant differences among the other three groups (P > 0.05). The QoR-15 scores at 3 and 6 months postoperatively showed no statistically significant differences among the four groups (P > 0.05). In terms of secondary outcome measures, Group A had a significantly prolonged hospital stay compared to the other three groups (P < 0.05), while other outcome measures showed no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05). Conclusion The timing of surgery in mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected patients does not affect long-term recovery quality but does impact short-term recovery quality, especially for elective general anaesthesia surgeries within 2 weeks of confirmed infection. Therefore, it is recommended to wait for a surgical timing of at least greater than 2 weeks to improve short-term recovery quality and enhance patient prognosis.

Sawada K., Kawaji T., Yamana K., Matsuhashi K., Hara Y., Kuriyama N., Nakamura T., Maekawa A., Takagi Y., Nishida O.

Abstract Background Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare cardiovascular complication in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). IE after COVID-19 can also be complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, the guidelines for the treatment of such cases are not clear. Here, we report a case of perioperative management of post-COVID-19 IE with ARDS using veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). Case presentation The patient was a 40-year-old woman who was admitted on day 18 of COVID-19 onset and was administered oxygen therapy, remdesivir, and dexamethasone. The patient’s condition improved; however, on day 24 of hospitalization, the patient developed hypoxemia and was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to respiratory failure. Blood culture revealed Corynebacterium striatum, and transesophageal echocardiography revealed vegetation on the aortic and mitral valves. Valve destruction was mild, and the cause of respiratory failure was thought to be ARDS. Despite continued antimicrobial therapy, ARDS did not improve the patient’s condition, and valve destruction progressed; therefore, surgical treatment was scheduled on day 13 of ICU admission. After preoperative consultation with the team, a decision was made to initiate V-V ECMO after the patient was weaned from CPB, with concerns about further worsening of her respiratory status after surgery. The patient returned to the ICU with transition to V-V ECMO, and her circulation remained stable. The patient was weaned off V-V ECMO on postoperative day 33 and discharged from the ICU on postoperative day 47. Conclusions ARDS may occur in patients with IE after COVID-19. Owing to concerns about further exacerbation of pulmonary damage, the timing of surgery should be comprehensively considered. Preoperatively, clinicians should discuss perioperative ECMO introduction and configuration.