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.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Summary Parkinson's disease (PD) patients who contracted Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) had a decline in motor functions; nevertheless, there is limited evidence on whether PD patients have a higher risk for contracting Covid‐19 or have worse outcomes. This is the first systematic review and meta‐analysis to review the impact of PD on the prognosis of Covid‐19 patients. We performed a systematic search through seven electronic databases under the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐analyses statement (PRISMA) guidelines. The R software version 4.0.2 was used to calculate pooled sample sizes and their associated confidence intervals (95%CI). Finally, we included 13 papers in this study. The pooled prevalence rate of Covid‐19 was 2.12% (95%CI: 0.75–5.98). Fever, cough, fatigue and anorexia were the most common symptoms with a rate of 72.72% (95% CI: 57.3 ‐ 92.29), 66.99% (95% CI: 49.08–91.42), 61.58% (95% CI: 46.69–81.21) and 52.55% (95% CI: 35.09–78.68), respectively. The pooled rates were 39.89% (95% CI: 27.09–58.73) for hospitalisation, 4.7% (95% CI: 1.56–14.16) for ICU admission and 25.1% (95%CI: 16.37–38.49) for mortality. On further comparison of hospitalisation and mortality rates among Covid‐19 patients with and without PD, there were no significant differences. In conclusion, the prevalence and prognosis of Covid‐19 patients seem comparable in patients with PD and those without it. The increased hospitalisation and mortality may be attributed to old age and co‐morbidities.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Objectives Iron overload in thalassaemia is a crucial prognostic factor and a major cause of death due to heart failure or arrhythmia. Therefore, previous research has recommended amlodipine as an auxiliary treatment to current chelating agents for reducing iron overload in thalassaemia patients. Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the results of three randomized clinical trials evaluating the use of amlodipine in thalassaemia patients through 12 databases were carried out. Results Our final cohort included 130 patients. Insignificant difference in decreasing liver iron concentrations was found between amlodipine and control groups {weighted mean difference = −0·2, [95% confidence interval = (−0·55–0·15), P = 0·26]}. As regards serum ferritin, our analysis also showed no significant difference in serum ferritin between amlodipine and control groups {weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval = −0·16 (−0·51–0·19), P = 0·36]}. Similarly, there was insignificant difference in cardiac T2* between amlodipine and control groups {weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval = 0·34 (−0·01–0·69), P = 0·06]}. Conclusions Despite the growing evidence supporting the role of amlodipine in reducing iron overload in thalassaemia patients, our meta‐analysis did not find that evidence collectively significant. The results of our simulation suggest that when more data are available, a meta‐analysis with more randomized clinical trials could provide more conclusive insights.

Background: In this report, we discuss the diagnosis and management of a case of COVID-19-induced acute kidney injury (AKI). Case Presentation: A 58-year-old male with PCR-based COVID-19 diagnosis (at a specialized hospital, Minia, Egypt) was admitted and received supportive medications along with corticosteroids and hydroxychloroquine. After 2 days, the patient developed tachypnoea and desaturation. Therefore, he was transferred to the intensive care unit with a continuous positive airway pressure. On the third day, he developed oliguria with spiking kidney function tests, metabolic acidosis, and eventually anuria on the 6th day. AKI diagnosis was established, and the patient received daily dialysis sessions for 10 days until discharge together with tocilizumab and methylprednisolone. The patient was discharged after normalization and stabilization of his clinical parameters and a second negative PCR swab with continuous follow-up. Conclusion: Early monitoring of kidney function tests during the infection might help in preventing further kidney damage.