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.

Background and Aim Endoscopic resection is feasible for superficial tumors in patients with ulcerative colitis; however, endoscopic resection options have not been evaluated comprehensively. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection, and decision making regarding endoscopic resection options for patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods Endoscopically treated tumors from patients with ulcerative colitis were analyzed retrospectively. We evaluated en bloc and R0 resection, adverse events, local tumor recurrence, and metachronous lesion occurrence rates. Results We examined 102 tumors (mean size, 12 mm; non‐polypoid, 55 tumors) from 74 patients with ulcerative colitis, of whom, 39 and 63 underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection, respectively. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (97%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (80%) (P = 0.0015). For 11–20‐mm tumors, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (94%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (55%) (P = 0.0027); the endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection R0 rates did not differ for ≤ 10‐mm tumors. The non‐polypoid tumor R0 resection rates were significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (100%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (65%) (P < 0.001) and did not differ regarding the polypoid tumor R0 resection rates (75% vs 86%, P = 0.49). Four patients experienced intraoperative perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection. No local recurrences occurred. Metachronous high‐grade dysplasia occurred in three patients during surveillance. Conclusions In patients with ulcerative colitis, endoscopic submucosal dissection is suitable for ≥ 11‐mm and non‐polypoid tumors, whereas endoscopic mucosal resection is acceptable for ≤ 10‐mm tumors.

No abstract

No abstract