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.

Background: This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and usability of standardized glycemic management by a computerized decision support system for non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes on four different wards.Materials and Methods: In this open, noncontrolled intervention study, glycemic management of 99 patients with type 2 diabetes (62% acute admissions; 41 females; age, 67±11 years; hemoglobin A1c, 65±21 mmol/mol; body mass index, 30.4±6.5 kg/m2) on clinical wards (Cardiology, Endocrinology, Nephrology, Plastic Surgery) of a tertiary-care hospital was guided by GlucoTab® (Joanneum Research GmbH [Graz, Austria] and Medical University of Graz [Graz, Austria]), a mobile decision support system providing automated workflow support and suggestions for insulin dosing to nurses and physicians.Results: Adherence to insulin dosing suggestions was high (96.5% bolus, 96.7% basal). The primary outcome measure, percentage of blood glucose (BG) measurements in the range of 70–140 mg/dL, occurred in 50.2±22.2% of all measurements. The overall mean BG level was 154±35 mg/dL. BG measurements in the ranges of 60–70 mg/dL, 40–60 mg/dL, and <40 mg/dL occurred in 1.4%, 0.5%, and 0.0% of all measurements, respectively. A regression analysis showed that acute admission to the Cardiology Ward (+30 mg/dL) and preexisting home insulin therapy (+26 mg/dL) had the strongest impact on mean BG. Acute admission to other wards had minor effects (+4 mg/dL). Ninety-one percent of the healthcare professionals felt confident with GlucoTab, and 89% believed in its practicality and 80% in its ability to prevent medication errors.Conclusions: An efficacious, safe, and user-accepted implementation of GlucoTab was demonstrated. However, for optimized personalized patient care, further algorithm modifications are required.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Despite the fact that early excision and grafting has significantly improved outcome over the last decades, the management of severely burned adult patients with >/=60% total body surface area (% TBSA) burned still represents a challenging task for burn care specialists all over the world. In this article, we present our current treatment concept for this entity of severely burned patients and analyze its effect in a comparative cohort study. Surgical strategy comprised the use of split-thickness skin grafts (Meek, mesh) for permanent coverage, fluidized microsphere bead-beds for wound conditioning, temporary coverage (polyurethane sheets, Epigard; nanocrystalline silver dressings, Acticoat; synthetic copolymer sheets based on lactic acid, Suprathel; acellular bovine derived collagen matrices, Matriderm; allogeneic cultured keratinocyte sheets; and allogeneic split-thickness skin grafts), and negative-pressure wound therapy (vacuum-assisted closure). The autologous split-thickness skin graft expansion using the Meek technique for full-thickness burns and the delayed approach for treating dorsal burn wounds is discussed in detail. To demonstrate differences before and after the introduction of the Meek technique, we have compared patients of 2007 with >/=60% TBSA (n = 10) to those in a matched observation period (n = 7). In the first part of the comparative analysis, all patients of the two samples were analyzed with regard to age, abbreviated burn severity index, Baux, different entities of % TBSA, and survival. In the second step, only the survivors of both years were separated in two groups as follows: patients receiving skin grafts, using the Meek technique (n = 6), were compared with those without Meek grafting (n = 4). When comparing the severely burned patients of 2007 with a cohort of 2006, there were no differences for age (2007: 46.4 +/- 13.4 vs. 2006: 39.1 +/- 14.8 years), abbreviated burn severity index score (2007: 12.2 +/- 1.0 vs. 2006: 12.1 +/- 1.2) or % TBSA (2007: 72.1 +/- 11.7 vs. 2006: 69.3 +/- 8.7% TBSA). In these two rather small groups of severely burned patients with >/=60% TBSA, the overall survival rate of patients was 70.0% (7/10) in 2007 and 42.9% (3/7) in 2006, respectively. Almost all nonsurvivors in both years died within the first 5 days after admission. If assessing the different treatment modalities of the survivors, we found that although the Meek group patients were older (Meek 48.8 +/- 13.3 vs. non-Meek 26.8 +/- 11.5 years, P = .0381) and had consequently higher Baux scores (Meek 124.0 +/- 2.9 vs. non-Meek 93.8 +/- 8.5, P = .0095) than the non-Meek patients, this seemed to have no effect on length-of-stay (80.5 +/- 9.7 vs. non-Meek 79.8 +/- 33.0 days), hospital length-of-stay (85.7 +/- 14.8 vs. non-meek 84.3 +/- 26.1 days) or number of operations (6.5 +/- 1.0 vs. non-Meek 7.0 +/- 4.1 operations). The achieved results represent a combination of various treatment changes and, therefore, cannot be attributed to a single modality. The Meek technique is one of the technical options t...

No abstract