Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Objectives: To translate and culturally adapt the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool into Swedish and to test the interrater reliability of the Swedish version in critically ill patients. Design: Observational study Methods: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation was performed in line with international recommendations, including forward and backward translation and expert round table discussions. The inter-rater reliability of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool-Swedish was then explored in 50 critically ill adult patients, pragmatically recruited, in a University Hospital clinical setting. Reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient for aggregated scores and quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa analysis for individual items Results: The expert round table discussion group agreed that the translation was a satisfactory equivalent to the original version and applicable for use within the clinical setting. Reliability of aggregated scores and individual items were very good (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.97 and quadric weighted kappa values ranging from 0.88 to 0.98). The measurement error for aggregated scores was low, with a standard error of measurement of 1.79, smallest detectable change of 4.95, and limits of agreement of 5.20 and-4.76. The percentage agreement for individual items ranged from 64% to 88%. Conclusion: The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool-Swedish was found applicable and appropriate for assessment of functioning in critically ill patients in an acute setting in Sweden, and it displayed high inter-rater reliability. This implies that the Swedish version can be used as assessment tool within intensive care and acute wards in Sweden.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract