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.
COVID-19 is characterised by profound lymphopenia in the peripheral blood, and the remaining T cells display altered phenotypes, characterised by a spectrum of activation and exhaustion. However, antigen-specific T cell responses are emerging as a crucial mechanism for both clearance of the virus and as the most likely route to long-lasting immune memory that would protect against re-infection. Therefore, T cell responses are also of considerable interest in vaccine development. Furthermore, persistent alterations in T cell subset composition and function post-infection have important implications for patients’ long-term immune function. In this review, we examine T cell phenotypes, including those of innate T cells, in both peripheral blood and lungs, and consider how key markers of activation and exhaustion correlate with, and may be able to predict, disease severity. We focus on SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells to elucidate markers which may indicate formation of antigen-specific T cell memory. We also examine peripheral T cell phenotypes in recovery and the likelihood of long-lasting immune disruption. Finally, we discuss T cell phenotypes in the lung as important drivers of both virus clearance and tissue damage. As our knowledge of the adaptive immune response to COVID-19 rapidly evolves, it has become clear that whilst some areas of the T cell response have been investigated in some detail, others, such as the T cell response in children remain largely unexplored. Therefore, this review will also highlight areas where T cell phenotypes require urgent characterisation.
The global community needs to be aware of the potential psychosocial consequences that may be experienced by healthcare workers who are actively managing patients with COVID-19. These healthcare workers are at increased risk for experiencing mood and trauma-related disorders, including Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. In this concept article, strategies are recommended for individual healthcare workers and hospital leadership to aid in mitigating the risk of PTSD as well as to build resilience in light of a potential second surge of COVID-19.
Objective: Protecting healthcare workers is an essential component of a successful response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The resource intensive nature of infectious disease protection, budgetary constraints, and global shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) make this a daunting task. Practical, easily implemented strategies for healthcare workers (HCW) protection are needed. Methods: We cross-reference the “Systems, Space, Staff, and Stuff” paradigm from disaster management and the “Hierarchy of Controls” approach to infection prevention from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to generate a narrative overview of worker protection strategies relevant to COVID-19. Results: Alternative types of PPE, management of hazards, and reorganizing how people work can optimize HCWs protection. Conclusions: A comprehensive PPE strategy can utilize the “systems, space, staff, stuff” paradigm of disaster management to identify new or underutilized solutions to HCWs protection.
COVID-19 was initially characterised as a disease primarily of the lungs, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the SARS-CoV2 virus is able to infect many organs and cause a broad pathological response. The primary infection site is likely to be a mucosal surface, mainly the lungs or the intestine, where epithelial cells can be infected with virus. Whilst it is clear that virus within the lungs can cause severe pathology, driven by an exaggerated immune response, infection within the intestine generally seems to cause minor or no symptoms. In this review we compare the disease processes between the lungs and gastrointestinal tract, and what might drive these different responses. As the microbiome is a key part of mucosal barrier sites, we also consider the effect that microbial species may play on infection and the subsequent immune responses. Due to difficulties obtaining tissue samples there are currently few studies focused on the local mucosal response rather than the systemic response, but understanding the local immune response will become increasingly important for understanding the mechanisms of disease in order to develop better treatments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.