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.

Single-dose cefazolin used as antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery is associated with a higher surgical site infection rate than the 24-hour, multiple-dose cefazolin regimen.

No abstract

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the treatment of choice for aortic valve disease, with excellent results reported in the short- and long-term follow-up. Due to the increasing number of patient comorbidities and older age, various technical alternatives have been developed such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation and, more recently, sutureless valve bioprostheses. For patients with very high surgical risk, transcatheter implantation is becoming the top therapeutic option. However, the percutaneous technique still has major disadvantages including those related to implantation without excision of the diseased native valve without direct view of the annulus, which increases the probability of developing perivalvular leaks and a high percentage of atrioventricular block. Due to the need for aggressive crimping of pericardial layers, there is uncertainty about their long-term durability. A new technique for AVR using sutureless bioprosthesis has recently been developed. The main advantages of this technique are the excellent haemodynamic performance and fast deployment under direct view, thereby avoiding the knotting of surgical stitches, which is especially advantageous in more technically demanding procedures (e.g. minimally invasive surgery, calcified aortic root and reoperations). The good clinical results of these valves have been supported by scientific evidence, making it a feasible option for patients who are candidates for AVR using biologic prosthesis, especially for those with mid-high surgical risk for standard AVR and percutaneous transcatheter valve implantation. In this article, we review the latest evidence on these new prostheses, including their advantages and possible disadvantages.

In non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation (AF), left atrial appendage (LAA) is thought to be the source of embolism in 90% of the strokes. Thus, as recent clinical trials have shown the non-inferiority of percutaneous LAA closure (LAAc) in comparison to medical treatment, and despite a IIb recommendation in the latest guidelines for concomitant surgical LAAc, we sought to investigate the beneficial effect of LAAc in the surgical population. A meta-analysis model was performed comparing studies including any cardiac surgery with or without concomitant surgical LAAc reporting stoke/embolic events and/or mortality, from inception to January 2019. Twenty-two studies (280 585 patients) were included in the model. Stroke/embolic events both in the perioperative period [relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.82; P = 0.0001] and during follow-up of >2 years (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.89; P < 0.005) were significantly reduced in patients who underwent surgical LAAc (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58–0.87; P = 0.001). Regarding the rate of preoperative AF, LAAc showed protective effect against stroke/embolic events in studies with >70% preoperative AF (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53–0.77; P < 0.00001) but no benefit in the studies with <30% of preoperative AF (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.46–1.28; P = 0.31). Postoperative mortality was also significantly lower in surgical patients with LAAc at the mid- and long-term follow-up. (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.67–0.78; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). Based on these findings, concomitant surgical LAAc is associated with lower rates of embolic events and stroke in the postoperative period in patients with preoperative AF and also improves postoperative mortality in the mid- and long-term follow-up.

A prospective open-cohort study was performed in 838 adults undergoing coronary revascularization or valve surgery to define the risk factors for development of surgical site infections. Patients diagnosed with mediastinitis or endocarditis during follow-up were compared with patients with no such infection. After 1 year of follow-up, 22 (2.6%) patients had developed mediastinitis or endocarditis. No preoperative or intraoperative variables were identified as risk factors. By multivariate analysis of postoperative variables, respiratory insufficiency, microorganisms in blood cultures, and intensive care unit stay were independent risk factors for the development of these complications. The type of antibiotic prophylaxis had no influence on the incidence of organ or space infections after cardiac surgery.

No abstract