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.

No abstract

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 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 determine the minimal accepted sensitivity (MAS) of a urine biomarker that patients are willing to accept to replace cystoscopy and to assess qualitatively their views and reasons. Patients and Methods Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting people with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed‐methods approach comprising (1) a questionnaire to assess patients’ experience with cystoscopy and patients’ preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker, and (2) semi‐structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference. Results A urine biomarker with an MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This was despite a high self‐reported prevalence of haematuria (51.0%), dysuria/lower urinary tract symptoms (69.1%) and urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics (25.8%). There was no association between MAS with patient demographics, adverse events experienced, cancer characteristics or distance of patients’ home to hospital. The qualitative analysis suggested that patients acknowledge that cystoscopy is invasive, embarrassing and associated with adverse events but are willing to tolerate the procedure because of its high sensitivity. Patients have confidence in cystoscopy and appreciate the visual diagnosis of cancer. Both low‐ and high‐risk patients would consider a biomarker with a reported sensitivity similar to that of cystoscopy. Conclusion Patients value the high sensitivity of cystoscopy despite the reported discomfort and adverse events experienced after it. The sensitivity of a urinary biomarker must be close to cystoscopy to gain patients’ acceptance.

It has been anecdotally observed that ABO blood type may have an impact on the severity of the side-effects experienced by those receiving mRNA vaccination for COVID-19. MethodsAs part of a larger study, a retrospective cross-sectional survey was made available to approximately 33,000 front-line healthcare workers, students and volunteers who were offered voluntary vaccination in a statewide healthcare system during phase one of the state's vaccine roll-out. A secondary endpoint of the survey was to determine if there was any relationship between vaccination reactogenicity and ABO blood type. Results4009 responses were received -a 12.15% response rate. 3700 respondents answered the blood type question, and of those, 2878 knew their blood type. By Kruskal-Wallis test, there was no statistically significant association between any blood type and any side effect for either of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. ConclusionsCOVID-19 mRNA vaccination may cause significant reactogenicity. However, ABO blood type does not appear to be a predictor of vaccine reactogenicity.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide including in the delivery of surgical services. The introduction of mRNA COVID vaccines and the significant reactogenicity seen with vaccination has caused an unanticipated impact on the operating room workforce via unanticipated paid time off after employee vaccination. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional survey was made available to approximately 33,000 front-line healthcare workers, students and volunteers who were offered voluntary vaccination in a state-wide healthcare system during phase one of the state's vaccine roll-out. The primary study aim was to determine the frequency of unanticipated paid time off, and the secondary study aim was to identify any demographic determinants influencing the need for unanticipated time off work secondary to adverse effects. Results 4009 responses were received, a 12.15% response rate. When looking specifically at individuals who did not proactively schedule themselves for time off after vaccination, we determined that unanticipated paid administrative leave was required for 4.9% and 19.79% of individuals after the first and second doses of vaccine, respectively. The average lengths of absence were 1.66 days and 1.39 days for the first and second doses, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences found in the need for unanticipated leave when compared by vaccine manufacturer, gender, age, ethnicity, or job description. However, individuals with a bachelor's degree demonstrated a significantly higher unanticipated leave requirement than respondents who reported other educational backgrounds. Conclusions The ability to staff operating rooms and other critical healthcare services may be negatively affected as a result of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination reactogenicity and subsequent unanticipated paid administrative leave. For future COVID-19 boosters or during other pandemics in which mRNA vaccination is recommended, employees should proactively schedule their vaccination(s) in conjunction with their work schedules to minimize the impact of reactogenicity and unanticipated time off on the operating room schedule and patient care.

After 2 years of experience with a basic computerized system for documenting care, the nursing leaders in an inner city hospital undertook a redesign process to create an effective and efficient system for documentation that also provided data for monitoring care processes, patient outcomes, and staff performance. The basic system was a source of frustration and dissatisfaction for nurses, physicians, and managers. The redesigned system has exceeded the expectations of staff and physicians and delighted managers. Managers can now access the clinical data collected by the staff to create meaningful reports describing the patient population, identifying patients needs, monitoring staff compliance with care standards, and tracking improvements in care processes.