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.
Our results demonstrated that early conservative intervention for breast cancer patients high risk for BCRL who were prospectively monitored by utilizing BIS significantly lowers rates of BCRL. These findings support early prospective screening and intervention for BCRL. Early detection with patient-directed interventions improves patient outcomes and decreases the risk of persistent BCRL.
Purpose: Addition of carboplatin (Cb) to anthracycline chemotherapy improves pathologic complete response (pCR), and carboplatin plus taxane regimens also yield encouraging pCR rates in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Aim of the NeoSTOP multisite randomized phase II trial was to assess efficacy of anthracycline-free and anthracycline-containing neoadjuvant carboplatin regimens. Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with stage I–III TNBC were randomized (1:1) to receive either paclitaxel (P) weekly × 12 plus carboplatin AUC6 every 21 days × 4 followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 14 days × 4 (CbP → AC, arm A), or carboplatin AUC6 + docetaxel (D) every 21 days × 6 (CbD, arm B). Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTIL) were assessed. Primary endpoint was pCR in breast and axilla. Other endpoints included residual cancer burden (RCB), toxicity, cost, and event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: One hundred patients were randomized; arm A (n = 48) or arm B (n = 52). pCR was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI), 40%–69%] in arm A and 54% (95% CI, 40%–68%) in arm B. RCB 0+I rate was 67% in both arms. Median sTIL density was numerically higher in those with pCR compared with those with residual disease (20% vs. 5%; P = 0.25). At median follow-up of 38 months, EFS and OS were similar in the two arms. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more common in arm A compared with arm B, with the most notable differences in neutropenia (60% vs. 8%; P < 0.001) and febrile neutropenia (19% vs. 0%; P < 0.001). There was one treatment-related death (arm A) due to acute leukemia. Mean treatment cost was lower for arm B compared with arm A (P = 0.02). Conclusions: The two-drug CbD regimen yielded pCR, RCB 0+I, and survival rates similar to the four-drug regimen of CbP → AC, but with a more favorable toxicity profile and lower treatment-associated cost.
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.