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.

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support are critically ill and have substantial transfusion requirements, which convey both risks and benefits. A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess the association between blood component administration and adverse outcomes in adult, pediatric, and neonatal ECMO patients. METHODS: We evaluated 217 ECMO patients at a single center hospitalized between January 2009 and June 2016. Three cohorts (88 adult, 57 pediatric, and 72 neonatal patients) were included for assessment of patient characteristics, blood utilization, and clinical outcomes. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess the association between transfusions and clinical outcomes (primary outcome: mortality and secondary outcomes: morbid events). The analysis included the main exposure of interest (total number of blood component units transfused) and potential confounding variables (age group cohort, case mix index, sex, ECMO mode and duration, and primary ECMO indication). RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, with each additional blood component unit transfused, there was an estimated increase in odds for mortality by 1% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.02; P = .013) and an increase in odds for thrombotic events by 1% (OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00–1.02; P = .007). Mortality was higher in the adult (57 of 88; 64.8%) and pediatric (37 of 57; 64.9%) than in the neonatal cohort (19 of 72; 26.4%) (P < .0001). Median total blood components transfused per day followed a similar pattern for the adult (2.3 units; interquartile range [IQR] = 0.8–7.0), pediatric (2.9 units; IQR = 1.1–10), and neonatal (1.0 units; IQR = 0.7–1.6) cohorts (P < .0001). Over the entire hospitalization, the total median blood components transfused was highest in the neonatal (41 units; IQR = 24–94) and pediatric (41 units; IQR = 17–113) compared to the adult (30 units; IQR = 9–58) cohort (P = .007). There was no significant interaction between total units transfused over the hospital stay and age cohort for mortality (P = .35). CONCLUSIONS: Given the association between transfusion and adverse outcomes, effective blood management strategies may be beneficial in ECMO patients.

Objective The COVID‐19 pandemic drove the need for remote audiometric testing in the form of mobile applications for hearing assessment. This study sought to determine the accuracy of two smartphone‐based hearing assessment applications, Mimi and uHear, against the gold standard of in‐clinic audiometric testing. Methods One hundred patients that presented to clinic for hearing assessment were randomly assigned to take either the Mimi or uHear hearing test alongside standard audiometric testing. Hearing thresholds measured using mobile applications were compared to those from audiometric testing to assess validity. Patient satisfaction was measured using a questionnaire that queried if the app met the user's need, if they would recommend the app to others, and how likely they were to use the app again. Results Using Mimi, there were no differences in average hearing levels measured at any frequency when compared to standard audiometric testing. uHear overestimated hearing loss at 500 and 1000 Hz (p < .001 for both) by 5–10 Hz, and underestimated hearing loss at 6000 Hz (p < .001) by 5–10 Hz compared to standard audiometric testing. When stratified by level of hearing impairment, uHear overestimated impairment in those with normal hearing (p < .001). Mimi had higher sensitivity (0.971) and specificity (0.912) for hearing loss (defined as a pure tone average for 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz greater than 25 dB) than uHear (0.914 and 0.780, respectively). However, uHear outranked Mimi on all three questions in the satisfaction questionnaire (p = .01, p = .03, and p = .02, respectively). Conclusion Mimi appears to be a reasonable substitute for standard audiometric testing when individuals cannot present to clinic for gold standard testing; however, the Mimi user experience can be improved. Level of evidence Level II.