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.

Background and Aim Objective monitoring of disease activity is integral to therapeutic decision‐making in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Data are sparse on patients' perspectives of tools used to monitor disease activity in IBD. To evaluate patients' perspectives of gastrointestinal ultrasound (GIUS) performed during routine IBD clinical care, along with its impact on IBD‐specific knowledge. Methods Patients with a formal diagnosis of IBD who underwent GIUS at two tertiary IBD services between March 2017 and January 2019 participated in this prospective study. Participants completed a questionnaire measuring the acceptability, tolerability, and usefulness of GIUS using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Comparative acceptability of IBD monitoring tools and the impact of GIUS on IBD‐specific knowledge was measured. Results A total of 121 participants completed the questionnaire, with a mean age of 42 years (range 17–78), 54 (45%) males, and 79 (65%) Crohn's disease patients. In the overall population, GIUS was scored as highly acceptable for monitoring IBD (mean 9.20 ± 1.37) compared to colonoscopy (7.94 ± 2.30), stool sampling (8.17 ± 1.96), blood sampling (8.87 ± 1.62), and imaging (8.67 ± 1.60); P < 0.01 for each comparison. GIUS caused little patient discomfort (1.88 ± 1.83), and 98 (81%) participants ranked GIUS as their preferred IBD monitoring tool. GIUS also improved patients' overall IBD‐specific knowledge (VAS IBD‐specific knowledge 7.96 ± 1.92), including their understanding of the need for medical therapy and disease extent. Conclusion GIUS is a highly acceptable and well‐tolerated tool for monitoring disease activity in IBD patients. GIUS is preferred by patients and enhances IBD‐specific knowledge.

Background and Aim Point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) is a noninvasive alternative to ileocolonoscopy for monitoring disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but is underutilized in practice. Accuracy data are needed to engender clinician confidence in POCUS and increase uptake. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of POCUS compared to ileocolonoscopy in detecting active disease and extent in patients with IBD. Methods A prospective, blinded study was performed at a single tertiary center in South Australia between May 2017 and May 2018. Consecutive patients with a formal diagnosis of IBD who underwent both POCUS and ileocolonoscopy within 30 days of one another, performed to evaluate IBD disease activity, were eligible for participation. The accuracy of POCUS compared to ileocolonoscopy was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen's kappa coefficient analyses. Results A total of 74 patients were included in the final analysis, 35 (47%) of whom had Crohn's disease and 39 (53%) ulcerative colitis; 37 subjects (50%) underwent a POCUS and ileocolonoscopy on the same day. POCUS demonstrated 91% sensitivity and 83% specificity for detecting endoscopically active IBD, correlating with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 89%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 86%, and a kappa coefficient of 0.74 (88%). POCUS defined disease extent with 87% sensitivity and 81% specificity, correlating with a PPV of 85% and NPV of 83% and a kappa coefficient of 0.70 (85%). Conclusion POCUS is accurate in defining disease activity and extent in IBD compared to ileocolonoscopy. POCUS represents an appealing, noninvasive alternative to ileocolonoscopy for monitoring disease activity in IBD.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract