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.

Gastric cancer (GC) is a relevant public health issue as its incidence and mortality rates are growing worldwide. There are recognized carcinogen agents, such as obesity, tobacco, meat, alcohol consumption and some dietary protective factors. Strategies of early diagnosis through population-based surveillance programs have been demonstrated to be effective in lowering the morbidity and mortality related to GC in some countries. Indeed, the detection of early lesions is very important in order to offer minimally invasive treatments. Endoscopic resection is the gold standard for lesions with a low risk of lymph node metastasis, whereas surgical mini-invasive approaches can be considered in early lesions when endoscopy is not curative. This review outlines the role of lifestyle and prevention strategies for GC, in order to reduce the patients’ risk factors, implement the surveillance of precancerous conditions and, therefore, improve the diagnosis of early lesions. Furthermore, we summarize the available treatments for early gastric cancer.

To evaluate if glutamine (GLN) supplementation may affect primary outcomes in patients undergoing major elective abdominal operations, we performed a systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from 1983 to 2013 and comparing intravenous glutamine dipeptide supplementation to no supplementation in elective surgical abdominal procedures. A meta-analysis for each outcome (overall and infectious morbidity and length of stay) of interest was carried out. The effect size was estimated by the risk ratio (RR) or by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Nineteen RCTs were identified with a total of 1243 patients (640 receiving GLN and 603 controls). In general, the studies were underpowered and of medium or low quality. GLN supplementation did not affect overall morbidity (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.36; p = 0.473) and infectious morbidity (RR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.38 to 1.07; p = 0.087). Patients treated with glutamine had a significant reduction in length of hospital stay (WMD = −2.67; 95% CI = −3.83 to −1.50; p < 0.0001). In conclusion, GLN supplementation appears to reduce hospital stay without affecting the rate of complications. The positive effect of GLN on time of hospitalization is difficult to interpret due to the lack of significant effects on surgery-related morbidity.

The role of glutamine (GLN) supplementation in critically ill patients is controversial. Our aim was to analyze its potential effect in patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU).We performed a systematic literature review through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, Ovid, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane-Controlled Trials Register searching for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from 1983 to 2014 and comparing GLN supplementation to no supplementation in patients admitted to ICU. A random-effect meta-analysis for each outcome (hospital and ICU mortality and rate of infections) of interest was carried out. The effect size was estimated by the risk ratio (RR).Thirty RCTs were analyzed with a total of 3696 patients, 1825 (49.4%) receiving GLN and 1859 (50.6%) no GLN (control groups). Hospital mortality rate was 27.6% in the GLN patients and 28.6% in controls with an RR of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.81–1.07; P = 0.325, I2 = 10.7%). ICU mortality was 18.0 % in the patients receiving GLN and 17.6% in controls with an RR of 1.01 (95% CI = 0.86–1.19; P = 0.932, I2 = 0%). The incidence of infections was 39.7% in GLN group versus 41.7% in controls. The effect of GLN was not significant (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.76–1.03; P = 0.108, I2 = 56.1%).These results do not allow to recommend GLN supplementation in a generic population of critically ills. Further RCTs are needed to explore the effect of GLN in more specific cohort of patients.