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.

While the focus of the medical community is on the management of COVID-19 and its associated complex presentations, it is critical to recognize that patients will continue to present with other medical problems that require urgent therapeutic interventions. There is growing concern that such interventions might have an impact on the natural history of COVID-19. We present a case of a patient who presented with unstable angina and multivessel coronary artery disease for which coronary artery bypass surgery was indicated and performed. Unfortunately, he succumbed to respiratory complications attributed to COVID-19. Our experience suggests concern about adverse outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who might be infected with COVID-19. Clearly, additional investigations and experience are needed.

Background: Tricuspid annuloplasty is the most common surgical approach to correct tricuspid regurgitation (TR). In some patients, however, anterior leaflet patch augmentation may be necessary to optimize tricuspid competence. We reviewed our center cohort over the midterm and long term. Methods: From January 2013 to August 2018, 424 tricuspid valve procedures were performed, of which 420 were repairs and 4 were replacements. Indications were either isolated severe TR or moderate or greater TR, concomitant with other surgery. In the repair cohort, we identified those that had a patch augmentation, and the database was interrogated for preoperative characteristics. The resulting patients had outpatient assessment (clinical and echocardiography) at 6 weeks and at a later interval. Additionally, a comparison was made between those who had good and poor results (moderate or greater TR or cardiac death). Results: In the repair cohort, 19 patients underwent complex tricuspid valve repair with CorMatrix anterior leaflet augmentation. Preoperative characteristics were as follows: age, 65.5 ± 13.5 years; New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, 3.5 ± 0.5; left ventricular ejection fraction, 48.3% ± 5.9%; tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, 17.1 ± 3.7 mm; right ventricle (good, mild, moderate, poor), 10, 5, 4, 0; annulus size, 40.9 ± 6.9 mm; mean tethering distance, 1.00 ± 0.3 cm; and mean tethering area, 1.53 ± 1.16 cm2. Mean follow-up was 2.1 ± 1.9 years, and survival at 2 years was 73.8%. There were 2 in-hospital deaths. Mean NYHA class was 1.0 ± 0.5 (6 weeks) and 1.5 ± 0.6 (later follow-up); mean residual TR grade was 0.5 ± 0.6 (6 weeks) and 1.3 ± 1.4 (follow-up). Ten of 13 survivors had a good result at last follow-up (TR 0 to 1). We compared the preoperative and operative data of this group versus those with poor results (TR >1 or cardiac mortality). Significant univariate predictors of poor results were larger preoperative tethering area (1.18 ± 0.43 versus 2.4 ± 1.5 cm2; P = .02), longer tethering distance (0.87 ± 0.21 versus 1.2 ± 0.19 cm; P = .007), or the presence of mild or greater TR at 6 weeks (0.2 ± 0.4 vs 1.25 ± 0.5; P = .03). Conclusions: CorMatrix anterior leaflet augmentation produces successful, stable repair in the majority of this complex population. The presence of even mild TR at 6 weeks’ follow-up predicts a poor result. When the tethering area or the tethering distance is significantly high, replacement is probably a better option.

This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicentre UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. Mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR vs 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including IABP support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p<0.001), arrhythmias (p<0.001), respiratory and neurological complications (p=0.02 and p=0.03) and multi-organ failure (p=0.01). The valve-in-valve TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (p <0.001 for both). However, moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge and higher post-procedural gradients were more common after valve-in-valve TAVI (p<0.001 for both). Survival probabilities in patients who were successfully discharged from hospital were similar after valve-in-valve TAVI and redo-AVR over the 6-year follow-up (log-rank p=0.26). In elderly patients with a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation provides better early outcomes, as opposed to redo surgical aortic valve replacement, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from hospital.