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.

No abstract

CDFS combined with TLA for treatment of GSV incompetence yields good mid-term results in terms of occlusion rate, clinical severity, patients' QoL, and safety.

The clinical results of the treatment of UEDVT with CDT or PMT were similar. However, PMT required shorter hospital stay and less intensive surveillance, leading to lower total costs.

The surgical elimination of non-complicated superficial venous reflux is an effective treatment when compared with providing compression stockings only.

The occlusion rate for MOCA at three years after GSV ablation is lower (82%) than for EVLA or RFA (both 100%). Veins with diameters of over 7 mm recanalized more often than those with smaller diameter.Take home Message: Though MOCA has some advantages over thermal ablation, the occlusion rate remains inferior at mid-term follow-up.

Background: A variety of minimally invasive techniques are available for the treatment of varicose great saphenous vein (GSVs). Non-tumescent, non-thermal ablation methods have been developed. This study compared mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), a non-tumescent, non-thermal ablation technique, with two endovenous thermal ablation methods requiring tumescence in an RCT.Methods: Patients with GSV reflux were randomized to undergo MOCA, or thermal ablation with endovenous laser (EVLA) or radiofrequency (RFA). The primary outcome measure was the occlusion rate of the GSV at 1 year. Results: The study finally included 125 patients, of whom 117 (93⋅6 per cent) attended 1-year follow-up. At 1 year, the treated part of the GSV was fully occluded in all patients in the EVLA and RFA groups, and in 45 of 55 in the MOCA group (occlusion rates 100, 100 and 82 per cent respectively; P = 0⋅002). The preoperative GSV diameter was associated with the recanalization rate of the proximal GSV in the MOCA group. At 1 year after treatment, disease-specific life quality was similar in the three groups. Conclusion: The GSV occlusion rate 1 year after treatment was significantly higher after EVLA and RFA than after MOCA. Quality of life was similar between interventions. Registration number: NCT03722134 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Assessed for eligibility n = 4027 Randomized n = 132 Excluded n = 3895 Did not meet inclusion criteria n = 3850 Declined to participate n = 45 Allocated to RFA n = 33 Received allocated intervention n = 32 Did not receive allocated intervention n = 1 Declined to participate n = 1 Allocated to MOCA n = 65 Received allocated intervention n = 58 Did not receive allocated intervention n = 7 Received EVLA n = 1* Declined to participate n = 3 Exclusion criteria identified n = 3 Allocated to EVLA n = 34 Received allocated intervention n = 34 Lost to follow-up n = 1 Analysed n = 33 Analysed n = 29 Analysed n = 55 Lost to follow-up n = 3 Lost to follow-up n = 4 Enrolment Allocation Follow-up Analysis *Patient crossed over to endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) but analysed in mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) group. RFA, radiofrequency ablation.