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: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the preferred strategy for elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) for many patients. However, the superiority of the endovascular procedure has recently been challenged by reports of impaired long-term survival in patients who underwent EVAR. A systematic review of long-term survival following AAA repair was therefore undertaken.Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting shortand/or long-term mortality of EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR) of AAA were identified. Pooled overall survival estimates (hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95 per cent c.i. for EVAR versus OSR) were calculated using a random-effects model. Possible confounding owing to age differences between patients receiving EVAR or OSR was addressed by estimating relative survival.Results: Some 53 studies were identified. The 30-day mortality rate was lower for EVAR compared with OSR: 1⋅16 (95 per cent c.i. 0⋅92 to 1⋅39) versus 3⋅27 (2⋅71 to 3⋅83) per cent. Long-term survival rates were similar for EVAR versus OSR (HRs 1⋅01, 1⋅00 and 0⋅98 for 3, 5 and 10 years respectively; P = 0⋅721, P = 0⋅912 and P = 0⋅777). Correction of age inequality by means of relative survival analysis showed equal long-term survival: 0⋅94, 0⋅91 and 0⋅76 at 3, 5 and 10 years for EVAR, and 0⋅96, 0⋅91 and 0⋅76 respectively for OSR.Conclusion: Long-term overall survival rates were similar for EVAR and OSR. Available data do not allow extension beyond the 10-year survival window or analysis of specific subgroups. Literature search and inclusion criteriaA systematic review of the literature between 1991 and 2018 was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines 6 . Studies were identified using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases. Eligible studies included patients with an intact AAA treated by either EVAR or OSR. Studies that did not compare Publication biasFunnel plots for 30-day and 5-year survival did not show considerable asymmetry (Fig. S2, supporting information).

Objective: To evaluate the impact of changes in elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) management on life-expectancy of AAA patients. Background: Over the past decades AAA repair underwent substantial changes, that is, the introduction of EVAR and implementation of intensified cardiovascular risk management. The question rises to what extent these changes improved longevity of AAA patients. Methods: National evaluation including all 12.907 (82.7% male) patients who underwent elective AAA repair between 2001 and 2015 in Sweden. The impact of changes in AAA management was established by a time-resolved analysis based on 3 timeframes: open repair dominated period (2001–2004, n = 2483), transition period (2005–2011, n = 6230), and EVAR-first strategy period (2012–2015, n = 4194). Relative survival was used to quantify AAA-associated mortality, and to adjust for changes in life-expectancy. Results: Relative survival of electively treated AAA patients was stable and persistently compromised [4-year relative survival and 95% confidence interval: 0.87 (0.85–0.89), 0.87 (0.86–0.88), 0.89 (0.86–0.91) for the 3 periods, respectively]. Particularly alarming is the severely compromised survival of female patients (4-year relative survival females 0.78, 0.80, 0.70 vs males 0.89, 0.89, 0.91, respectively). Cardiovascular mortality remained the main cause of death (51.0%, 47.2%, 47.9%) and the proportion cardiovascular disease over non-cardiovascular disease death was stable over time. Conclusions: Changes in elective AAA management reduced short-term mortality, but failed to improve the profound long-term survival disadvantage of AAA patients. The persistent high (cardiovascular) mortality calls for further intensification of cardiovascular risk management, and a critical appraisal of the basis for the excess mortality of AAA patients.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS The cost effectiveness of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), and therefore EVAR as the primary option for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, remains a matter of debate. However, data used as the rationale for these conclusions are impeded by time dependent effect modification, confounded by indication and asymmetric evaluation of re-interventions after repair, with an extensive focus on graft related re-interventions. In this article an instrumental variable analysis was used to minimise these impeding factors, which showed that EVAR is not costlier than open repair. Considering the lower short term mortality, faster recovery, and equal mid and long term survival, EVAR is a good first option for repair. Objective: The suggested high costs of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) hamper the choice of insurance companies and financial regulators for EVAR as the primary option for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, arguments used in this debate are impeded by time related aspects such as effect modification and the introduction of confounding by indication, and by asymmetric evaluation of outcomes. Therefore, a re-evaluation minimising the impact of these interferences was considered. Methods: A comparative analysis was performed evaluating a period of exclusive open repair (OR; 1998e2000) and a period of established EVAR (2010e2012). Data from four hospitals in The Netherlands were collected to estimate resource use. Actual costs were estimated by benchmark cost prices and a literature review. Costs are reported at 2019 prices. A break even approach, defining the costs for an endovascular device at which cost equivalence for EVAR and OR is achieved, was applied to cope with the large variation in endovascular device costs. Results: One hundred and eighty-six patients who underwent elective AAA repair between 1998 and 2000 (OR period) and 195 patients between 2010 and 2012 (EVAR period) were compared. Cost equivalence for OR and EVAR was reached at a break even price for an endovascular device of V13 190. The main cost difference reflected the longer duration of hospital stay (ward and Intensive Care Unit) of OR (V11 644). Re-intervention rates were similar for OR (24.2%) and EVAR (24.6%) (p ¼ .92). Conclusion: Cost equivalence for EVAR and OR occurs at a device cost of V13 000 for EVAR. Hence, for most routine repairs, EVAR is not costlier than OR until at least the five year follow up.