No abstract

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND:The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19-positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. RESULTS: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. Cancer 2020;0:1-13.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the feasibility and clinical course after minimally invasive David procedure compared with those via a conventional median sternotomy. METHODS:One hundred and ninety-two consecutive patients who underwent elective valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) with or without additional cusp repair for aortic regurgitation (n = 17, 8.9%), dilatation of the aortic root (n = 95, 49.5%) or a combination of both pathologies (n = 80, 41.7%) were included. Patients with systemic disorders, such as Marfan's syndrome, and emergency cases were excluded. Assessment of quality of life was performed by modified Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. To minimize baseline differences, a matched pair analysis was conducted. RESULTS:One hundred and seventeen patients (60.9%) received a minimally invasive hemisternotomy (Group 1), 75 patients a conventional median sternotomy (39.1%, Group 2). Patients of Group 1 were significantly younger (56.5 ± 13.6 vs 64.8 ± 11.6, P < 0.001). Understandably, concomitant cardiac procedures were more frequent in Group 2 (n = 7 [6.0%] vs n = 48 [64.0%], P < 0.001). In hospital, mortality was 0.9% in Group 1 (1/117) and 2.7% in Group 2 (2/75; P = 0.562). Blood loss was significantly less in Group 1 (542.6 ± 441.8 vs 996.7 ± 822.6 ml, P < 0.001). Duration of mechanical ventilation (10.2 ± 21.8 vs 26.9 ± 109.0 h, P < 0.001) and ICU-stay (1.9 ± 3.6 vs 3.2 ± 5.6 days, P < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the minimally invasive group, but this differences did not remain after matching. According to SF-36 questionnaire, patients in the minimally invasive group tend to have a higher quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be done safely via an upper partial sternotomy in experienced hands even if additional cusp repair is required.

Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poorer outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR). For high-risk patients with complex CAD, combined transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) plus off-pump/minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass (OPCAB/MIDCAB) has been proposed. Methods A prospective registry analysis was performed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR+OP/MIDCAB with those undergoing TAVR plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical AVR plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2008 and 2015 at a single site in Germany. Results 464 patients underwent SAVR+CABG, 50 underwent TAVR+OP/MIDCAB, and 112 underwent TAVR+PCI. The mean ages ( p < 0.001) and logistic EuroSCOREs (p < 0.001) were similarly higher in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and TAVR+PCI patients compared to SAVR+CABG patients. Prior cardiac surgery was more common in TAVR+PCI than in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients (p < 0.001). Procedural times were shortest (p < 0.001), creatine kinase (muscle brain) levels least elevated (p < 0.001), pericardial tamponade least common ( p = 0.027), and length of hospital stay shortest ( p = 0.011) in TAVR+PCI, followed by TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients. In-hospital mortality was highest for TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients (18.0%) with comparable rates for TAVR+PCI and SAVR+CABG groups (9.0 and 6.9%; p = 0.009). Mortality by 12 months was more probable after TAVR+OP/MIDCAB (HR: 2.17, p = 0.002) and TAVR/PCI (HR: 1.63, p = 0.010) than after SAVR+CABG, with the same true of rehospitalisation (HR: 2.39, p = 0.003 and HR: 1.63, p = 0.033). Conclusions TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients share many characteristics with TAVR+PCI patients, with only slightly poorer long-term outcomes. In patients ineligible for SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI, hybrid interventions are reasonable second-line options. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1087-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hybrid aortic repair using the FET in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection does not elevate the perioperative risk of mortality and provides excellent aortic remodelling with low distal re-intervention rate in mid-term follow-up.