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.

ObjectiveThe optimal management of acute cholecystitis in patients at very high risk for cholecystectomy is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PT-GBD) as a definitive treatment in these patients under a randomised controlled trial.DesignConsecutive patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis but were at very high-risk for cholecystectomy were recruited. The primary outcome was the 1-year adverse events rate. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, pain scores, unplanned readmissions, re-interventions and mortalities.ResultsBetween August 2014 to February 2018, 80 patients were recruited. EUS-GBD significantly reduced 1 year adverse events (10 (25.6%) vs 31 (77.5%), p<0.001), 30-day adverse events (5 (12.8%) vs 19 (47.5%), p=0.010), re-interventions after 30 days (1/39 (2.6%) vs 12/40 (30%), p=0.001), number of unplanned readmissions (6/39 (15.4%) vs 20/40 (50%), p=0.002) and recurrent cholecystitis (1/39 (2.6%) vs 8/40 (20%), p=0.029). Postprocedural pain scores and analgesic requirements were also less (p=0.034). The technical success (97.4% vs 100%, p=0.494), clinical success (92.3% vs 92.5%, p=1) and 30-day mortality (7.7% vs 10%, p=1) were statistically similar. The predictor to recurrent acute cholecystitis was the performance of PT-GBD (OR (95% CI)=5.63 (1.20–53.90), p=0.027).ConclusionEUS-GBD improved outcomes as compared to PT-GBD in those patients that not candidates for cholecystectomy. EUS-GBD should be the procedure of choice provided that the expertise is available after a multi-disciplinary meeting. Further studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy.Trial registration numberNCT02212717

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers, with a high mortality-to-incidence ratio. It is uncertain whether developed nations may encounter an increasing burden of gastric cancer in young adults, as occurs for other cancers.OBJECTIVES To evaluate the incidence and mortality of gastric cancer and compare the global incidence trends between younger (<40 years) and older (Ն40 years) populations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis population-based cohort study analyzed data from global and national cancer registries, including data from 1980 to 2018, with at least 15 calendar years of incidence and mortality data. Data on age-standardized incidence and mortality rates of gastric cancer among 48 countries were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, the National Cancer Institute, the Nordic Cancer Registries, and the World Health Organization Mortality Database. The 10-year incidence trend of gastric cancer was assessed by age and sex. The 2018 GLOBOCAN database was used for reporting the global incidence and mortality of gastric cancer, the most recent data available at the time of analysis. Analyses were performed

A erosol-generating procedures pose a potential threat to health care workers, especially during this COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was assumed to be an aerosol-generating procedure and recommendations, therefore, reflect evidence generated from nongastrointestinal aerosol-generating procedures, such as bronchoscopy. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. This study aims to provide scientific evidence on whether EGD is an aerosol-generating procedure and to examine ways of decreasing the amount of aerosol generated. Methods This study was a prospective observational trial to examine aerosol generation during EGD by applying a quantitative approach (see Supplementary Material for details). All patients undergoing EGD at the endoscopy center of the Prince of Wales Hospital from May 7, 2020 to June 1, 2020 were included. Procedures were performed with the patient in the left lateral position with a mouthguard, using a 9.9-mm flexible video gastrointestinal scope (GIF-H290; Olympus Hong Kong and China Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR). Measurements were taken using the portable GT-526S Handheld Particle Counter (Met One Instruments, Inc, Grants Pass, OR). The 6-channel particle sizes were programmed at 0.3 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, 1 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm. The particle counter was placed within 10 cm of the mouth of the patient once the patient entered the room and measured for at least 1 minute before the start of the procedure. The measurement was continued during the procedure until after the patient left the endoscopy suite.