Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

The decrease of non-complicated acute appendicitis and the negative appendectomy rate during pandemic

BACKGROUND: During pandemic, admissions for surgical emergencies dropped down dramatically. Also acute appendicitis decreased. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the change in volume and clinical presentation of patients with acute appendicitis during pandemic and the variation in treatment.METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients admitted in 11 Italian hospital for acute appendicitis during the lockdown period (March-April 2020) compared with the same period of the previous 2years (2018-2019). The number and the rate of complicated and non-complicated acute appendicitis were recorded and compared between the two study periods; non-operative vs operative treatment and negative appendectomy rate were also recorded.RESULTS: The study included 532 patients, 112 in the study period and 420 in the control period; Hospital admission for acute appendicitis dropped by 46% (OR 0.516 95% CI 0.411-0.648 p<0.001) during the 2020 lockdown. The number of complicated acute appendicitis did not change (-18%, OR 0.763 95% CI 0.517-1.124 p=0.1719), whereas the number of non-complicated acute appendicitis significantly decreased (-56%, OR 0.424 95% CI 0.319-0.564 p<0.001). Non-operative treatment rate remained similar (12.1% vs. 11.6% p=0.434). The negative appendectomy rate also significantly decreased (6.1% vs. 17.3%, p=0.006).CONCLUSIONS: The present study found a significant reduction of both admissions for non-complicated acute appendicitis and negative appendectomy rate during the pandemic period. Conversely, admissions for complicated acute appendicitis did not change.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04649996

Association between Kasai portoenterostomy at low caseload centres and transplant complications in children with biliary atresia

Background: Kasai portoenterostomy (KPE) is the preferred treatment for biliary atresia (BA) patients. It has been shown that the center caseload of KPE impacts on native liver survival. We aimed to define the impact of KPE caseload on complications at the time of liver transplantation (LT).Methods: Retrospective data collection of LT for BA performed in our tertiary center between 2010 and 2018. The patients were grouped according to the caseload of the center that performed KPE: Group A ( >= 5 KPE/year) and Group B ( < 5 KPE/year). We analyzed total transplant time (TTT), hepatectomy time, amount of plasma and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, occurrence of bowel perforations at LT.Results: Among 115 patients, Group A (n 44) and Group B (n 71) were comparable for age, sex, PELD score, TTT. The groups differed for: median hepatectomy time (57 min, IQR = 50-67; vs 65, IQR 55-89, p = 0.045); RBC transfusions (95 ml, IQR 0-250; vs 200 ml, IQR 70-500, p = 0.017); bowel perforations (0/44 vs 15/71, p = 0.001). One-year graft loss in Group A vs Group B was 1/44 vs 7/71 ( p = 0.239), whereas deaths were 0/44 vs 5/71 respectively ( p = 0.183); 5/15 patients who had a perforation eventu-ally lost the graft.Conclusions: This study found an association between KPE performed in low caseload center and the incidence of complications at LT. These patients tend to have a worse outcome. The centralization of KPE to referral center represents an advantage at the time of LT. Mini abstract: We studied the impact of Kasai portoenterostomy (KPE) caseload on complications at the time of liver transplantation (LT), in 115 patients. We found an association between KPE performed in low caseload center and increased bowel perforations and blood transfusions. We suggest to centralize to experienced center all children requiring KPE.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

2020 World Society of Emergency Surgery updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute calculus cholecystitis

Background: Acute calculus cholecystitis (ACC) has a high incidence in the general population. The presence of several areas of uncertainty, along with the availability of new evidence, prompted the current update of the 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines on ACC. Materials and methods: The WSES president appointed four members as a scientific secretariat, four members as an organization committee and four members as a scientific committee, choosing them from the expert affiliates of WSES. Relevant key questions were constructed, and the task force produced drafts of each section based on the best scientific evidence from PubMed and EMBASE Library; recommendations were developed in order to answer these key questions. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were reviewed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria (see ). All the statements were presented, discussed and voted upon during the Consensus Conference at the 6th World Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery held in Nijmegen (NL) in May 2019. A revised version of the statements was voted upon via an online questionnaire until consensus was reached. Results: The pivotal role of surgery is confirmed, including in high-risk patients. When compared with the WSES 2016 guidelines, the role of gallbladder drainage is reduced, despite the considerable technical improvements available. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) should be the standard of care whenever possible, even in subgroups of patients who are considered fragile, such as the elderly; those with cardiac disease, renal disease and cirrhosis; or those who are generally at high risk for surgery. Subtotal cholecystectomy is safe and represents a valuable option in cases of difficult gallbladder removal. Conclusions, knowledge gaps and research recommendations: ELC has a central role in the management of patients with ACC. The value of surgical treatment for high-risk patients should lead to a distinction between high-risk patients and patients who are not suitable for surgery. Further evidence on the role of clinical judgement and the use of clinical scores as adjunctive tools to guide treatment of high-risk patients and patients who are not suitable for surgery is required. The development of local policies for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended.Peer reviewe

Changes in surgicaL behaviOrs dUring the CoviD-19 pandemic. The SICE CLOUD19 Study

BACKGROUND: The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic.METHODS: The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020).RESULTS: Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (>200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (<20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices.CONCLUSION: This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic