Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer reviewe

Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study.

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

COVID-19: to be or not to be; that is the diagnostic question.

Since the first cases in December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread across the globe, resulting in the COVID-19 pandemic. Early clinical experiences have demonstrated the wide spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 presentations, including various reports of atypical presentations of COVID-19 and possible mimic conditions.This article summarises the current evidence surrounding atypical presentations of COVID-19 including neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, otorhinolaryngology and geriatric features. A case from our hospital of pneumocystis pneumonia initially suspected to be COVID-19 forms the basis for a discussion surrounding mimic conditions of COVID-19. The dual-process model of clinical reasoning is used to analyse the thought processes used to make a diagnosis of COVID-19, including consideration of the variety of differential diagnoses.While SARS-CoV-2 is likely to remain on the differential diagnostic list for a plethora of presentations for the foreseeable future, clinicians should be cautious of ignoring other potential diagnoses due to availability bias. An awareness of atypical presentations allows SARS-CoV-2 to be a differential so that it can be appropriately investigated. A knowledge of infectious mimics prevents COVID-19 from overshadowing other diagnoses, hence preventing delayed diagnosis or even misdiagnosis and consequent adverse outcomes for patients

Meta-analysis of prognostic factors of overall survival in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.

INTRODUCTION Currently, the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system is used for prognostication for oesophageal cancer. However, several prognostically important factors have been reported but not incorporated. This meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of preoperative, operative, and oncological factors on the prognosis of patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer. METHODS This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines and eligible studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to 31 December 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random-effects modeling to determine pooled univariable hazard ratios (HRs). The study was prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration: CRD42018157966). RESULTS One-hundred and seventy-one articles including 73,629 patients were assessed quantitatively. Of the 122 factors associated with survival, 39 were significant on pooled analysis. Of these. the strongly associated prognostic factors were 'pathological' T stage (HR: 2.07, CI95%: 1.77-2.43, P < 0.001), 'pathological' N stage (HR: 2.24, CI95%: 1.95-2.59, P < 0.001), perineural invasion (HR: 1.54, CI95%: 1.36-1.74, P < 0.001), circumferential resection margin (HR: 2.17, CI95%: 1.82-2.59, P < 0.001), poor tumor grade (HR: 1.53, CI95%: 1.34-1.74, P < 0.001), and high neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (HR: 1.47, CI95%: 1.30-1.66, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Several tumor biological variables not included in the AJCC 8th edition classification can impact on overall survival. Incorporation and validation of these factors into prognostic models and next edition of the AJCC system will enable personalized approach to prognostication and treatment

Bringing into focus treatment limitation and DNACPR decisions: How COVID-19 has changed practice.

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR. METHODS The study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019. RESULTS A total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease