3 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Prolonged Ileus after Colorectal Surgery, a Systematic Review

    Get PDF
    Background: The development of prolonged post-operative ileus (POI) remains a significant problem in the general surgical patient population. The aetiology of ileus is poorly understood and management options/preventative measures are currently extremely limited. The pathophysiology leading to a post-operative ileus is relatively poorly understood, and there is no validated method to estimate ileus occurrence or duration. Ileus in the post-operative period commonly occurs following major colorectal surgery and leads to painful abdominal distension, vomiting, nutritional deficit, pneumonia, prolonged hospital stays and susceptibility to hospital-acquired infection. An increased hospital stay, the burden of treatment costs and the burden on the health system highlight the importance of future research on finding definitions, preventions and predictions of ileus. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the rate of ileus on various treatments for prolonged post-operative ileus following colorectal surgery. A confidence evaluation in a meta-analysis were performed using CINeMA. Direct and indirect comparisons of all interventions were simultaneously carried out using a network meta-analysis. The level of certainty was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. The method of assessing the risk of bias, the quality assessment, used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB2). Results: Among the seven included studies, the majority suffered from considerable within-study bias, affecting the confidence rates of study findings. Heterogeneity and incoherence made the pairwise meta-analysis and ranking of interventions unfeasible. Indirect comparisons were considered unreliable due to this incoherence. Conclusions: This systematic review, with a confidence evaluation in the network meta-analysis, determined that there is a knowledge gap in the field of study on prolonged ileus following digestive surgery. The current evidence suffers from heterogeneity and incoherence more than imprecision. There is a gap in the data on ileus occurrence in interventional trials for digestive surgery. This could inform clinicians and trialists to better appraise the current literature and plan future trials
    corecore