30-Day Mortality and Cardiopulmonary Complication Rates in Patients Undergoing Emergency Surgery with Perioperative SARS-CoV-2 Infection

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Continued vigilance of operative outcomes in COVID-19 patients is important given the relative novelty of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to evaluate the 30-day mortality and cardiopulmonary complication rates in patients undergoing emergency surgery with perioperative COVID-19, in comparison to a control group of medically managed COVID-19 patients that did not require a surgical intervention. METHODS: A retrospective chart review at a single tertiary-care hospital in Michigan was undertaken. Patients who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection either 7 days before or within 30 days after surgery during March-May 2020 were included in the study (n=52). Propensity score matched (1:6) patients who had been positive for SARS CoV-2 infection during this time-period but did not undergo surgery served as controls (n=314). The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac and pulmonary complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were utilized to account for baseline differences. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality (17.3% vs 13.1%, p=0.408) and cardiac (28.9% vs 19.1%, p=0.107) and pulmonary complication (55.8% vs 49.4%, p=0.392) rates were similar in the surgical and the non-surgical groups. Multivariable analyses confirmed that emergency surgical intervention was not associated with increased odds for any of the studied adverse events (p\u3e0.10 for all 3 endpoints). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of 366 novel coronavirus patients demonstrates that patients undergoing emergency surgery with SARS-CoV-2 infection do not have an increased risk for 30-day mortality and cardiopulmonary complications compared to their counterparts that do not require surgery. The importance of this study is that an emergency intervention does not portend a poorer prognosis among patients with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Zoomorphism

AbstractAnthropomorphism is the methodology of attributing human-like mental states to animals. Zoomorphism is the converse of this: it is the attribution of animal-like mental states to humans. Zoomorphism proceeds by first understanding what kind of mental states animals have and then attributing these mental states to humans. Zoomorphism has been widely used as scientific methodology especially in cognitive neuroscience. But it has not been taken seriously as a philosophical explanatory paradigm: as a way of explaining the building blocks of the human mind. The philosophical explanatory paradigm of zoomorphism may not explain all aspects of human behavior (although it may explain surprisingly many), but if we accept the zoomorphic way of thinking about the human mind, we should only posit new, different kinds of mental states if the zoomorphic attribution of animal mental states fails to explain our behavior.</jats:p