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

Unilateral application of an external pneumatic compression therapy improves skin blood flow and vascular reactivity bilaterally

Background We sought to determine the effects of unilateral lower-limb external pneumatic compression (EPC) on bilateral lower-limb vascular reactivity and skin blood flow. Methods Thirty-two participants completed this two-aim study. In AIM1 (n = 18, age: 25.5 ± 4.7 years; BMI: 25.6 ± 3.5 kg/m2), bilateral femoral artery blood flow and reactivity (flow mediated dilation [FMD]) measurements were performed via ultrasonography at baseline (PRE) and immediately following 30-min of unilateral EPC treatment (POST). AIM2 (n = 14, age: 25.9 ± 4.5; BMI: 27.2 ± 2.7 kg/m2) involved 30-min unilateral EPC (n = 7) or sham (n = 7) treatment with thermographic bilateral lower-limb mean skin temperature (MST) measurements at baseline, 15-min of treatment (T15) and 0, 30 and 60-min (R0, R30, R60) following treatment. Results Comparative data herein are presented as mean ± 95% confidence interval. AIM1: No significant effects on total reactive hyperemia blood flow were observed for the treated (i.e., compressed) or untreated (i.e., non-compressed) leg. A significant effect of time, but no time*leg interaction, was observed for relative FMD indicating higher reactivity bilaterally with unilateral EPC treatment (FMD: +0.41 ± 0.09% across both legs; p  0.05). Finally, during treatment and at all post-treatment time points (i.e., R0, R30 and R60), independent of treatment group (EPC vs. sham), there was a significant effect of region. The maximum increase in MST was observed at the R0 time point and was significantly (p < 0.05) larger in the thigh region (+1.02 ± 0.31 °C) than the lower-leg (+0.47 ± 0.29 °C) region. However, similar rates of MST decline from R0 in the thigh and lower leg regions were observed at the R30 and R60 time points. Discussion Unilateral EPC may be an effective intervention for increasing skin blood flow and/or peripheral conduit vascular reactivity in the contralateral limb. While EPC was effective in increasing whole-leg MST bilaterally, there appeared to be a more robust response in the thigh compared to the lower-leg. Thus, proximity along the leg may be an important consideration in prospective treatment strategies