Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

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

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Low-molecular-weight or Unfractionated Heparin in Venous Thromboembolism: The Influence of Renal Function

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute venous thromboembolism and renal insufficiency, initial therapy with unfractionated heparin may have some advantages over low-molecular-weight heparin. METHODS: We used the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) Registry data to evaluate the 15-day outcome in 38,531 recruited patients. We used propensity score matching to compare patients treated with unfractionated heparin with those treated with low-molecular-weight heparin in 3 groups stratified by creatinine clearance levels at baseline: >60 mL/min, 30 to 60 mL/min, or <30 mL/min. RESULTS: Patients initially receiving unfractionated heparin therapy (n = 2167) more likely had underlying diseases than those receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (n = 34,665). Propensity score-matched groups of patients with creatinine clearance levels >60 mL/min (n = 1598 matched pairs), 30 to 60 mL/min (n = 277 matched pairs), and <30 mL/min (n = 210 matched pairs) showed an increased 15-day mortality for unfractionated heparin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (4.5% vs 2.4% [P = .001], 5.4% vs 5.8% [P = not significant], and 15% vs 8.1% [P = .02], respectively), an increased rate of fatal pulmonary embolism (2.8% vs 1.2% [P = .001], 3.2% vs 2.5% [P = not significant], and 5.7% vs 2.4% [P = .02], respectively), and a similar rate of fatal bleeding (0.3% vs 0.3%, 0.7% vs 0.7%, and 0.5% vs 0.0%, respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients treated with unfractionated heparin were at increased risk for all-cause death (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.4) and fatal pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.6). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with low-molecular-weight heparin, initial therapy with unfractionated heparin was associated with a higher mortality and higher rate of fatal pulmonary embolism in patients with creatinine clearance levels >60 mL/min or <30 mL/min, but not in those with levels between 30 and 60 mL/min

A clinical prognostic model for the identification of low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism and active cancer.

BACKGROUND: Physicians need a specific risk-stratification tool to facilitate safe and cost-effective approaches to the management of patients with cancer and acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The objective of this study was to develop a simple risk score for predicting 30-day mortality in patients with PE and cancer by using measures readily obtained at the time of PE diagnosis. METHODS: Investigators randomly allocated 1,556 consecutive patients with cancer and acute PE from the international multicenter Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmb\uf3lica to derivation (67%) and internal validation (33%) samples. The external validation cohort for this study consisted of 261 patients with cancer and acute PE. Investigators compared 30-day all-cause mortality and nonfatal adverse medical outcomes across the derivation and two validation samples. RESULTS: In the derivation sample, multivariable analyses produced the risk score, which contained six variables: age > 80 years, heart rate 65 110/min, systolic BP < 100 mm Hg, body weight < 60 kg, recent immobility, and presence of metastases. In the internal validation cohort (n = 508), the 22.2% of patients (113 of 508) classified as low risk by the prognostic model had a 30-day mortality of 4.4% (95% CI, 0.6%-8.2%) compared with 29.9% (95% CI, 25.4%-34.4%) in the high-risk group. In the external validation cohort, the 18% of patients (47 of 261) classified as low risk by the prognostic model had a 30-day mortality of 0%, compared with 19.6% (95% CI, 14.3%-25.0%) in the high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: The developed clinical prediction rule accurately identifies low-risk patients with cancer and acute PE