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

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Additional file 3: of Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study

Table S3. Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care - stratified by primi- and multiparous. (DOCX 25 kb

Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study

Abstract Background Research on caseload midwifery in a Danish setting is missing. This cohort study aimed to compare labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard midwifery care. Methods A historical register-based cohort study was carried out using routinely collected data about all singleton births 2013–2016 in two maternity units in the North Denmark Region. In this region, women are geographically allocated to caseload midwifery or standard care, as caseload midwifery is only available in some towns in the peripheral part of the uptake areas of the maternity units, and it is the only model of care offered here. Labour outcomes of 2679 all-risk women in caseload midwifery were compared with those of 10,436 all-risk women in standard midwifery care using multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses. Results Compared to women in standard care, augmentation was more frequent in caseload women (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.20; 95% CI 1.06–1.35) as was labour duration of less than 10 h (aOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.13–1.42). More emergency caesarean sections were observed in caseload women (aOR 1.17; 95% CI 1.03–1.34), but this might partly be explained by longer distance to the maternity unit in caseload women. When caseload women were compared to women in standard care with a similar long distance to the hospital, no difference in emergency caesarean sections was observed (aOR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84–1.28). Compared to standard care, infants of caseload women more often had Apgar ≤7 after 5 min. (aOR 1.57; 95% CI 1.11–2.23) and this difference remained when caseload women were compared to women with similar distance to the hospital. For elective caesarean sections, preterm birth, induction of labour, dilatation of cervix on admission, amniotomy, epidural analgesia, and instrumental deliveries, we did not obseve any differences between the two groups. After birth, caseload women more often experienced no laceration (aOR 1.17; 95% CI 1.06–1.29). Conclusions For most labour outcomes, there were no differences across the two models of midwifery-led care but unexpectedly, we observed slightly more augmentation and adverse neonatal outcomes in caseload midwifery. These findings should be interpreted in the context of the overall low intervention and complication rates in this Danish setting and in the context of research that supports the benefits of caseload midwifery. Although the observational design of the study allows only cautious conclusions, this study highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluating new practices contextually

Additional file 5: of Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study

Table S5. Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care - homebirth excluded. (DOCX 21 kb

Additional file 4: of Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study

Table S4. Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care - stratified by maternity units. (DOCX 24 kb

Additional file 1: of Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study

Table S1. Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care - adjusted for years in school and the level of professional education (time: 1/11 2014â 31/12 2015). (DOCX 23 kb

Additional file 2: of Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study

Table S2. Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care - only low risk women. (DOCX 22 kb

Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study

Abstract Background Research on caseload midwifery in a Danish setting is missing. This cohort study aimed to compare labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard midwifery care. Methods A historical register-based cohort study was carried out using routinely collected data about all singleton births 2013–2016 in two maternity units in the North Denmark Region. In this region, women are geographically allocated to caseload midwifery or standard care, as caseload midwifery is only available in some towns in the peripheral part of the uptake areas of the maternity units, and it is the only model of care offered here. Labour outcomes of 2679 all-risk women in caseload midwifery were compared with those of 10,436 all-risk women in standard midwifery care using multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses. Results Compared to women in standard care, augmentation was more frequent in caseload women (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.20; 95% CI 1.06–1.35) as was labour duration of less than 10 h (aOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.13–1.42). More emergency caesarean sections were observed in caseload women (aOR 1.17; 95% CI 1.03–1.34), but this might partly be explained by longer distance to the maternity unit in caseload women. When caseload women were compared to women in standard care with a similar long distance to the hospital, no difference in emergency caesarean sections was observed (aOR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84–1.28). Compared to standard care, infants of caseload women more often had Apgar ≤7 after 5 min. (aOR 1.57; 95% CI 1.11–2.23) and this difference remained when caseload women were compared to women with similar distance to the hospital. For elective caesarean sections, preterm birth, induction of labour, dilatation of cervix on admission, amniotomy, epidural analgesia, and instrumental deliveries, we did not obseve any differences between the two groups. After birth, caseload women more often experienced no laceration (aOR 1.17; 95% CI 1.06–1.29). Conclusions For most labour outcomes, there were no differences across the two models of midwifery-led care but unexpectedly, we observed slightly more augmentation and adverse neonatal outcomes in caseload midwifery. These findings should be interpreted in the context of the overall low intervention and complication rates in this Danish setting and in the context of research that supports the benefits of caseload midwifery. Although the observational design of the study allows only cautious conclusions, this study highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluating new practices contextually

Translation and cultural adaptation of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire into Danish using the dual-panel approach: comparison with outcomes from an alternative translation approach

Abstract Objective Physical activity reduces the risk of pregnancy-related complications. However, pregnant women often reduce their physical activity levels and do not follow the WHO’s physical activity recommendations during pregnancy. To support pregnant women in monitoring physical activity, the self-administered Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire was developed in the US. We translated and cross-cultural adapted the questionnaire using the dual approach method. Meanwhile, and without knowing this, another Danish group simultaneously translated the questionnaire using the method described by Beaton et al. The aim is to present our data and discuss the unplanned purpose of comparing the results from using two different translation methods. Results We translated and cross-culturally adapted the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire to Danish with the following findings. Two additional items for cycling were included. Three items about spending time on a computer, reading, writing or talking on the phone were not feasible in terms of differentiating between them and these were merged into one item. The item ‘Taking care of an older adult’ was found to be irrelevant in a Danish setting and was removed. Adaptions were similar comparing the two methods. Consequently, using the dual-panel and the methods suggested by Beaton et al. yield similar results when translating and cultural adapting the PPAQ