Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Summary Background Risk of mortality following surgery in patients across Africa is twice as high as the global average. Most of these deaths occur on hospital wards after the surgery itself. We aimed to assess whether enhanced postoperative surveillance of adult surgical patients at high risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality in Africa could reduce 30-day in-hospital mortality. Methods We did a two-arm, open-label, cluster-randomised trial of hospitals (clusters) across Africa. Hospitals were eligible if they provided surgery with an overnight postoperative admission. Hospitals were randomly assigned through minimisation in recruitment blocks (1:1) to provide patients with either a package of enhanced postoperative surveillance interventions (admitting the patient to higher care ward, increasing the frequency of postoperative nursing observations, assigning the patient to a bed in view of the nursing station, allowing family members to stay in the ward, and placing a postoperative surveillance guide at the bedside) for those at high risk (ie, with African Surgical Outcomes Study Surgical Risk Calculator scores ≥10) and usual care for those at low risk (intervention group), or for all patients to receive usual postoperative care (control group). Health-care providers and participants were not masked, but data assessors were. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality of patients at low and high risk, measured at the participant level. All analyses were done as allocated (by cluster) in all patients with available data. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03853824 . Findings Between May 3, 2019, and July 27, 2020, 594 eligible hospitals indicated a desire to participate across 33 African countries; 332 (56%) were able to recruit participants and were included in analyses. We allocated 160 hospitals (13 275 patients) to provide enhanced postoperative surveillance and 172 hospitals (15 617 patients) to provide standard care. The mean age of participants was 37·1 years (SD 15·5) and 20 039 (69·4%) of 28 892 patients were women. 30-day in-hospital mortality occurred in 169 (1·3%) of 12 970 patients with mortality data in the intervention group and in 193 (1·3%) of 15 242 patients with mortality data in the control group (relative risk 0·96, 95% CI 0·69–1·33; p=0·79). 45 (0·2%) of 22 031 patients at low risk and 309 (5·6%) of 5500 patients at high risk died. No harms associated with either intervention were reported. Interpretation This intervention package did not decrease 30-day in-hospital mortality among surgical patients in Africa at high risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality. Further research is needed to develop interventions that prevent death from surgical complications in resource-limited hospitals across Africa. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Federati...

No abstract

There are limited data on acute pain assessment in the hospital setting. In a study at the Clinical Centre of Vojvodina, 77% of the 135 inpatients interviewed on the second postoperative day either 'disagreed' or 'strongly disagreed' on whether their pain intensity was regularly assessed by the Background: In spite of advances in techniques and analgesics for pain management, pain remains a major health problem. Regular assessment and reassessment of pain using guidelines with measurable goals is essential for effective pain management in surgical wards. Unfortunately, no such guidelines exist in South Africa. To implement appropriate precepts for the South African context, the current practice must be understood. Aim:The aim of this article was to evaluate pain assessment and management of patients in two surgical wards at a tertiary hospital in South Africa. Setting:The study was conducted within the Western Cape Province of South Africa in a government-funded tertiary academic institution. The patients at this hospital are generally from the low-income strata and live in resource-poor communities. Methods:A cross-sectional, retrospective medical record audit was conducted. The folders of all 215 patients admitted to a specific orthopaedic trauma and urogynaecological ward of a tertiary hospital in South Africa over a span of 1 month were targeted for review. Medical folders that were not available or had missing notes were excluded. Variables evaluated included the number of pain assessments recorded, pain assessor, assessment tool and management plan.Results: A total of 168 folders were available for review. Nearly half of the patients had no documented pain assessment. The Verbal Rating Scale was the predominant tool used, and assessments were mostly conducted by the ward doctor. Pain interventions appeared to be primarily based on the professional knowledge of the practitioner and were not evidence-based. Conclusion:Pain assessment and management was a problem in the two wards reviewed, which is similar to the findings from studies referenced in this text. Health professionals must be empowered to manage pain adequately. An assessment tool that integrates the biopsychosocial factors that influence the pain experience should be routinely employed by a multidisciplinary team to facilitate goal-directed therapy.