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.

Background: Recent evidence suggests that complications after oesophagectomy may decrease shortand long-term survival of patients with oesophageal cancer. This study aimed to analyse the impact of complications on survival in a Western cohort. Methods: Complications after oesophagectomy were recorded for all patients operated on between January 2006 and February 2017, with severity defined using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Associations between complications and overall and recurrence-free survival were assessed using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. Results: Of 430 patients, 292 (67⋅9 per cent) developed postoperative complications, with 128 (39⋅8 per cent) classified as Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV. No significant associations were detected between Clavien-Dindo grade and either tumour (T) (P = 0⋅071) or nodal (N) status (P = 0⋅882). There was a significant correlation between Clavien-Dindo grade and ASA fitness grade (P = 0⋅032). In multivariable analysis, overall survival in patients with Clavien-Dindo grade I complications was similar to that in patients with no complications (hazard ratio (HR) 0⋅97, P = 0⋅915). However, patients with grade II and IV complications had significantly shorter overall survival than those with no complications: HR 1⋅64 (P = 0⋅007) and 1⋅74 (P = 0⋅013) respectively. Conclusion: Increasing severity of complications after oesophagectomy was associated with decreased overall survival. Prevention of complications should improve survival.Funding information Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham Charity (Upper Gastrointestinal Fund) Upper G.I. Blues of the consensus reporting guidelines on oesophageal complications 11 , a lack of standardization of complication reporting made understanding the relationship between complications and long-term survival difficult.

Tumor lengths on pathology were found to be the most predictive of patient outcome. However, after accounting for other tumor-related factors, tumor length only resulted in a marginal improvement in predictive accuracy.

INTRODUCTIONIn 2013 the Department of Health specified eligibility for bariatric surgery funded by the National Health Service. This included a mandatory specification that patients first complete a Tier 3 medical weight management programme. The clinical effectiveness of this recommendation has not been evaluated previously. Our bariatric centre has provided a Tier 3 programme six months prior to bariatric surgery since 2009. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare weight loss in two cohorts: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass only (RYGB only cohort) versus Tier 3 weight management followed by RYGB (Tier 3 cohort). METHODS A total of 110 patients were selected for the study: 66 in the RYGB only cohort and 44 in the Tier 3 cohort. Patients in both cohorts were matched for age, sex, preoperative body mass index and pre-existing co-morbidities. The principal variable was therefore whether they undertook the weight management programme prior to RYGB. Patients from both cohorts were followed up at 6 and 12 months to assess weight loss. RESULTS The mean weight loss at 6 months for the Tier 3 cohort was 31% (range: 18-69%, standard deviation [SD]: 0.10 percentage points) compared with 23% (range: 4-93%, SD: 0.12 percentage points) for the RYGB only cohort (p=0.0002). The mean weight loss at 12 months for the Tier 3 cohort was 34% (range: 17-51%, SD: 0.09 percentage points) compared with 27% (range: 14-48%, SD: 0.87 percentage points) in the RYGB only cohort (p=0.0037). CONCLUSIONS Our study revealed that in our matched cohorts, patients receiving Tier 3 specialist medical weight management input prior to RYGB lost significantly more weight at 6 and 12 months than RYGB only patients. This confirms the clinical efficacy of such a weight management programme prior to gastric bypass surgery and supports its inclusion in eligibility criteria for bariatric surgery.