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.

Psoas area scoring has good interobserver reliability. Preoperative sarcopenia as defined by psoas area was associated with poorer survival and of longer length of stay. As all patients being worked up for an endovascular aortic aneurysm repair will undergo a computed tomography scan, this method is a rapid and effective way to highlight patients in the clinic setting who have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality after EVAR.

Objectives Ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) is an invaluable tool for assessing the severity of peripheral arterial disease. In addition, it can be used as an independent marker of cardiovascular risk, with a predictive ability similar to the Framingham criteria. Identification of an abnormal ABPI should therefore trigger aggressive cardiac risk factor modulation for a patient. Unfortunately, the significance of abnormal ABPIs is poorly understood within the general medical community. This is compounded by the influence of various comorbidities on accurate measurement of ABPI, potentially leading to a wide variability in readings that need to be considered before interpretation in these patient populations. We aim to address these issues by revealing several common misunderstandings and pitfalls in ABPI measurement, describing accurate methodology, and highlighting patient cohorts in whom additional or alternative approaches may be required. Methods We present a narrative review of the role of ABPI in both the community and hospital setting. We have performed a literature review, exploring the validity and reproducibility of methodology for obtaining ABPI, alongside the utility of ABPI in different clinical scenarios. Results The measurement of ABPI is often performed incorrectly. Common pitfalls include inadequate patient preparation, failure to obtain the blood pressure from the correct lower limb artery in patients with tibial disease, failure to account for differences in brachial blood pressure between the arms, inappropriately chosen equipment and patient factors such as highly calcified arteries. Standardisation of methodology greatly improves reliability of the test. Exercise ABPI can identify significant peripheral arterial disease in patients with normal resting ABPI. In addition to its role in peripheral arterial disease, ABPI measurement has a role in assessing venous ulcers, entrapment syndromes and injured extremities; conversely, it has a more limited utility in the diabetic population. Conclusions A thorough understanding of the correct technique and associated limitations of ABPI measurement is essential in accurately generating and interpreting the data it provides. With this knowledge, the ABPI is an invaluable tool to help manage patients with peripheral arterial disease. Perhaps more importantly, ABPI can be used to identify and risk stratify patients with asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease, itself a major indicator of significant underlying cardiovascular disease. With the emergence of best medical therapy, targeted pharmacotherapy and lifestyle changes can reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in high-risk patients by approximately 30%, particularly in diabetic patients. Therefore, the utility of ABPI transgresses vascular surgery, with an essential role in general practice and public health.