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.

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) became the deadliest pandemic of the new millennium. One year after it became a pandemic, the current COVID-19 situation in Brazil is an example of how the impacts of a pandemic are beyond health outcomes and how health, social, and political actions are intertwined. Objectives:We aimed to provide an overview of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, from a social and political point of view, and to discuss the perspectives from now on. Methods: This is a narrative review using official, scientific (PubMed, Medline, and SciELO databases) and publicly available data. Press articles were also used that contain important information not found in these databases. Findings:We address the impacts of COVID-19 in different regions of Brazil, on indigenous populations, health care workers, and how internal social contrasts impacted the pandemic's advance across the country. We also discuss key points that culminated in the country's failed management of the COVID-19 spread, such as poor management of the public health care system, disparities between public and private health care infrastructure, lack of mass testing and viral spread tracking, lack of preparedness and planning to implement strict isolation and social distancing measures, and, most importantly, political instability, a deteriorating Health Ministry and sabotaging attitudes of the country's president, including anti-scientific actions, underplaying COVID-19 severity, spreading and powering fake news about the pandemic, promoting knowingly inefficient medications for COVID-19 treatment, and interference in collective health policies, including the country's vaccination plan. Conclusions:After one year of COVID-19 and a disastrous management of the disease, Brazil has more than 11 million cases, 270,000 deaths, and the highest number of daily

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.

Brazil has 896,917 Indigenous individuals distributed among 505 Indigenous lands. There are 274 different Indigenous languages within 305 Indigenous ethnic groups. The Indigenous population is susceptible to pandemics, especially to the current pandemic of COVID-19, which has spread rapidly. In Brazil, after the first COVID-19-confirmed Indigenous case on 05th June 2020, more 420 suspected cases, 1727 confirmed cases being 934 active cases, 715 cases with clinical cure, and 70 cases of death were accounted through the first week of June. The number of cases is underestimated, according to the Special Secretariat for Indigenous Health (SESAI) database, since the deaths are due to respiratory failure, possibly caused by COVID-19, but not confirmed. The first COVID-19-caused death was a 15-year-old Indigenous Yanomami teenage from Roraima State without known previous diseases history and/or comorbidities. In the present study, the importance of social isolation, especially for Indigenous people who are more vulnerable to the COVID-19, was highlighted by the identification of the infection community. An Indigenous of the Kokama ethnicity was infected after coming in contact with a Medical Doctor who was infected with the disease. Later, it was noticed that both, Indigenous and doctor, were responsible for COVID-19's transmission to 43 other Indigenous individuals (30 in Alto Rio Solimões and 13 in Parintis), causing possibly other confirmed deaths. The impact of COVID-19 for Indigenous population might be an unprecedented tragedy, and the government in Brazil must take emergency measures as the social isolation.

Background: Brazil faces some challenges in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, including: the risks for cross-infection (community infection) increase in densely populated areas; low access to health services in areas where the number of beds in intensive care units (ICUs) is scarce and poorly distributed, mainly in states with low population density. Objective: To describe and intercorrelate epidemiology and geographic data from Brazil about the number of intensive care unit (ICU) beds at the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The epidemiology and geographic data were correlated with the distribution of ICU beds (public and private health systems) and the number of beneficiaries of private health insurance using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient. The same data were correlated using partial correlation controlled by gross domestic product (GDP) and number of beneficiaries of private health insurance. Findings: Brazil has a large geographical area and diverse demographic and economic aspects. This diversity is also present in the states and the Federal District regarding the number of COVID-19 cases, deaths and case fatality rate. The effective management of severe COVID-19 patients requires ICU services, and the scenario was also dissimilar as for ICU beds and ICU beds/10,000 inhabitants for the public (SUS) and private health systems mainly at the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. The distribution of ICUs was uneven between public and private services, and most patients rely on SUS, which had the lowest number of ICU beds. In only a few states, the number of ICU beds at SUS was above 1 to 3 by 10,000 inhabitants, which is the number recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Conclusions: Brazil needed to improve the number of ICU beds units to deal with COVID-19 pandemic, mainly for the SUS showing a late involvement of government and health authorities to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.