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.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) is a rare form of nonlactational mastitis. Due to the small number of case series and consequently inadequate prospective studies, there is still no consensus on the optimal treatment of IGM. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of intralesional steroid injection with concomitant topical steroids to systemic steroid therapy only in the treatment of noncomplicated IGM. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Between June 2015 and April 2018, the patients’ data was prospectively collected and analyzed retrospectively. The study included a total of 78 female patients diagnosed with IGM. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the local steroid treatment group (intralesional steroid injection with topical steroid administration; group 1, <i>n</i> = 46) and the peroral systemic steroid treatment group (group 2, <i>n</i> = 32). Response to the therapy, side effects, recurrence, the need for surgical treatment, and complication rates were compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Forty-three patients (93.5%) in group 1 achieved a partial or complete response compared to 23 patients (71.9%) in group 2 after 3 months; this difference was significant (<i>p</i> = 0.012). The recurrence rates were significantly lower in group 1 (8.7%) compared to group 2 (46.9%; <i>p</i> = 0.001), and the need for surgical treatment was significantly less in group 1 (2.2%) than in group 2 (9.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.001). While the complication rates were similar between groups, a higher rate of systemic side effects was observed in group 2. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Based on the results of our study, combined steroid injection and topical steroid treatment in IGM is as effective as systemic steroid treatment. We suggest that this combination therapy of topical steroids and local steroid injection should be used as first-line therapy in patients with noncomplicated IGM.

No abstract

Background/objective Since more solid evidence has emerged supporting the effectiveness of loco-regional treatment (LRT), clinicians consider LRT a treatment option for selected de novo stage IV breast cancer (BC) patients. This is the first report on long-term quality of life (QoL) in a cohort of patients who were randomized to receive either LRT and then systemic treatment (ST) or ST alone in the protocol MF07-01. We aimed to evaluate QoL in patients living at least 3 years since randomization using scores from the SF-12 health survey. Methods SF-12 (V2) forms were completed during visits of patients who were living 36 months after the randomization. We first calculated PCS-12 (Physical Health Composite Scale) and MCS-12 (Mental Health Composite Scale) scores from de novo stage IV BC patients and compared them with the scores of patients diagnosed with stage I-III BC who lived more than 3 years. Further, PCS-12 and MCS-12 scores were compared between the LRT and ST groups with de novo stage IV BC. Additionally, general health, physical functioning, role functioning, bodily pain, vitality, mental health, and social functioning were evaluated and compared between the groups. Considering age-related changes in QoL, we also compared PCS-12 and MCS-12 scores of patients below or above 55 and 65 years of age. Responses to four additional questions (compare your physical health, mental health, daily activities, and energy currently vs. at diagnosis of BC) were recorded, considering cultural differences.