Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk.

Aims We have previously demonstrated that vitamin D deficiency might be associated with worse outcomes in hospitalized Covid‐19 patients. The aim of our study was to explore this relationship with dexamethasone therapy. Methods We prospectively studied two cohorts of hospitalized Covid‐19 patients between March and April and between September and December 2020 ( n = 192). Patients were tested for serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D (25‐OH‐D) levels during admission. The first cohort not treated with dexamethasone ( n = 107) was divided into vitamin D deficient (25‐OH‐D ≤ 30 nmol/L) ( n = 47) and replete subgroups (25‐OH‐D > 30 nmol/L) ( n = 60). The second cohort treated with dexamethasone ( n = 85) was similarly divided into deficient (25‐OH‐D ≤ 30 nmol/L) ( n = 27) and replete subgroups (25‐OH‐D > 30 nmol/L) ( n = 58). Primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were elevation in markers of cytokine storm and ventilatory requirement. Results No mortality difference was identified between cohorts and subgroups. The “no dexamethasone” cohort 25‐OH‐D deplete subgroup recorded significantly higher peak d ‐Dimer levels (1874 vs. 1233 µgFEU/L) ( p = 0.0309), CRP (177 vs. 107.5) ( p = 0.0055), and ventilatory support requirement (25.5% vs. 6.67%) ( p = 0.007) compared to the replete subgroup. Among the 25‐OH‐D deplete subgroup higher peak neutrophil counts, peak CRP, peak LDH, peak ferritin, and lower trough lymphocyte counts were observed, without statistical significance. In the “dexamethasone” cohort, there was no apparent association between 25‐OH‐D deficiency and markers of cytokine storm or ventilatory requirement. Conclusion: Vitamin D deficiency is associated with elevated markers of cytokine storm and higher ventilatory requirements in hospitalized Covid‐19 patients. Dexamethasone treatment appears to mitigate adverse effects of vitamin D deficiency.

Background: The public are increasingly reliant on the internet and media to access healthcare related information during the Covid-19 pandemic. Vitamin D is essential for musculoskeletal and immune health, with daily supplementation advised by public health bodies. Several studies assessing a possible link between vitamin D and Covid-19 severity have arrived at conflicting results and news articles have been rapidly disseminating such research to the public. There has been little focus on studying the quality of information available. Aim: To identify if online search interest in vitamin D increased with pandemic burden and analyse the accuracy of public health messaging relating to vitamin D in online news articles. Methods: Online search interest data for vitamin D was correlated with pandemic burden, defined as the number of Covid-19 deaths. Online news articles discussing vitamin D and Covid-19 were analysed using qualitative coding. Results: Online search interest for vitamin D increased as pandemic burden increased ( p < 0.0001, Spearman's rank). Of the 72 articles identified, most (50%) offered a mixed opinion on the benefit of vitamin D in Covid-19. From articles making a recommendation for vitamin D supplementation, 23% of articles gave mixed messaging or advised against supplementation. 16% of articles recommended a dose which exceeded the safe limit of 4000 IU/day, risking toxicity. Conclusion: A significant number of articles provided mixed messaging or incorrectly advised supratherapeutic doses. This study highlights an opportunity for public health bodies to utilise the increased interest in vitamin D during the pandemic to raise awareness with accurate information.