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 Limited evidence exists on the role of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with COVID-19. Our main objective was to examine the association between in-hospital death and each routine at-home glucose-lowering drug both individually and in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19. We also evaluated their association with the composite outcome of the need for ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death as well as on the development of in-hospital complications and a long-time hospital stay. Methods We selected all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine’s registry of COVID-19 patients (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). It is an ongoing, observational, multicenter, nationwide cohort of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spain from March 1, 2020. Each glucose-lowering drug user was matched with a user of other glucose-lowering drugs in a 1:1 manner by propensity scores. In order to assess the adequacy of propensity score matching, we used the standardized mean difference found in patient characteristics after matching. There was considered to be a significant imbalance in the group if a standardized mean difference > 10% was found. To evaluate the association between treatment and study outcomes, both conditional logit and mixed effect logistic regressions were used when the sample size was ≥ 100. Results A total of 2666 patients were found in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 1297 on glucose-lowering drugs in monotherapy and 465 in combination with metformin. After propensity matching, 249 patients on metformin, 105 on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 129 on insulin, 127 on metformin/dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 34 on metformin/sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and 67 on metformin/insulin were selected. No at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed a significant association with in-hospital death; the composite outcome of the need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death; in-hospital complications; or long-time hospital stays. Conclusions In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19, at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed no significant association with mortality and adverse outcomes. Given the close relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 and the limited evidence on the role of glucose-lowering drugs, prospective studies are needed.

Background Hyperglycaemia has emerged as an important risk factor for death in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between blood glucose (BG) levels and in-hospital mortality in non-critically patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods This is a retrospective multi-centre study involving patients hospitalized in Spain. Patients were categorized into three groups according to admission BG levels: <140 mg/dL, 140–180 mg/dL and >180 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Results Of the 11,312 patients, only 2128 (18.9%) had diabetes and 2289 (20.4%) died during hospitalization. The in-hospital mortality rates were 15.7% (<140 mg/dL), 33.7% (140–180 mg) and 41.1% (>180 mg/dL), p <.001. The cumulative probability of mortality was significantly higher in patients with hyperglycaemia compared to patients with normoglycaemia (log rank, p <.001), independently of pre-existing diabetes. Hyperglycaemia (after adjusting for age, diabetes, hypertension and other confounding factors) was an independent risk factor of mortality (BG >180 mg/dL: HR 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31–1.73) (BG 140–180 mg/dL; HR 1.48; 95%CI: 1.29–1.70). Hyperglycaemia was also associated with requirement for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality. Conclusions Admission hyperglycaemia is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality in non-critically hospitalized COVID-19 patients regardless of prior history of diabetes. KEY MESSAGE Admission hyperglycaemia is a stronger and independent risk factor for mortality in COVID-19. Screening for hyperglycaemia, in patients without diabetes, and early treatment of hyperglycaemia should be mandatory in the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Admission hyperglycaemia should not be overlooked in all patients regardless prior history of diabetes.

Block of the sciatic nerve at the midfemoral level is usually performed using nerve stimulation techniques. We investigated the efficacy of ultrasound, combined with nerve stimulation, to locate and block the sciatic nerve at the lateral midfemoral level compared to nerve stimulation alone. Sixty-one patients scheduled for foot and ankle surgery were enrolled in this prospective, randomized study. Thirty patients underwent a lateral block of the sciatic nerve at the midfemoral level guided by ultrasound (group US) and 31 patients received the block without ultrasound (group ES). Once an adequate motor response was obtained using nerve stimulation, 35 mL of ropivacaine 0.5% was administered. The main end-points of the study were: number of attempts to obtain an adequate motor response, success rate of nerve location at the first attempt, quality and duration of both sensory and motor blocks, and anesthetic distribution. The success of sciatic nerve location at the first attempt was significantly more frequent in the US group than in the ES group (76.6% versus 41.9%; P < 0.001). The quality of the sensory block and the tolerance to the pneumatic tourniquet were also significantly better in the US group (P < 0.01). We conclude that ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation improved the quality of the sensory block and the tolerance to the pneumatic tourniquet, reducing the number of attempts to perform sciatic nerve block at the midfemoral level.

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.