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.

(Abstracted from Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;223:36–41) The presence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in pregnant patients raises concerns for adverse outcomes. The goal of this study was to collect information on mothers and neonates with COVID-19 and shed light on delivery timing and mode of delivery.

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.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is one of the most common interventions in modern obstetrics, and its frequency is expected to continue to increase. There is inconsistency as to how failed induction of labor is defined; however, the majority of studies define success as the achievement of vaginal delivery. Induction of labor in nulliparous women poses an additional challenge with a 15% to 20% incidence of failure, ending in emergency operative deliveries. The Bishop score has been traditionally used before decisions for induction of labor. Nonetheless, it is subjective and prone to marked interobserver variation. Several studies have been conducted to find alternative predictors, yet a reliable, objective method still remains to be introduced and validated. Hence, there is still a need for the development of new predictive tools to facilitate informed decision making, optimization of resources, and minimization of potential risks of failure. Furthermore, a peripartum transperineal ultrasound scan has been proven to provide objective, noninvasive assessment of labor. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of developing and validating an objective and reproducible model for the prediction of cesarean delivery for failure to progress as an outcome of labor induction in term singleton pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in Cairo University Hospitals and University of Bologna Hospitals between November 2018 and November 2019. We recruited 382 primigravidae with singleton term pregnancies in cephalic presentation. All patients had baseline Bishop scoring together with various transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound assessments of the fetus, maternal cervix, and pelvic floor. The managing obstetricians were blinded to the ultrasound scan findings. The method and indication of induction of labor, the total duration of stages of labor, mode of birth, and neonatal outcomes were all recorded. Women who had operative delivery for fetal distress or indications other than failure to progress in labor were excluded from the final analysis, leaving a total of 344 participants who were randomly divided into 243 and 101 pregnancies that constituted the model development and cross-validation groups, respectively. RESULTS: It was possible to perform transabdominal and transperineal scans and assess all the required parameters on all study participants. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used for selection of potential predictors and model fitting. The independent predictive variables for cesarean delivery included maternal age (odds ratio, 1.12; P¼.003), cervical length (odds ratio, 1.08; P¼.04), angle of progression at rest (odds ratio, 0.9; P¼.001), and occiput posterior position (odds ratio, 5.7; P¼.006). We tested the performance of the prediction model on our cross-validation group. The calculated areas under the curve for the ability of the model to predict cesarean delivery were 0.7969 (95% confidence interval, 0.71e0.87) and 0.88 (95% confidence inte...