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.

Maternal reinfection by new strains of cytomegalovirus is a major source of congenital infection in this population.

ObjectiveTo generate a global reference for caesarean section (CS) rates at health facilities.DesignCross‐sectional study.SettingHealth facilities from 43 countries.Population/SampleThirty eight thousand three hundred and twenty‐four women giving birth from 22 countries for model building and 10 045 875 women giving birth from 43 countries for model testing.MethodsWe hypothesised that mathematical models could determine the relationship between clinical‐obstetric characteristics and CS. These models generated probabilities of CS that could be compared with the observed CS rates. We devised a three‐step approach to generate the global benchmark of CS rates at health facilities: creation of a multi‐country reference population, building mathematical models, and testing these models.Main outcome measuresArea under the ROC curves, diagnostic odds ratio, expected CS rate, observed CS rate.ResultsAccording to the different versions of the model, areas under the ROC curves suggested a good discriminatory capacity of C‐Model, with summary estimates ranging from 0.832 to 0.844. The C‐Model was able to generate expected CS rates adjusted for the case‐mix of the obstetric population. We have also prepared an e‐calculator to facilitate use of C‐Model (www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/c-model/en/).ConclusionsThis article describes the development of a global reference for CS rates. Based on maternal characteristics, this tool was able to generate an individualised expected CS rate for health facilities or groups of health facilities. With C‐Model, obstetric teams, health system managers, health facilities, health insurance companies, and governments can produce a customised reference CS rate for assessing use (and overuse) of CS.Tweetable abstractThe C‐Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems.

Several factors cause urinary tract infection (UTI) to be a relevant complication of the gestational period, aggravating both the maternal and perinatal prognosis. For many years, pregnancy has been considered to be a factor predisposing to all forms of UTI. Today, it is known that pregnancy, as an isolated event, is not responsible for a higher incidence of UTI, but that the anatomical and physiological changes imposed on the urinary tract by pregnancy predispose women with asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) to become pregnant women with symptomatic UTI. AB affects 2 to 10% of all pregnant women and approximately 30% of these will develop pyelonephritis if not properly treated. However, a difficult-to-understand resistance against the identification of AB during this period is observed among prenatalists. The diagnosis of UTI is microbiological and it is based on two urine cultures presenting more than 10(5) colonies/mL urine of the same germ. Treatment is facilitated by the fact that it is based on an antibiogram, with no scientific foundation for the notion that a pre-established therapeutic scheme is an adequate measure. For the treatment of pyelonephritis, it is not possible to wait for the result of culture and previous knowledge of the resistance profile of the antibacterial agents available for the treatment of pregnant women would be the best measure. Another important variable is the use of an intravenous bactericidal antibiotic during the acute phase, with the possibility of oral administration at home after clinical improvement of the patient. At our hospital, the drug that best satisfies all of these requirements is cefuroxime, administered for 10-14 days. Third-generation cephalosporins do not exist in the oral form, all of them involving the inconvenience of parenteral administration. In view of their side effects, aminoglycosides are considered to be inadequate for administration to pregnant women. The inconsistent insinuation of contraindication of monofluorinated quinolones, if there is an indication, norfloxacin is believed to be a good alternative to cefuroxime. In cases in which UTI prophylaxis is indicated, chemotherapeutic agents are preferred, among them nitrofurantoin, with care taken to avoid its use at the end of pregnancy due to the risk of kernicterus for the neonate.