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.

Objective: Pandemics are claimed to result in certain stressors. However, the potential psychological impact of a pandemic is often overlooked. The current study aimed to assess the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Jordanians and to evaluate the influence of the socio-demographic variables on this impact.Method: The current study employed a descriptive cross-sectional design using the Impact of Event Scale—Revised (IES-R) via a web-based questionnaire. The researchers utilized convenience sampling which led to a total of 2,854 participants from the 12 governorates of Jordan.Results: The average score of the participants' responses on the IES-R questionnaire turned out to be 22.5 ± 11.7. Females were found to have more than double the odds of having an increased IES-R score [odds ratio (OR) = 2.2, confidence interval (CI) = 1.76–2.67] and participants who were older than 65 years had triple the odds of having the same risk compared to young adults aged 18–25 years (OR = 3.1, CI = 1.3–7.4). Significantly, having a family member diagnosed with COVID-19 placed individuals at a 7-fold higher risk of having an increased IRS-R score compared to their counterparts who did not have a family member diagnosed with COVID-19 (OR = 7, CI = 3.7–13.3).Conclusion: COVID-19 pandemic has imposed significant level of psychological burden on Jordanians, especially among females. Governments should collaborate with psychiatrists, mental health professionals and local institutions to offer high-quality, timely crisis-oriented psychological services to the affected individuals for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is conflicting evidence of the effectiveness of montelukast in preschool wheeze. A recent Cochrane review focused on its use in viral-induced wheeze; however, such subgroups are unlikely to exist in real life and change with time, recently highlighted in an international consensus report. We have therefore sought to investigate the effectiveness of montelukast in all children with preschool wheeze (viral-induced and multiple-trigger wheeze). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Ovid EMBASE were screened for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), examining the efficacy of montelukast compared with placebo in children with the recurrent preschool wheeze. The primary endpoint examined was frequency of wheezing episodes. Five trials containing 3960 patients with a preschool wheezing disorder were analysed. Meta-analyses of studies of intermittent montelukast showed no benefit in preventing episodes of wheeze (mean difference (MD) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.14 to 0.29; mean for montelukast 2.68 vs placebo 2.54 (p = 0.5)), reducing unscheduled medical attendances (MD −0.13, 95% CI −0.33 to 0.07; mean for montelukast 1.62 vs placebo 1.78 (p = 0.21)) and reducing oral corticosteroids (MD −0.06, 95% CI −0.16 to 0.02; mean for montelukast 0.35 vs placebo 0.36 (p = 0.25)). The pooled results of the continuous regimen showed no significant difference in the number of wheezing episodes between the montelukast and placebo groups (MD −0.40, 95% CI −1.00 to 0.19; mean for montelukast 2.05 vs placebo 2.37 (p = 0.18)). Conclusions: This review highlights that the currently available evidence does not support the use of montelukast in preschool children with recurrent wheeze. We recommend further studies to investigate if a ‘montelukast responder’ phenotype exists, and how these can be easily identified in the clinical setting. What is Known: • Current guidelines recommend montelukast use in preschool children with recurrent wheeze. • A recent Cochrane review has found montelukast to be ineffective at reducing courses of oral corticosteroids for viral-induced wheeze. What is New: • This meta-analysis has examined all children with preschool wheeze and found that montelukast was not effective at preventing wheezing episodes or reducing unscheduled medical attendances. • A specific montelukast responder phenotype may exist, but such patients should be sought in larger multicentre RCTs.