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 The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a notable increase in psychological distress, globally. Oman is no exception to this, with several studies indicating high levels of anxiety and depression among the Omani public. There is a need for adaptive and effective interventions that aim to improve the elevated levels of psychological distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective This study aimed to comparatively assess the efficacy of therapist-guided online therapy with that of self-help, internet-based therapy focusing on COVID-19–induced symptoms of anxiety and depression among individuals living in Oman during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This was a 6-week-long pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving 60 participants who were recruited from a study sample surveyed for symptoms of anxiety or depression among the Omani public amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants in the intervention group were allocated to receive 1 online session per week for 6 weeks from certified psychotherapists in Oman; these sessions were conducted in Arabic or English. The psychotherapists utilized cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy interventions. Participants in the control group received an automatic weekly newsletter via email containing self-help information and tips to cope with distress associated with COVID-19. The information mainly consisted of behavioral tips revolving around the principles of cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy. The primary outcome was measured by comparing the change in the mean scores of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale from the baseline to the end of the study (ie, after 6 sessions) between the two groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the proportions of participants with depression and anxiety between the two groups. Results Data from 46 participants were analyzed (intervention group n=22, control group n=24). There was no statistical difference in the baseline characteristics between both groups. Analysis of covariance indicated a significant reduction in the GAD-7 scores (F1,43=7.307; P=.01) between the two groups after adjusting for baseline scores. GAD-7 scores of participants in the intervention group were considerably more reduced than those of participants in the control group (β=−3.27; P=.01). Moreover, a greater reduction in mean PHQ-9 scores was observed among participants in the intervention group (F1,43=8.298; P=.006) than those in the control group (β=−4.311; P=.006). Although the levels of anxiety and depression reduced in both study groups, the reduction was higher in the intervention group (P=.049) than in the control group (P=.02). Conclusions This study provides preliminary evidence to support the efficacy of online therapy for improving the symptoms of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 crisis in Oman. Therapist-guided online therapy was found to be superior to self-help, internet-based therapy; however, both therapies could be considered as viable options. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04378257; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04378257
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.
Most retrosternal goiters are situated in the anterior mediastinal compartment. Posterior mediastinal goiters are uncommon, comprising 10%-15% of all mediastinal goiters. Although most of the anterior mediastinal goiters can be removed by a transcervical approach, posterior mediastinal goiters may require additional extracervical incisions. We report the case of a large posterior mediastinal goiter extending retrotracheally beyond the aortic arch and azygous vein with crossover from the left to the right side. It was excised using a transcervical and right thoracotomy approach. The literature is reviewed to clarify the management of retrosternal goiters with regard to the various approaches, indications for extracervical incisions, and their complications. In conclusion, whereas most retrosternal goiters can be resected through a transcervical approach, those extending beyond the aortic arch into the posterior mediastinum are better dealt with by sternotomy or lateral thoracotomy. The overall number of complications associated with this approach, however, is higher than that seen with the transcervical approach.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.