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.

Background Emergency conditions requiring exploratory laparotomy (EL) can be challenging. The objective of this study is to describe indications, outcomes, and risk factors for perioperative mortality (POMR) after non‐trauma EL. Methods This was a prospective study of patients undergoing non‐trauma EL at four hospitals in Rwanda, South Africa, and the USA. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with POMR. Results Over one year, there were 632 EL with the most common indications appendicitis (n = 133, 21%), peptic ulcer disease (PUD) (n = 101, 16%), and hernia (n = 74, 12%). In Rwanda, the most common indications were appendicitis (n = 41, 19%) and hernia (n = 37, 17%); in South Africa appendicitis (n = 91, 28%) and PUD (n = 60, 19%); and in the USA, PUD (n = 16, 19%) and adhesions from small bowel obstruction (n = 16, 19%). POMR was 11%, with no difference between countries (Rwanda 7%, South Africa 12%, US 16%, p = 0.173). Risk factors associated with increased odds of POMR included typhoid intestinal perforation (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 16.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.31, 62.98; p value < 0.001), mesenteric ischemia (aOR: 13.77, 95% CI: 4.21, 45.08, p value < 0.001), cancer (aOR: 5.84, 95% CI: 2.43, 14.05, p value < 0.001), other diagnoses (aOR: 3.97, 95% CI: 3.03, 5.20, p value < 0.001), high ASA score (score ≥ 3) (aOR: 3.95, 95% CI: 3.03, 5.15, p value < 0.001), peptic ulcer disease (aOR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.64, 4.85, p value < 0.001), age > 60 years (aOR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.41, 3.83, p value = 0.001), and ICU admission (aOR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.24, 3.99, p value = 0.007). Surgery in the US was associated with decreased odds of POMR (aOR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.80, p value = 0.009). Conclusions Indications for EL vary between countries and POMR is high. Differences in mortality were associated with patient and disease characteristics with certain diagnoses associated with increased risk of mortality. Understanding the risk factors and outcomes for patients with EL can assist providers in judicious patient selection, both for patient counselling and resource allocation.

BackgroundAcute care surgery (ACS) encompasses trauma, critical care, and emergency general surgery. Due to high volumes of emergency surgery, an ACS service was developed at a referral hospital in Rwanda. The aim of this study was to evaluate the epidemiology of ACS and understand the impact of an ACS service on patient outcomes.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study of ACS patients before and after introduction of an ACS service. χ2 test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to describe the epidemiology and compare outcomes before (pre-ACS)) and after (post-ACS) implementation of the ACS service.ResultsData were available for 120 patients before ACS and 102 patients after ACS. Diagnoses included: intestinal obstruction (n=80, 36%), trauma (n=38, 17%), appendicitis (n=31, 14%), and soft tissue infection (n=17, 8%) with no difference between groups. The most common operation was midline laparotomy (n=138, 62%) with no difference between groups (p=0.910). High American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (ASA ≥3) (11% vs. 40%, p<0.001) was more common after ACS. There was no difference in intensive care unit admission (8% vs. 8%, p=0.894), unplanned reoperation (22% vs. 13%, p=0.082), or mortality (10% vs. 11%, p=0.848). The median length of hospital stay was longer (11 days vs. 7 days, p<0.001) before ACS.ConclusionsAn ACS service can be implemented in a low-resource setting. In Rwanda, ACS patients are young with few comorbidities, but high rates of mortality and morbidity. In spite of more patients who are critically ill in the post-ACS period, implementation of an ACS service resulted in decreased length of hospital stay with no difference in morbidity and mortality.Level of evidencePrognostic and epidemiologic study type, level III.