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.

Purpose Glaucoma studies have long taken into account the blood pressure (BP) status of patients. This study summarizes and evaluates the impact of the different criteria that have been used for BP‐related variables in glaucoma research. Methods Studies included in two meta‐analyses that reviewed the role of BP in glaucoma were analyzed. Additional studies published after the search periods of the meta‐analyses were also included. Criteria for the definition of arterial hypertension and other BP‐related variables, such as mean arterial pressure (MAP) and mean ocular perfusion pressure (MOPP), were retrieved. Results Sixty‐four studies were evaluated. One‐third used 140 mmHg as a systolic BP cut‐off to define hypertension, 20% used 160 mmHg and the remaining half used various other criteria. Less than 20% of studies reported MAP and/or MOPP. While eight of the ten studies reporting MAP used a correct formula that only happened for five of the eleven studies reporting MOPP. Using as an example average blood pressure values, incorrectly used formulas could have led to an overestimation of more than 100% of the expected values. Conclusion Considerable heterogeneity exists in BP‐related variables in glaucoma research and different definitions can lead to large disparities. Glaucoma research would benefit from a consensus regarding blood pressure parameters.

Purpose Standard automated perimetry is the gold standard to monitor visual field (VF) loss in glaucoma management, but it is prone to intrasubject variability. We trained and validated a customized deep learning (DL) regression model with Xception backbone that estimates pointwise and overall VF sensitivity from unsegmented optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans. Methods DL regression models have been trained with four imaging modalities (circumpapillary OCT at 3.5 mm, 4.1 mm, and 4.7 mm diameter) and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy en face images to estimate mean deviation (MD) and 52 threshold values. This retrospective study used data from patients who underwent a complete glaucoma examination, including a reliable Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Standard (SS) VF exam and a SPECTRALIS OCT. Results For MD estimation, weighted prediction averaging of all four individuals yielded a mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.89 dB (2.50–3.30) on 186 test images, reducing the baseline by 54% (MAEdecr%). For 52 VF threshold values’ estimation, the weighted ensemble model resulted in an MAE of 4.82 dB (4.45–5.22), representing an MAEdecr% of 38% from baseline when predicting the pointwise mean value. DL managed to explain 75% and 58% of the variance ( R 2 ) in MD and pointwise sensitivity estimation, respectively. Conclusions Deep learning can estimate global and pointwise VF sensitivities that fall almost entirely within the 90% test–retest confidence intervals of the 24-2 SS test. Translational Relevance Fast and consistent VF prediction from unsegmented OCT scans could become a solution for visual function estimation in patients unable to perform reliable VF exams.