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 Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...
The escalating burden, pathogenesis, and clinical sequel of malaria during pregnancy have combinatorial adverse impact on both mother and foetus that further perplexed the situation of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. This prompted us to evaluate the status of population at risk of MIP in Hazaribag, Jharkhand, India. Cross-sectional study was conducted over a year at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. Malaria was screened using blood smear and/or RDT. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin concentration. Pretested questionnaires were used to gather sociodemographic, clinical, and obstetrical data. The prevalence of MIP was 5.4% and 4.3% at ANC and DU, and 13.2% malaria was in women without pregnancy. Interestingly, majority were asymptomatically infected with P. vivax (over 85%) at ANC and DU. Peripheral parasitemia was significantly associated with fever within past week, rural origin of subjects, and first/second pregnancies in multivariate analysis, with the highest risk factor associated with fever followed by rural residence. Strikingly in cohort, anaemia was prevalent in 86% at ANC as compared to 72% at DU, whereas severe anaemia was 13.6% and 7.8% at ANC and DU. Even more anaemia prevalence was observed in MIP group (88% and 89% at ANC and DU), whereas severe anaemia was 23% and 21%, respectively. In view of observed impact of anaemia, parasitemia and asymptomatic infection of P. vivax during pregnancy and delivery suggest prompt diagnosis regardless of symptoms and comprehensive drug regime should be offered to pregnant women in association with existing measures in clinical spectrum of MIP, delivery, and its outcome.
Background and objectives Haemoglobin content is the well accepted indicator for anaemia assessment. The high prevalence of anaemia, maternal health care issues and adverse delivery outcome in Jharkhand, we investigated whether delivering women with anaemia would present a modifiable risk of preterm (PTB) and low birth weight (LBW). Methods A facility-based cross-sectional study involving pregnant women, with screening for pregnancy endpoints and haemoglobin assay, were conducted. Anaemia was classified according to World Health Organization's definition of anaemia in pregnancy. Confounding variables were adjusted in a logistic model. The adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for analyzing the association among maternal anaemia, PTB and LBW. Results We observed a high prevalence of anaemia (78.45%) in delivering women, whereas high prevalence of preterm birth (34.75%) and LBW (32.81%) in delivering women overall. In the adjusted analysis, overall anaemia in pregnancy was strongly associated with preterm birth (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.98–5.88; P ≤ .0001 ) as compared to LBW (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.65–1.61; P = .0003 ). The risk of PTB and LBW were dependent on the stratification of the anaemia group, as the strongest association was observed in severe (OR, 4.86) followed by mild (OR, 3.66) and moderate (OR, 3.18) anaemia in PTB; whereas risk of LBW was found in severe (OR, 2.5) followed by moderate (OR, 1.11) and mild (OR, 0.57) anaemia. The risk of PTB and LBW across six pregnancy haemoglobin groups were compared, haemoglobin of 10–10.9 g/dl (OR, 1.25) and ≤ 8 g/dl (OR, 1.03) have shown association with PTB and LBW, respectively. However, high haemoglobin concentration was not associated with either PTB or LBW. Conclusions Anaemia in delivering women was associated with an elevated risk of PTB and LBW and the risk increased with the severity of anaemia in pregnant women.
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.
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 © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.