The impact of vaccination and new SARS-CoV-2 variants on peri-operative outcomes is unclear. We aimed to update previously published consensus recommendations on timing of elective surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and patients. The guidance remains that patients should avoid elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection, unless the benefits of doing so exceed the risk of waiting. We recommend individualised multidisciplinary risk assessment for patients requiring elective surgery within 7 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should include baseline mortality risk calculation and assessment of risk modifiers (patient factors; SARS-CoV-2 infection; surgical factors). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with previous variants increased peri-operative mortality risk three-fold throughout the 6 weeks after infection, and assumptions that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection does not add risk are currently unfounded. Patients with persistent symptoms and those with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 may require a longer delay than 7 weeks. Elective surgery should not take place within 10 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, predominantly because the patient may be infectious, which is a risk to surgical pathways, staff and other patients. We now emphasise that timing of surgery should include the assessment of baseline and increased risk, optimising vaccination and functional status, and shared decision-making. While these recommendations focus on the omicron variant and current evidence, the principles may also be of relevance to future variants. As further data emerge, these recommendations may be revised.

Neuraxial anaesthesia is widely utilised for elective caesarean section, but the prevalence of inadequate intraoperative anaesthesia is unclear. We aimed to determine the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia for elective caesarean section; prevalence of conversion from neuraxial anaesthesia to general anaesthesia following inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia; and the effect of mode of anaesthesia. We searched studies reporting inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia that used ≥ ED95 doses (effective dose in 95% of the population) of neuraxial local anaesthetic agents. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia, defined as the need to convert to general anaesthesia; the need to repeat or abandon a planned primary neuraxial technique following incision; unplanned administration of intra-operative analgesia (excluding sedatives); or unplanned epidural drug supplementation. Fifty-four randomised controlled trials were included (3497 patients). The overall prevalence of requirement for supplemental analgesia or anaesthesia was 14.6% (95%CI 13.3-15.9%); 510 out of 3497 patients. The prevalence of general anaesthesia conversion was 2 out of 3497 patients (0.06% (95%CI 0.0-0.2%)). Spinal/combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia was associated with a lower overall prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia than epidural anaesthesia (10.2% (95%CI 9.0-11.4%), 278 out of 2732 patients vs. 30.3% (95%CI 26.5-34.5%), 232 out of 765 patients). Further studies are needed to identify risk factors, optimise detection and management strategies and to determine long-term effects of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia.

No abstract

Background Whilst the management of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has evolved in response to the emerging data, treating such patients remains a challenge, and many treatments lack robust clinical evidence. We conducted a survey to evaluate Intensive Care Unit (ICU) management of COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and compared the results with data from a similar survey focusing on Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) that was conducted in 2013. Methods The questionnaire was refined from a previous survey of ARDS-related clinical practice using an online electronic survey engine (Survey Monkey®) and all UK intensivists were encouraged to participate. The survey was conducted between 16/05/2020 and 17/06/2020. Results There were 137 responses from 89 UK centres. Non-invasive ventilation was commonly used in the form of CPAP. The primary ventilation strategy was the ARDSnet protocol, with 63% deviating from its PEEP recommendations. Similar to our previous ARDS survey, most allowed permissive targets for hypoxia (94%), hypercapnia (55%) and pH (94%). The routine use of antibiotics was common, and corticosteroids were frequently used, usually in the context of a clinical trial (45%). Late tracheostomy (>7 days) was preferred (92%). Routine follow-up was offered by 66% with few centres providing routine dedicated rehabilitation programmes following discharge. Compared to the ARDS survey, there is an increased use of neuromuscular agents, APRV ventilation and improved provision of rehabilitation services. Conclusions Similar to our previous ARDS survey, this survey highlights variations in the management strategies used for patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.