When to operate after SARS-CoV-2 infection? A review on the recent consensus recommendation of the DGC/BDC and the DGAI/BDA

Pediatric Intravenous Anesthesia in Japan-Where Are Anesthesiologists?

Most pediatric intravenous anesthesia in Japan is performed outside the operating theatre by non-anesthetists. The 2020 revision increased reimbursement for long-term intravenous anesthesia (Category 3) by anesthesiologists, but its impact on practice behavior is unknown. We analyzed the annual number of calculations for each category of intravenous anesthesia and their age distribution from the national reimbursement data for the three-year period fiscal years (FY) 2018-20 to elucidate trends in the pediatric age group. Regional disparities of calculation rate of pediatric addition per capita were examined. According to FY 2019 statistics, 5,774 outpatient intravenous anesthesia and 50,686 inpatient intravenous anesthesia procedures were performed annually in patients under 15 years of age. Of these, no case was complex anesthesia (Category 3) performed by a specialist anesthesiologist in outpatient settings and 1,162(3.9%) in inpatient settings. Category 3 occupancy was slightly higher in infants and decreased with age. (P < 0.01) In FY 2020 data, 41(0.7%) new Category 3 procedure were calculated in outpatient cases. The share of Category 3 in inpatient cases decreased to 2.0%. There was no decrease in the number of overall venous anesthesia due to COVID-19 pandemic. Regional disparities in calculations were up to 20 times greater. Long-term total intravenous anesthesia by anesthesiologists is rarely performed in Japan. Improvements in reimbursement are not sufficient to enable total intravenous anesthesia by a specialized anesthesiologist. A system for safe intravenous anesthesia by non-anesthesiologists is needed.

Postoperative thrombotic events following major surgery in patients with a history of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort analysis of commercially insured beneficiaries in the USA

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate the synergistic risk of postoperative thrombosis in patients with a history of COVID-19 who undergo major surgery. Major surgery and SARS-CoV-2 infection are independently associated with an increased risk of thrombosis, but the magnitude of additional risk beyond surgery conferred by a COVID-19 history on the development of perioperative thrombotic events has not been clearly elucidated in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among commercially insured adults in the USA from March 2020 to June 2021 using the Optum Labs Data Warehouse (OLDW), a longitudinal, real-world data asset containing deidentified administrative claims and electronic health records. We compared patients with prior COVID-19 who underwent surgery with control individuals who underwent surgery without a COVID-19 history and with control individuals who did not undergo surgery with and without a COVID-19 history. We assessed the interaction of surgery and previous COVID-19 on perioperative thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism and major adverse cardiovascular events) within 90 days using multivariable logistic regression and interaction analysis.

RESULTS

Two million and two-hundred thousand eligible patients were identified from the OLDW. Patients in the surgical cohorts were older and more medically complex than nonsurgical population controls. After adjusting for confounders, only surgical exposure-not COVID-19 history-remained associated with perioperative thrombotic events (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81 to 4.36). The multiplicative interaction term (aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.61) and the synergy index (0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.04) suggest minimal effect modification of prior COVID-19 on surgery with regards to overall thrombotic risk.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of synergistic thrombotic risk from previous COVID-19 in patients who underwent selected major surgery relative to the baseline thrombotic risk from surgery alone.

Pre-assessment and management of long COVID patients requiring elective surgery: challenges and guidance

Whilst most patients infected with COVID-19 make a full recovery, around 1 in 33 patients in the UK report ongoing symptoms post-infection, termed 'long COVID'. Studies have demonstrated that infection with early COVID-19 variants increases postoperative mortality and pulmonary complications for around 7 weeks after acute infection. Furthermore, this increased risk persists for those with ongoing symptoms beyond 7 weeks. Patients with long COVID may therefore also be at increased postoperative risk, and despite the significant prevalence of long COVID, there are minimal guidelines on how best to assess and manage these patients perioperatively. Long COVID shares several clinical and pathophysiological similarities with conditions such as myalgic encephalitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and postural tachycardia syndrome; however, there are no current guidelines for the preoperative management of these patients to help develop something similar for long COVID patients. Developing guidelines for long COVID patients is further complicated by its heterogenous presentation and pathology. These patients can have persistent abnormalities on pulmonary function tests and echocardiography 3 months after acute infection, correlating with a reduced functional capacity. Conversely, some long COVID patients can continue to experience symptoms of dyspnoea and fatigue despite normal pulmonary function tests and echocardiography, yet demonstrating significantly reduced aerobic capacity on cardiopulmonary exercise testing even a year after initial infection. How to comprehensively risk assess these patients is therefore challenging. Existing preoperative guidelines for elective patients with recent COVID-19 generally focus on the timing of surgery and recommendations for pre-assessment if surgery is required before this time interval has elapsed. How long to delay surgery in those with ongoing symptoms and how to manage them perioperatively are less clear. We suggest that multidisciplinary decision-making is required for these patients, using a systems-based approach to guide discussion with specialists and the need for further preoperative investigations. However, without a better understanding of the postoperative risks for long COVID patients, it is difficult to obtain a multidisciplinary consensus and obtain informed patient consent. Prospective studies of long COVID patients undergoing elective surgery are urgently required to help quantify their postoperative risk and develop comprehensive perioperative guidelines for this complex patient group.

Postoperative mortality and complications in patients with and without pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection: a service evaluation of 24 million linked records using OpenSAFELY

Surgical decision-making after SARS-CoV-2 infection is influenced by the presence of comorbidity, infection severity and whether the surgical problem is time-sensitive. Contemporary surgical policy to delay surgery is informed by highly heterogeneous country-specific guidance. We evaluated surgical provision in England during the COVID-19 pandemic to assess real-world practice and whether deferral remains necessary. Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we adapted the COVIDSurg protocol for a service evaluation of surgical procedures that took place within the English NHS from 17 March 2018 to 17 March 2022. We assessed whether hospitals adhered to guidance not to operate on patients within 7 weeks of an indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additional outcomes were postoperative all-cause mortality (30 days, 6 months) and complications (pulmonary, cardiac, cerebrovascular). The exposure was the interval between the most recent indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent surgery. In any 6-month window, < 3% of surgical procedures were conducted within 7 weeks of an indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mortality for surgery conducted within 2 weeks of a positive test in the era since widespread SARS-CoV-2 vaccine availability was 1.1%, declining to 0.3% by 4 weeks. Compared with the COVIDSurg study cohort, outcomes for patients in the English NHS cohort were better during the COVIDSurg data collection period and the pandemic era before vaccines became available. Clinicians within the English NHS followed national guidance by operating on very few patients within 7 weeks of a positive indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In England, surgical patients' overall risk following an indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection is lower than previously thought.

Outcomes of elective cancer surgery in COVID‐19 survivors: An observational study

Background and Objectives

Guidelines recommend deferral of elective surgery after COVID‐19. Delays in cancer surgeries may affect outcomes. We examined perioperative outcomes of elective cancer surgery in COVID‐19 survivors. The primary objective was 30‐day all‐cause postoperative mortality. The secondary objectives were 30‐day morbidity, and its association with COVID‐19 severity, and duration between COVID‐19 and surgery.

Methods

We collected data on age, gender, comorbidities, COVID‐19 severity, preoperative investigations, surgery performed, and intra and postoperative outcomes in COVID‐19 survivors who underwent elective cancer surgery at a tertiary‐referral cancer center.

Results

Three hundred and forty‐eight COVID‐19 survivors presented for elective cancer surgery. Of these, 332/348 (95%) patients had mild COVID‐19 and 311 (89%) patients underwent surgery. Among patients with repeat investigations, computerized tomography scan of the thorax showed the maximum new abnormalities (30/157, 19%). The 30‐day all‐cause mortality was 0.03% (1/311) and 30‐day morbidity was 17% (54/311). On multivariable analysis, moderate versus mild COVID‐19 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95; 95% confidence interval  [CI]: 0.52–7.30; p = 0.32) and surgery within 7 weeks of COVID‐19 (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.33–1.11; p = 0.10) were not associated with postoperative morbidity.

Conclusions

In patients who recover from mild to moderate COVID‐19, elective cancer surgery can proceed safely even within 7 weeks. Additional preoperative tests may not be indicated in these patients.

Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey, a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic.

METHODS

A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine.

RESULTS

367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years.