Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study

Impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 on the Indigenous Population of Brazil: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Indigenous peoples in Brazil were severely impacted by coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic, experiencing high rates of infection and mortality. Geographic isolation, limited access to healthcare, socio-economic disparities, and cultural factors, such as communal living and mistrust of state-led initiatives, heightened their vulnerability. Territorial invasions and oxygen shortages further exacerbated the crisis. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to explore the progression of COVID-19 in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed-MEDLINE, SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), and LILACS (Latin America and the Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) from the beginning of the pandemic in Brazil (2020) to March 2025. Studies addressing COVID-19 vaccination and epidemiological, social, and economic aspects among Indigenous populations in Brazil were included. Reviews and irrelevant studies were excluded. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 50 relevant studies were included, grouped into thematic blocks: mortality/infection, symptoms, vaccination/testing, social impacts, and birth outcomes. Several studies highlighted that being male, of Indigenous or other racial minority background, and having comorbidities increased mortality risk. In contrast, asthma was associated with reduced mortality. Pregnant Indigenous women in rural areas had 33 times higher odds of dying than their urban counterparts. Furthermore, there is a higher likelihood of very low birth weight and inadequate prenatal care among Indigenous mothers. Vaccination reduced the risk of death, particularly after full immunization, though it did not prevent hospitalization. A cohort study of 389,753 Indigenous people showed a lower full vaccination rate (48.7%) compared to the general population (74.8%). Complete vaccination reduced the risk of death by 96% among hospitalized patients. Regarding seroprevalence, Indigenous people had a 5.4% positivity rate, much higher than other racial groups, and were 4.71 times more likely to test positive than White, Black, or Mixed Individuals. Socioeconomic disparities also correlated with increased infection risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic worsened health disparities among Indigenous peoples in Brazil, revealing systemic inequalities, weak public policies, and limited healthcare access. This review urges culturally sensitive, community-led responses and highlights the need for disaggregated data and equitable, inclusive health strategies.

Pulmonary and functional hallmarks after SARS-CoV-2 infection across three WHO severity level-groups: an observational study

Background

The manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection range from flu-like symptoms to severe lung disease. The consequences of this inflammatory process impact overall function, which can be detected through both short- to long-term assessments. This study aimed to assess the pulmonary functional and structural characteristics of post-SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with mild/moderate, severe, and critical clinical presentations.

Methods

An observational, analytical, and cross-sectional study was conducted between 2020 and 2022, including participants with a confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease (COVID)-19, with mild/moderate (G1), severe (G2), and critical (G3) clinical presentations, all evaluated at least 3 months after acute infection. Spirometry, impulse oscillometry, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), chest computed tomography, the 6-min walk test (6MWT), hand grip strength, maximum inspiratory pressure, and maximum expiratory pressure were assessed.

Results

We enrolled 210 participants aged 18-70 years, 32.6% of whom were male, with older age observed in G3. The participants were grouped as follows: G1 (42.3%), G2 (25.7%), and G3 (31.9%). Percentage of predicted X5 differed between G1 and G2, being higher in G1. The percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) according to the Global Lung Function Initiative and its z-score were higher in G1. The FVC by Pereira was lower in G3 compared to G1. The percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) by Pereira was also lower in G3. The Tiffeneau (FEV1/FVC) index was different among groups, increasing with disease severity. The percentage of predicted forced expiratory flow rate at 25-75% (FEF25-75%) of the FVC and FeNO were both higher in G2 than G1. Chest computed tomography revealed the presence of interstitial abnormalities, associated with disease severity. The respiratory muscle strength evaluation showed an association between higher maximum expiratory pressure values in G3 compared to G1, but no association with maximum inspiratory pressure was observed. The 6MWT distance covered decreased with increasing severity, with a lower percentage of predicted values in G3 compared to G1. The right-hand grip strength was also lower in G3 compared to G1.

Conclusion

Alterations in pulmonary and functional markers were observed in post-COVID-19 evaluations, increasing with disease severity, as seen in G2 and G3. These findings highlight the complexity of post-COVID-19 functional assessments, given the long-term pulmonary sequelae and the consequent impairment of functional capacity.

Optimal surgical timing for lung cancer following SARS-CoV-2 infection: a prospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

With the ongoing prevalence of the emerging variant and global vaccination efforts, the optimal surgical timing for patients with resectable lung cancer in the Omicron-dominant period requires further investigation.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter study involved patients who underwent radical surgery for lung cancer between January 29, 2023 and March 31, 2023. Patients were categorized into four groups based on the interval between SARS-CoV-2 infection and surgery. The main outcomes evaluated were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 2081 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 1837 patients (88.3%) had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis before surgery. Notably, no instances of 30-day mortality were observed in any patient. Patients without prior infection had a 30-day morbidity rate of 15.2%, with postoperative pneumonia occurring in 7.0% of cases. In contrast, patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 before surgery had significantly higher rates of 30-day morbidity and postoperative pneumonia when surgery was performed within 4-5 weeks (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) (95% CI):2.18 (1.29-3.71) and 2.39 (1.21-4.79), respectively) or within 6-7 weeks (aOR (95% CI):2.07 (1.36-3.20) and 2.10 (1.20-3.85), respectively). Conversely, surgeries performed ≥ 8 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis exhibited similar risks of 30-day morbidity and pneumonia compared to those in the no prior infection group (aOR (95% CI):1.13 (0.77-1.70) and 1.12 (0.67-1.99), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic surgery for lung cancer conducted 4-7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection is still associated with an increased risk of 30-day morbidity in the Omicron-dominant period. Therefore, surgeons should carefully assess the individual risks and benefits to formulate an optimal surgical strategy for patients with lung cancer with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of clinical trials. In this context, we described the mechanisms of the three repurposed drugs [Ivermectin-antiparasitic drug, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine-antimalarial drugs, and Azithromycin-antimicrobial drug]; and, based on this description, the study evaluated the clinical efficacy of those drugs published in clinical trials. The use of these drugs reflects the period of uncertainty that marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made them a possible treatment for COVID-19. Methods: In our review, we evaluated phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy of these drugs published from the COVID-19 pandemic onset to 2023. We included eight RCTs published for Ivermectin, 11 RCTs for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and three RCTs for Azithromycin. The research question (PICOT) accounted for P-hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19; I-use of oral or intravenous Ivermectin OR Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine OR Azithromycin; C-placebo or no placebo (standard of care); O-mortality OR hospitalization OR viral clearance OR need for mechanical ventilation OR clinical improvement; and T-phase III RCTs. Results: While studying these drugs' respective mechanisms of action, the reasons for which they were thought to be useful became apparent and are as follows: Ivermectin binds to insulin-like growth factor and prevents nuclear transportation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), therefore preventing cell entrance, induces apoptosis, and osmotic cell death and disrupts viral replication. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine blocks the movement of SARS-CoV-2 from early endosomes to lysosomes inside the cell, also, this drug blocks the binding between SARS-CoV-2 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 inhibiting the interaction between the virus spike proteins and the cell membrane and this drug can also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral replication causing, ultimately, the reduction in viral infection as well as the potential to progression for a higher severity phenotype culminating with a higher chance of death. Azithromycin exerts a down-regulating effect on the inflammatory cascade, attenuating the excessive production of cytokines and inducing phagocytic activity, and acts interfering with the viral replication cycle. Ivermectin, when compared to standard care or placebo, did not reduce the disease severity, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. Only one study demonstrated that Ivermectin may improve viral clearance compared to placebo. Individuals who received Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine did not present a lower incidence of death, improved clinical status, or higher chance of respiratory deterioration compared to those who received usual care or placebo. Also, some studies demonstrated that Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine resulted in worse outcomes and side-effects included severe ones. Adding Azithromycin to a standard of care did not result in clinical improvement in hospitalized COVID-19 participants. In brief, COVID-19 was one of the deadliest pandemics in modern human history. Due to the potential health catastrophe caused by SARS-CoV-2, a global effort was made to evaluate treatments for COVID-19 to attenuate its impact on the human species. Unfortunately, several countries prematurely justified the emergency use of drugs that showed only in vitro effects against SARS-CoV-2, with a dearth of evidence supporting efficacy in humans. In this context, we reviewed the mechanisms of several drugs proposed to treat COVID-19, including Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin, as well as the phase III clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of these drugs for treating patients with this respiratory disease. Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials.

Digestive and breast cancer patients managed during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic: Short and middle term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Spain lasted from middle March to the end of June 2020. Spanish population was subjected to lockdown periods and scheduled surgeries were discontinued or reduced during variable periods. In our centre, we managed patients previously and newly diagnosed with cancer. We established a strategy based on limiting perioperative social contacts, preoperative screening (symptoms and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) and creating separated in-hospital COVID-19-free pathways for non-infected patients. We also adopted some practice modifications (surgery in different facilities, changes in staff and guidelines, using continuously changing personal protective equipment…), that supposed new inconveniences.

AIM

To analyse cancer patients with a decision for surgery managed during the first wave, focalizing on outcomes and pandemic-related modifications.

METHODS

We prospectively included adults with a confirmed diagnosis of colorectal, oesophago-gastric, liver-pancreatic or breast cancer with a decision for surgery, regardless of whether they ultimately underwent surgery. We analysed short-term outcomes [30-d postoperative morbimortality and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection] and outcomes after 3 years (adjuvant therapies, oncological events, death, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We also investigated modifications to usual practice.

RESULTS

From 96 included patients, seven didn't receive treatment that period and four never (3 due to COVID-19). Operated patients: 28 colon and 21 rectal cancers; laparoscopy 53.6%/90.0%, mortality 3.57%/0%, major complications 7.04%/25.00%, anastomotic leaks 0%/5.00%, 3-years disease-free survival (DFS) 82.14%/52.4% and overall survival (OS) 78.57%/76.2%. Six liver metastases and six pancreatic cancers: no mortality, one major complication, three grade A/B liver failures, one bile leak; 3-year DFS 0%/33.3% and OS 50.0%/33.3% (liver metastases/pancreatic carcinoma). 5 gastric and 2 oesophageal tumours: mortality 0%/50%, major complications 0%/100%, anastomotic leaks 0%/100%, 3-year DFS and OS 66.67% (gastric carcinoma) and 0% (oesophagus). Twenty breast cancer without deaths/major complications; 3-year OS 100% and DFS 85%. Nobody contracted SARS-CoV-2 postoperatively. COVID-19 pandemic-related changes: 78.2% treated in alternative buildings, 43.8% waited more than 4 weeks, two additional colostomies and fewer laparoscopies.

CONCLUSION

Some patients lost curative-intent surgery due to COVID-19 pandemic. Despite practice modifications and 43.8% delays higher than 4 weeks, surgery was resumed with minimal changes without impacting outcomes. Clean pathways are essential to continue surgery safely.

Is perioperative COVID-19 really associated with worse surgical outcomes among vaccinated patients?

INTRODUCTION

During the surge of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, studies revealed high complication and morbidity rates following surgical procedures in COVID-19 positive patients. Anesthetic and surgical societies swiftly developed strategies to mitigate these risks, including a recommended postponement of elective surgeries for a minimum of 7 weeks post-COVID infection. Nowadays, with a predominantly vaccinated population, it has become crucial to discern the influencing factors on post-COVID morbidity and mortality and a reevaluation of the existing recommendations pertaining to elective surgery.

METHODS

A single-center case-control study was conducted, including patients who underwent surgery between November 2021 and March 2022 and met the inclusion criteria. Eighty COVID-19 positive patients were matched 1:1 with 80 controls, each undergoing an identical intervention within a 2-week time frame. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality and secondary outcome postoperative complications (respiratory and thromboembolic).

RESULTS

At the time of surgery, 88.8% of patients in the case group and 92.5% in the control group had received at least one vaccine dose. Mortality and morbidity did not show a significant difference when comparing the case and control groups (7.5% vs 6.2%, p = 0.755; 11.3% vs 8.9%, p = 0.541 respectively). In the COVID-positive group, mortality was significantly associated with age over 70 years, ASA score over III, RCRI over 1, emergency procedures, and absence of thromboembolic prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to previously reported findings, we did not observe an increased morbi-mortality in patients with perioperative COVID-19 infection. It may not be necessary to delay elective interventions, except in cases with a high-risk.

European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery: a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities

BACKGROUND

European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) is the European community of clinicians providing care to the injured and critically ill surgical patient. ESTES has several interlinked missions - (1) the promotion of optimal emergency surgical care through networked advocacy, (2) promulgation of relevant clinical cognitive and technical skills, and (3) the advancement of scientific inquiry that closes knowledge gaps, iteratively improves upon surgical and perioperative practice, and guides decision-making rooted in scientific evidence. Faced with multitudinous opportunities for clinical research, ESTES undertook an exercise to determine member priorities for surgical research in the short-to-medium term; these research priorities were presented to a panel of experts to inform a 'road map' narrative review which anchored these research priorities in the contemporary surgical literature.

METHODS

Individual ESTES members in active emergency surgery practice were polled as a representative sample of end-users and were asked to rank potential areas of future research according to their personal perceptions of priority. Using the modified eDelphi method, an invited panel of ESTES-associated experts in academic emergency surgery then crafted a narrative review highlighting potential research priorities for the Society.

RESULTS

Seventy-two responding ESTES members from 23 countries provided feedback to guide the modified eDelphi expert consensus narrative review. Experts then crafted evidence-based mini-reviews highlighting knowledge gaps and areas of interest for future clinical research in emergency surgery: timing of surgery, inter-hospital transfer, diagnostic imaging in emergency surgery, the role of minimally-invasive surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, patient-reported outcome measures, risk-stratification methods, disparities in access to care, geriatric outcomes, data registry and snapshot audit evaluations, emerging technologies interrogation, and the delivery and benchmarking of emergency surgical training.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript presents the priorities for future clinical research in academic emergency surgery as determined by a sample of the membership of ESTES. While the precise basis for prioritization was not evident, it may be anchored in disease prevalence, controversy around aspects of current patient care, or indeed the identification of a knowledge gap. These expert-crafted evidence-based mini-reviews provide useful insights that may guide the direction of future academic emergency surgery research efforts.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Everyday Neurosurgical Practice in Alsace, France: Lessons Learned, Current Perspectives, and Future Challenges-Preliminary Results of a Longitudinal Multicentric Study Registry

Background and Objectives: The global outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic disrupted healthcare worldwide, impacting the organization of intensive care units and surgical care units. This study aimed to document the daily neurosurgical activity in Alsace, France, one of the European epicenters of the pandemic, and provide evidence of the adaptive strategies deployed during such a critical time for healthcare services. Materials and Methods: The multicentric longitudinal study was based on a prospective cohort of patients requiring neurosurgical care in the Neurosurgical Departments of Alsace, France, between March 2020 and March 2022. Surgical activity was compared with pre-pandemic performances through data obtained from electronic patient records. Results: A total of 3842 patients benefited from care in a neurosurgical unit during the period of interest; 2352 of them underwent surgeries with a wide range of pathologies treated. Surgeries were initially limited to neurosurgical emergencies only, then urgent cases were slowly reinstated; however, a significant drop in surgical volume and case mix was noticed during lockdown (March-May 2020). The crisis continued to impact surgical activity until March 2022; functional procedures were postponed, though some spine surgeries could progressively be performed starting in October 2021. Various social factors, such as increased alcohol consumption during the pandemic, influenced the severity of traumatic pathologies. The progressive return to the usual profile of surgical activity was characterized by a rebound of oncological interventions. Deferrable procedures for elective spinal and functional pathologies were the most affected, with unexpected medical and social impacts. Conclusions: The task shifting and task sharing approaches implemented during the first wave of the pandemic supported the reorganization of neurosurgical care in its aftermath and enabled the safe and timely execution of a broad spectrum of surgeries. Despite the substantial disruption to routine practices, marked by a significant reduction in elective surgical volumes, comprehensive records demonstrate the successful management of the full range of neurosurgical pathologies. This underscores the efficacy of adaptive strategies in navigating the challenges imposed by the largest healthcare crisis in recent history. Those lessons will continue to provide valuable insights and guidance for health and care managers to prepare for future unpredictable scenarios.

International Hepato-Pancreato-Billiary Association (IHPBA) registry study on COVID-19 infections in HPB surgery patients

BACKGROUND

In response to the pandemic, the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) developed the IHPBA-COVID Registry to capture data on HPB surgery outcomes in COVID-positive patients prior to mass vaccination programs. The aim was to provide a tool to help members gain a better understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on patient outcomes following HPB surgery worldwide.

METHODS

An online registry updated in real time was disseminated to all IHPBA, E-AHPBA, A-HPBA and A-PHPBA members to assess the effects of the pandemic on the outcomes of HPB procedures, perioperative COVID-19 management and other aspects of surgical care.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five patients from 35 centres in 18 countries were included. Seventy-three (58%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 preoperatively. Operative mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy and major hepatectomy was 28% and 15%, respectively, and 2.5% after cholecystectomy. Postoperative complication rates of pancreatic procedures, hepatic interventions and biliary interventions were respectively 80%, 50% and 37%. Respiratory complication rates were 37%, 31% and 10%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals a high risk of mortality and complication after HPB surgeries in patient infected with COVID-19. The more extensive the procedure, the higher the risk. Nonetheless, an increased risk was observed across all types of interventions, suggesting that elective HPB surgery should be avoided in COVID positive patients, delaying it at distance from the viral infection.

To Gain Insights into the Pathophysiological Mechanisms of the Thrombo-Inflammatory Process in the Atherosclerotic Plaque

Thromboinflammation, the interplay between thrombosis and inflammation, is a significant pathway that drives cardiovascular and autoimmune diseases, as well as COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 causes inflammation and blood clotting issues. Innate immune cells have emerged as key modulators of this process. Neutrophils, the most predominant white blood cells in humans, are strategically positioned to promote thromboinflammation. By releasing decondensed chromatin structures called neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), neutrophils can initiate an organised cell death pathway. These structures are adorned with histones, cytoplasmic and granular proteins, and have cytotoxic, immunogenic, and prothrombotic effects that can hasten disease progression. Protein arginine deiminase 4 (PAD4) catalyses the citrullination of histones and is involved in the release of extracellular DNA (NETosis). The neutrophil inflammasome is also required for this process. Understanding the link between the immunological function of neutrophils and the procoagulant and proinflammatory activities of monocytes and platelets is important in understanding thromboinflammation. This text discusses how vascular blockages occur in thromboinflammation due to the interaction between neutrophil extracellular traps and ultra-large VWF (von Willebrand Factor). The activity of PAD4 is important for understanding the processes that drive thromboinflammation by linking the immunological function of neutrophils with the procoagulant and proinflammatory activities of monocytes and platelets. This article reviews how vaso-occlusive events in thrombo-inflammation occur through the interaction of neutrophil extracellular traps with von Willebrand factor. It highlights the relevance of PAD4 in neutrophil inflammasome assembly and neutrophil extracellular traps in thrombo-inflammatory diseases such as atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. Interaction between platelets, VWF, NETs and inflammasomes is critical for the progression of thromboinflammation in several diseases and was recently shown to be active in COVID-19.

COVID-19 in Brazil: a 3-year update

Three years into the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic and the world is still struggling with the aftermath of this global health crisis. In Brazil, we are witnessing serious economic, health, social, and political problems. The rapid spread of the virus in our country was the result of a shortage of vaccines and the lack of an effective national campaign to identify and report cases. This health crisis also intensified social inequalities, hitting Indigenous peoples hard due to the lack of access to health services. In addition, rising unemployment and overcrowding of the health system made contagion possible, especially among the most vulnerable, increasing the number of serious cases of the disease. It is important to highlight that emotional problems worsened, the educational system was severely affected, and domestic violence increased during the confinement period, in addition to the fact that the pandemic exposed the great disparities of regional inequalities that exist across the country, mainly concerning health management.

COVID-19 infection and ambulatory surgery: Decision making based on known knowns

During the spring of 2020, as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections rapidly spread across the globe, all sectors of healthcare, everywhere, would change in ways that were unimaginable. Early on, the ambulatory surgery space, being no exception, would suffer deep and impactful reductions in patient volume and revenue. Though actual care stoppages were short-lived, decreased ambulatory surgical patient volumes continued for a myriad of reasons, though in some cases, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) provided surgical care in limited numbers to patients who were "offloaded" from inpatient lists. Released on March 24, 2020, herein, we address the key perioperative issues as they relate to COVID-19 and ambulatory surgery including the many complexities and challenges of a new and rapidly changing virus, the impact of viral infection and vaccine development on perioperative outcomes, key ambulatory surgical approaches to COVID-19-related patient and staff safety, and finally, managing issues related to both supply chain (personal protective equipment (PPE) and other necessary equipment) and facility staffing.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Epidemiological Profile of Hospitalized Patients with Cystic Fibrosis in Brazil Due to Severe Acute Respiratory Infection during the COVID-19 Pandemic and a Systematic Review of Worldwide COVID-19 in Those with Cystic Fibrosis

Since the onset of the coronavirus disease, COVID-19 pandemic, concern arose for those who might be at higher risk of a worse COVID-19 prognosis, such as those with cystic fibrosis (CF). In this context, we evaluated the features of hospitalized patients with CF due to severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) in Brazil and we also performed a systematic review including all the studies published from the beginning of the first case of COVID-19 (17 November 2019) to the date of this search (23 May 2022) which included, concomitantly, patients with CF and COVID-19 in the worldwide population. In our Brazilian data, we evaluated the period from December 2019 to March 2022, and we included 33 demographical and clinical patients' features. We classified the patients into groups: (G1) SARI due to another viral infection than severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (23; 5.4%), (G2) SARI due to an unknown etiological agent (286; 67.1%), and (G3) SARI due to SARS-CoV-2 infection (117; 27.5%). The individuals in G3 tended to be older, especially over 50 years old, and presented a higher prevalence of dyspnea, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) <95%, and cardiopathy. The highest prevalence for intensive care unit (ICU) treatment (52; 44.4%) and invasive mechanical ventilation (29; 24.8%) was for patients in G3. Almost half of the patients in G3 died (51; 43.6%); in contrast, none in G1 died. However, we observed 43 (15.0%) deaths in G2. In addition, 12 (4.2%) and one (0.9%) death not associated with SARI occurred, respectively, in the G2 and G3. The patients who died due to SARS-CoV-2 infection had a higher frequency of SpO₂ <95% (46; 90.2%), ICU treatment (34; 66.7%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (27; 52.9%) when compared to those who recovered. The systematic review comprised a total of 31 papers published as observational studies. These studies comprised 661,386 patients in total, including children, adults, and elderly age groups. However, only 19,150 (2.9%) patients were diagnosed with CF and, from these patients, 2523 (0.4%) were diagnosed with both CF and COVID-19. It was observed that the most common outcome was the need for hospitalization (n = 322 patients with CF), and the need for oxygen support (n = 139 patients with CF). One hundred patients with CF needed intensive care units, fifty patients needed non-invasive mechanical ventilation support, and only three patients were described as receiving invasive mechanical ventilation support. Deaths were described in 38 patients with CF. Importantly, lung-transplanted patients with CF represented an increased risk of death in one publication; in accordance, another study described that lung transplantation and moderate to severe lung disease were independent risk factors for severe outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In contrast with the literature, in conclusion, Brazilian patients in G3 presented a severe phenotype, even though most of the other studies did not observe worse outcomes in patients with CF and COVID-19.

Role of academia in enhancing technology and innovation for a post COVID-19 recovery and growth

The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the greatest challenges of this century with wide ranging impacts not only on health but practically every sector of the human society. The pandemic stretched our resources and coping capacities to almost breaking points even in wealthy economies and further exposed crucial weaknesses in infrastructure, human resources and emergency preparedness of most nations. This review article explored the role of technology and innovation in post COVID-19 growth and recovery. The academia has facilitated better understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic by increasing the body of knowledge on the disease. Better understanding of the disease informed technology and innovations which has made it possible to end the pandemic lockdown, and chart the course for recovery and growth. Relevant articles from a search of electronic databases were reviewed and the role of academia as well as some of the innovations that opened the pathway for recovery were highlighted. Recovery and growth after the COVID-19 pandemic will require synergistic efforts between the academia and the industry, more like taking the "Gown" to "Town". Research and development in academia, and industrial technology and innovation are veritable tools for a post COVID-19 recovery.

Current challenges and perspectives in lung cancer care during COVID-19 waves

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the era of the SARS-Cov2 pandemic, the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer is the main challenge for clinicians. The depiction of complex networking between SARS-CoV2 and cancer cells is crucial to understanding the downstream signalling pathways leading to more severe clinical behaviour of COVID-19 among lung cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The immunosuppressive status caused by both blunted immune response and active anticancer treatments (e.g. radiotherapy, chemotherapy) affects also the response to vaccines. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced early detection, therapeutic management, and clinical research for patients with lung cancer.

SUMMARY

SARS-CoV-2 infection does undoubtedly represent a challenge for care of patients with lung cancer. Since symptoms of infection may overlap with underlying condition, diagnosis must be reached and treatment should start as soon as possible. Although any cancer treatment should be procrastinated as long as infection is not cured, every choice must be pondered on individual basis, according to clinical conditions. Underdiagnosis should be avoided, and both surgical and medical treatment must be tailored to each patient. Therapeutic scenario standardization represents a major challenge for clinicians and researchers.

Risk factors and predictive model for pulmonary complications in patients transferred to ICU after hepatectomy

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) seriously harm the recovery and prognosis of patients undergoing surgery. However, its related risk factors in critical patients after hepatectomy have been rarely reported. This study aimed at analyzing the factors related to PPCs in critical adult patients after hepatectomy and create a nomogram for prediction of the PPCs.

METHODS

503 patients' data were collected form the Peking University People's Hospital. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors to derive the nomogram. Nomogram's discriminatory ability was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and calibration curve.

RESULTS

The independent risk factor for PPCs are advanced age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.026; P = 0.008), higher body mass index (OR = 1.139; P < 0.001), lower preoperative serum albumin level (OR = 0.961; P = 0.037), and intensive care unit first day infusion volume (OR = 1.152; P = 0.040). And based on this, we created a nomogram to predict the occurrence of PPCs. Upon assessing the nomogram's predictive ability, the AUC for the model was 0.713( 95% CI: 0.668-0.758, P<0.001). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P = 0.590) and calibration curve showed good calibration for the prediction of PPCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and mortality of postoperative pulmonary complications in critical adult patients after hepatectomy are high. Advanced age, higher body mass index, lower preoperative serum albumin and intensive care unit first day infusion volume were found to be significantly associated with PPCs. And we created a nomogram model which can be used to predict the occurrence of PPCs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes after hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery

COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare systems worldwide, causing the postponement or cancellation of millions of elective surgeries. It is essential for hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeons to well understand the perioperative risk and management of HPB surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of preoperative COVID-19 infection and timing of surgery, the impact of COVID-19 infection on postoperative mortality, the postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with perioperative COVID-19 infection, and the postoperative complications without pulmonary involvement. Perioperative COVID-19 infection increases the risk of postoperative mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Furthermore, in some regions, the COVID-19 vaccine's availability is still limited, leading to an increase in the number of cases and potential medical collapse, which could hinder the improvement of HPB postoperative mortality rates. The timing of surgery for COVID-19 positive patients should be carefully considered, balancing the potential risks of delay with the risks of surgery during the infection.

Epidemiological profile and risk factors associated with death in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an adult intensive care unit from Brazil: a retrospective study

Introduction

Understanding the epidemiological profile and risk factors associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is essential to manage the patients better and to improve health services. Therefore, our objective was to describe the epidemiological profile of adult patients in intensive care that required IMV in-hospital treatment. Also, to evaluate the risks associated with death and the influence of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2) at admission in the clinical outcome.

Methods

We conducted an epidemiological study analyzing medical records of inpatients who received IMV from January 2016 to December 2019 prior to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic in Brazil. We considered the following characteristics in the statistical analysis: demographic data, diagnostic hypothesis, hospitalization data, and PEEP and PaO2 during IMV. We associated the patients' features with the risk of death using a multivariate binary logistic regression analysis. We adopted an alpha error of 0.05.

Results

We analyzed 1,443 medical records; out of those, 570 (39.5%) recorded the patients' deaths. The binary logistic regression was significant in predicting the patients' risk of death [X2(9) = 288.335; p < 0.001]. Among predictors, the most significant in relation to death risk were: age [elderly ≥65 years old; OR = 2.226 (95%CI = 1.728-2.867)]; male sex (OR = 0.754; 95%CI = 0.593-0.959); sepsis diagnosis (OR = 1.961; 95%CI = 1.481-2.595); need for elective surgery (OR = 0.469; 95%CI = 0.362-0.608); the presence of cerebrovascular accident (OR = 2.304; 95%CI = 1.502-3.534); time of hospital care (OR = 0.946; 95%CI = 0.935-0.956); hypoxemia at admission (OR = 1.635; 95%CI = 1.024-2.611), and PEEP >8 cmH2O at admission (OR = 2.153; 95%CI = 1.426-3.250).

Conclusion

The death rate of the studied intensive care unit was equivalent to that of other similar units. Regarding risk predictors, several demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with enhanced mortality in intensive care unit patients under mechanical ventilation, such as diabetes mellitus, systemic arterial hypertension, and older age. The PEEP >8 cmH2O at admission was also associated with increased mortality since this value is a marker of initially severe hypoxia.

Big Data in Surgery

The emergence of Big Data has been facilitated by technological advancements in the processing, storage, and analysis of large quantities of data. Its strength is derived from its size, ease of access, and speed of analysis, and it has enabled surgeons to investigate areas of interest that traditional research models have historically been unable to address. In the future, Big Data will likely assist in the incorporation of more advanced technologies into surgical practice, including artificial intelligence and machine learning to realize the full potential of Big Data in Surgery.

Surgical management of acute appendicitis during the European COVID-19 second wave: safe and effective

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic drove acute care surgeons to pivot from long established practice patterns. Early safety concerns regarding increased postoperative complication risk in those with active COVID infection promoted antibiotic-driven non-operative therapy for select conditions ahead of an evidence-base. Our study assesses whether active or recent SARS-CoV-2 positivity increases hospital length of stay (LOS) or postoperative complications following appendectomy.

METHODS

Data were derived from the prospective multi-institutional observational SnapAppy cohort study. This preplanned data analysis assessed consecutive patients aged ≥ 15 years who underwent appendectomy for appendicitis (November 2020-May 2021). Patients were categorized based on SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity: no infection, active infection, and prior infection. Appendectomy method, LOS, and complications were abstracted. The association between SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and complications was determined using Poisson regression, while the association with LOS was calculated using a quantile regression model.

RESULTS

Appendectomy for acute appendicitis was performed in 4047 patients during the second and third European COVID waves. The majority were SARS-CoV-2 uninfected (3861, 95.4%), while 70 (1.7%) were acutely SARS-CoV-2 positive, and 116 (2.8%) reported prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. After confounder adjustment, there was no statistically significant association between SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and LOS, any complication, or severe complications.

CONCLUSION

During sequential SARS-CoV-2 infection waves, neither active nor prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with prolonged hospital LOS or postoperative complication. Despite early concerns regarding postoperative safety and outcome during active SARS-CoV-2 infection, no such association was noted for those with appendicitis who underwent operative management.

Omicron, Long-COVID, and the Safety of Elective Surgery for Adults and Children: Joint Guidance from the Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee of the Surgical Infection Society and the Surgery Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services

Background: Active and recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections are associated with morbidity and mortality after surgery in adults. Current recommendations suggest delaying elective surgery in survivors for four to 12 weeks, depending on initial illness severity. Recently, the predominant causes of COVID-19 are the highly transmissible/less virulent Omicron variant/subvariants. Moreover, increased survivability of primary infections has engendered the long-COVID syndrome, with protean manifestations that may persist for months. Considering the more than 600,000,000 COVID-19 survivors, surgeons will likely be consulted by recovered patients seeking elective operations. Knowledge gaps of the aftermath of Omicron infections raise questions whether extant guidance for timing of surgery still applies to adults or should apply to the pediatric population. Methods: Scoping review of relevant English-language literature. Results: Most supporting data derive from early in the pandemic when the Alpha variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) predominated. The Omicron variant/subvariants generally cause milder infections with less organ dysfunction; many infections are asymptomatic, especially in children. Data are scant with respect to adult surgical outcomes after Omicron infection, and especially so for pediatric surgical outcomes at any stage of the pandemic. Conclusions: Numerous knowledge gaps persist with respect to the disease, the recovered pre-operative patient, the nature of the proposed procedure, and supporting data. For example, should the waiting period for all but urgent elective surgery be extended beyond 12 weeks, e.g., after serious/critical illness, or for patients with long-COVID and organ dysfunction? Conversely, can the waiting periods for asymptomatic patients or vaccinated patients be shortened? How shall children be risk-stratified, considering the distinctiveness of pediatric COVID-19 and the paucity of data? Forthcoming guidelines will hopefully answer these questions but may require ongoing modifications based on additional new data and the epidemiology of emerging strains.

Thromboembolic Disease and Cardiac Thrombotic Complication in COVID-19: A Systematic Review

The coronavirus 2019 pandemic has affected many healthcare systems worldwide. While acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been well-documented in COVID-19, there are several cardiovascular complications, such as myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and pulmonary embolism, leading to disability and death. The link between COVID-19 and increasing thrombogenicity potentially occurs due to numerous different metabolic mechanisms, ranging from endothelial damage for direct virus infection, associated excessive formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), pathogenic activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), direct myocardial injury, and ischemia induced by respiratory failure, all of which have measurable biomarkers. A search was performed by interrogating three databases (MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, and EMBASE). Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective series, meta-analyses, and unmatched observational studies were evaluated for the processing of the algorithm and treatment of thromboembolic disease and cardiac thrombotic complications related to COVID-19 during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies out with the SARS-Cov-2 infection period and case reports were excluded. A total of 58 studies were included in this analysis. The role of the acute inflammatory response in the propagation of the systemic inflammatory sequelae of the disease plays a major part in determining thromboembolic disease and cardiac thrombotic complication in COVID-19. Some of the mechanisms of activation of these pathways, alongside the involved biomarkers noted in previous studies, are highlighted. Inflammatory response led to thromboembolic disease and cardiac thrombotic complications in COVID-19. NETs play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of the inflammatory response. Despite moving into the endemic phase of the disease in most countries, thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 remain an entity that substantially impacts the health care system, with long-term effects that remain uncertain. Continuous monitoring and research are required.

COVID-19 in the perioperative setting: A review of the literature and the clinical landscape

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected societies and healthcare systems around the globe. The perioperative care continuum has also been under significant strain due to the pandemic-tasked with simultaneously addressing surgical strains and backlogs, infection prevention strategies, and emerging data regarding significantly higher perioperative risk for COVID-19 patients and survivors. Many uncertainties persist regarding the perioperative risk, assessment, and management of COVID-19 survivors-and the energy to catch up on surgical backlogs must be tempered with strategies to continue to mitigate COVID-19 related perioperative risk. Here, we review the available data for COVID-19-related perioperative risk, discuss areas of persistent uncertainty, and empower the perioperative teams to pursue evidence-based strategies for high quality, patient-centered, team-based care as we enter the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Timing of surgery and elective perioperative management of patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: a SIAARTI expert consensus statement

BACKGROUND

The appropriate timing of surgery and perioperative management of patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection are open issues. The purpose of this document is to support the clinical decision-making process regarding the patient with previous Sars-CoV-2 infection to undergo elective surgery. The recipients of this document are physicians, nurses, healthcare personnel, and other professionals involved in the patient's surgical process.

METHODS

The Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) selected 11 experts to reach a consensus on key aspects of this theme in adult and pediatric population. The methods of this process document were in accordance to the principles of rapid review of the scientific literature and modified Delphi method. The experts produced statements and supporting reasons in the form of an informative text. The overall list of statements was subjected to a vote in order to express the degree of consent.

RESULTS

Patients should not undergo elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection unless there is the risk of a negative evolution of the disease. To mitigate the risk of postsurgical mortality, a multidisciplinary approach seemed useful in addition to the use of validated algorithms to estimate the risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality; the risk related to SARS-CoV-2 infection should be added. The risk of potential nosocomial contagion from a positive patients should also be considered when deciding to proceed with surgery. Most of the evidence came from previous SARS-CoV-2 variants, so the evidence should be considered indirect.

CONCLUSION

A balanced preoperative multidisciplinary risk-benefit evaluation is needed in patients with previous infection by SARS-CoV-2 for elective surgery.

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, Centre for Perioperative Care, Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Surgeons of England

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.

Insights into the Role of Neutrophils and Neutrophil Extracellular Traps in Causing Cardiovascular Complications in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has resulted in significant mortality and burdening of healthcare resources. While initially noted as a pulmonary pathology, subsequent studies later identified cardiovascular involvement with high mortalities reported in specific cohorts of patients. While cardiovascular comorbidities were identified early on, the exact manifestation and etiopathology of the infection remained elusive. This systematic review aims to investigate the role of inflammatory pathways, highlighting several culprits including neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) which have since been extensively investigated. Method: A search was conducted using three databases (MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and EMBASE). Data from randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective series, meta-analyses, and unmatched observational studies were considered for the processing of the algorithm and treatment of inflammatory response during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies without the SARS-CoV-2 Infection period and case reports were excluded. Results: A total of 47 studies were included in this study. The role of the acute inflammatory response in the propagation of the systemic inflammatory sequelae of the disease plays a major part in determining outcomes. Some of the mechanisms of activation of these pathways have been highlighted in previous studies and are highlighted. Conclusion: NETs play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of the inflammatory response. Despite moving into the endemic phase of the disease in most countries, COVID-19 remains an entity that has not been fully understood with long-term effects remaining uncertain and requiring ongoing monitoring and research.

Association between COVID-19 Diagnosis and Coronary Artery Thrombosis: A Narrative Review

Coronavirus disease 2019 is characterized by its severe respiratory effects. Data early on indicated an increased risk of mortality in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. Early reports highlighted the multisystem inflammatory syndrome, cytokine storm, and thromboembolic events as part of the disease processes. The aim of this review is to assess the association between COVID-19 and its thrombotic complications, specifically related to the cardiovascular system. The role of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) is explored in the pathogenesis of the disease. The structure and anatomy of the virus are pivotal to its virulence in comparison to other α and β Coronaviridae (HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1). In particular, the host interaction and response may explain the variability of severity in patients. Angio tensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) activation may be implicated in the cardiovascular and throm bogenic potential of the disease. The virus may also have direct effects on the endothelial lining affecting hemostasis and resulting in thrombosis through several mechanisms. Dipyridamole may have a therapeutic benefit in NET suppression. Therapeutic avenues should be concentrated on the different pathophysiological steps involving the virus and the host.

Molecular Insights of SARS-CoV-2 Antivirals Administration: A Balance between Safety Profiles and Impact on Cardiovascular Phenotypes

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a complex clinical challenge, caused by a novel coronavirus, partially similar to previously known coronaviruses but with a different pattern of contagiousness, complications, and mortality. Since its global spread, several therapeutic agents have been developed to address the heterogeneous disease treatment, in terms of severity, hospital or outpatient management, and pre-existing clinical conditions. To better understand the rationale of new or old repurposed medications, the structure and host-virus interaction molecular bases are presented. The recommended agents by EDSA guidelines comprise of corticosteroids, JAK-targeting monoclonal antibodies, IL-6 inhibitors, and antivirals, some of them showing narrow indications due to the lack of large population trials and statistical power. The aim of this review is to present FDA-approved or authorized for emergency use antivirals, namely remdesivir, molnupinavir, and the combination nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and their impact on the cardiovascular system. We reviewed the literature for metanalyses, randomized clinical trials, and case reports and found positive associations between remdesivir and ritonavir administration at therapeutic doses and changes in cardiac conduction, relatable to their previously known pro-arrhythmogenic effects and important ritonavir interactions with cardioactive medications including antiplatelets, anti-arrhythmic agents, and lipid-lowering drugs, possibly interfering with pre-existing therapeutic regimens. Nonetheless, safety profiles of antivirals are largely questioned and addressed by health agencies, in consideration of COVID-19 cardiac and pro-thrombotic complications generally experienced by predisposed subjects. Our advice is to continuously adhere to the strict indications of FDA documents, monitor the possible side effects of antivirals, and increase physicians' awareness on the co-administration of antivirals and cardiovascular-relevant medications. This review dissects the global and local tendency to structure patient-based treatment plans, for a glance towards practical application of precision medicine.

Instituting a Green Zone for Elective Surgery During the Second Wave of COVID-19

Objective

Elective surgery came to a standstill during the first wave of COVID-19. The safe resumption of elective surgery with COVID-19 prevalent in the community remains a significant challenge. The aim of this study was to look into the outcomes of elective general surgery in a dedicated ‘Green Zone (GZ)’ during the second wave of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.

Method

A ‘Green Zone’ pathway, meant to provide a COVID-free environment, was created. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was done on consecutive patients who underwent an elective general surgical procedure at a single NHS trust over a six-month period (September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021). The primary outcome was 30-day COVID-19 mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day non-COVID-19 mortality, readmissions, and complications.

Results

The study included 331 patients with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, IQR, 41-67); 169 (51%) were females. The majority of the patients were American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade 2 (ASA 2; n=177, 53%) followed by ASA 3 (n=76, 23%). Forty-seven patients (14%) had been shielding earlier in the year. Most of the cases were day cases (n=224, 67%). There was no 30-day COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 mortality. One patient developed COVID-19 three weeks after the index operation. Thirty-day readmission and complication rate were 4% (n=14) and 6% (n=21). Most of the complications were Clavien-Dindo grade 2 (n=10, 3%) followed by an equal number of grades 1 and 3b (n=5, 1.5%).

Conclusion

This study has shown that a dedicated ‘Green Zone’ elective operating pathway is safe and feasible provided a balanced risk assessment approach is adopted.

Unequal Impact of COVID-19 on Private and Academic Neurosurgical Workforce: Results of an International Survey

Background: Since the COVID-19 outbreak several manuscripts regarding neurosurgical practice during this pandemic have been published. Qualitative studies on how the pandemic affected neurosurgeons, with additional focus on their practice, are still scarce. This study's objective was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of the professional and private life of a homogeneous group of international neurosurgeons affiliated to the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). Methods: Neurosurgeons from Europe and abroad were invited to participate in an online survey endorsed by the Individual Membership Committee of the EANS. The survey captured a subjective snapshot of the impact of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on EANS members and was advertised through its Institutional website. In addition to departmental data, personal feeling of safety, financial security, local precautions, number of surgeries performed, changes in daily routine, and other practice-related information were inquired. Differences among practice types were closely reviewed. Results: The survey was distributed between April and May 2020: 204 neurosurgeons participated. Participants were typically active EANS members (73%), consultants (57.9%), from university hospitals (64.5%). Elective surgical practice was still ongoing only for 15% of responders, whereas 18.7% of them had already transitioned to COVID-19 and emergency medical services. While 65.7% of participants thought their institutions were adequately prepared, lack of testing for SARS-CoV-2, and scarcity of personal protective equipment were still a matter of concern for most of them. Overall surgical activity dropped by 68% (cranial by 54%, spine by 71%), and even emergencies decreased by 35%. COVID-19 prompted changes in communication in 74% of departments, 44% increased telemedicine by >50%. While most neurosurgeons had concerns about personal and families' health, financial outlook appeared to be gloomy only for private practitioners. Conclusion: The lockdown imposed in many countries by the COVID-19 outbreak called for immediate modification of working routine and resulted in a dramatic decrease of elective surgical procedures. Neurosurgeons share common concerns but were not equally exposed to the personal health and financial dangers of the ongoing pandemic.