Peri-operative COVID-19 infection in urgent elective surgery during a pandemic surge period: a retrospective observational cohort study

Maintaining safe elective surgical activity during the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is challenging and it is not clear how COVID-19 may impact peri-operative morbidity and mortality in this population. Therefore, adaptations to normal care pathways are required. Here, we establish if implementation of a bespoke peri-operative care bundle for urgent elective surgery during a pandemic surge period can deliver a low COVID-19-associated complication profile. We present a single-centre retrospective cohort study from a tertiary care hospital of patients planned for urgent elective surgery during the initial COVID-19 surge in the UK between 29 March and 12 June 2020. Patients asymptomatic for COVID-19 were screened by oronasal swab and chest imaging (chest X-ray or computed tomography if aged ≥ 18 years), proceeding to surgery if negative. COVID-19 positive patients at screening were delayed. Postoperatively, patients transitioning to COVID-19 positive status by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing were identified by an in-house tracking system and monitored for complications and death within 30 days of surgery. Out of 557 patients referred for surgery (230 (41.3%) women; median (IQR [range]) age 61 (48-72 [1-89])), 535 patients (96%) had COVID-19 screening, of which 13 were positive (2.4%, 95%CI 1.4-4.1%). Out of 512 patients subsequently undergoing surgery, 7 (1.4%) developed COVID-19 positive status (1.4%, 95%CI 0.7-2.8%) with one COVID-19-related death (0.2%, 95%CI 0.0-1.1%) within 30 days. Out of these seven patients, four developed pneumonia, of which two required invasive ventilation including one patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Low rates of COVID-19 infection and mortality in the elective surgical population can be achieved within a targeted care bundle. This should provide reassurance that elective surgery can continue, where possible, despite high community rates of COVID-19.

Reliability of repeated arm-crank cardiopulmonary exercise tests in patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm

Arm-crank ergometry may be useful in patients unable to pedal, for instance due to peripheral arterial disease. Twenty participants with small abdominal aortic aneurysm undertook two serial arm-crank tests and then a pedal test, four of whom had indeterminate anaerobic thresholds, precluding analysis. The mean (SD) peak arm and leg oxygen consumptions in 16 participants were 13.71 (2.62) ml.kg^-1 .min^-1 and 16.82 (4.44) ml.kg^-1 .min^-1 , with mean (SD) individual differences of 3.11 (2.48) ml.kg^-1 .min^-1 , p = 0.0001. The respective values at the anaerobic thresholds were 7.83 (1.58) ml O₂ .kg^-1 .min^-1 and 10.09 (3.15) ml O₂ .kg^-1 .min^-1 , with mean (SD) individual differences of 2.26 (2.34) ml O₂ .kg^-1 .min^-1 , p = 0.0001. The correlation coefficients (95%CI) for peak oxygen consumption and anaerobic threshold were 0.88 (0.62-1.0) and 0.70 (0.32-1.0). There were no significant differences in serial arm-crank tests, with intracluster correlations (95%CI) of 0.87 (0.86-0.88) and 0.65 (0.61-0.69) for peak oxygen consumption and anaerobic threshold, respectively.

Clinical guideline and recommendations on pre-operative exercise training in patients awaiting major non-cardiac surgery

Despite calls for the routine implementation of pre-operative exercise programmes to optimise patient fitness before elective major surgery, there is no practical guidance for providing safe and effective exercise in this specific context. The following clinical guideline was developed following a review of the evidence on the effects of pre-operative exercise interventions. We developed a series of best-practice and, where possible, evidence-based statements to advise on patient care with respect to exercise training in the peri-operative period. These statements cover: patient selection for exercise training in surgical patients; integration of exercise training into multi-modal prehabilitation programmes; and advice on exercise prescription factors and follow-up. Although we acknowledge that further research is needed to identify the optimal exercise prescription in different clinical scenarios, we urge peri-operative teams to make use of these recommendations.

Do first impressions count? Frailty judged by initial clinical impression predicts medium-term mortality in vascular surgical patients

Recognising frailty during pre-operative assessment is important. Frail patients experience higher mortality rates and are less likely to return to baseline functional status following the physiological insult of surgery. We evaluated the association between an initial clinical impression of frailty and all-cause mortality in 392 patients attending our vascular pre-operative assessment clinic. Prevalence of frailty assessed by the initial clinical impression was 30.6% (95% CI 26.0-35.2%). There were 133 deaths in 392 patients over a median follow-up period of 4 years. Using Cox regression, adjusted for age, sex, revised cardiac risk index and surgery (yes/no), the hazard ratio for mortality for frail vs. not-frail was 2.14 (95% CI 1.51-3.05). The time to 20% mortality was 16 months in the frail group and 33 months in the not-frail group. The initial clinical impression is a useful screening tool to identify frail patients in pre-operative assessment.

Prevalence and implications of a difference in systolic blood pressure between one arm and the other in vascular surgical patients

Inter-arm differences in blood pressure may confound haemodynamic management in vascular surgery. We evaluated 898 patients in the vascular pre-assessment clinic to determine the prevalence of inter-arm differences in systolic and mean arterial pressure, quantify the consequent risk of clinical error in siting monitoring peri-operatively and evaluate systolic inter-arm difference as a predictor of all-cause mortality (median follow-up 49 months). The prevalence of a systolic inter-arm difference ≥ 15 mmHg was 26% (95% CI 23-29%). The prevalence of an inter-arm mean arterial pressure difference ≥ 10 mmHg was 26% (95% CI 23-29%) and 11% (95% CI 9-13%) for a difference ≥ 15 mmHg. Monitoring could be erroneously sited in an arm reading lower for systolic pressure once in every seven to nine patients. The hazard ratio for a systolic inter-arm difference ≥ 15 mmHg vs < 15 mmHg was 1.03 (95% CI 0.78-1.36, p = 0.84). Large inter-arm blood pressure differences are common in this population, with a high potential for monitoring errors. Systolic inter-arm difference was not associated with medium-term mortality. [Correction added on 17 October 2013, after first online publication: In the Summary the sentence beginning 'We evaluated 898 patients' was corrected from (median (IQR [range]) follow-up 49 months) to read (median follow up 49 months)].