Daily disease severity in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital: The SCODA (severity of coronavirus disease assessment) score.

BACKGROUND: A multitude of diagnostic and predictive algorithms have been designed for COVID-19. However, currently no score can accurately quantify and track day-to-day disease severity in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We aimed to design such a score to improve pathophysiological insight in COVID-19. METHODS: Development of the Severity of COronavirus Disease Assessment (SCODA) score was based on the 4C Mortality score but patient demographic variables that remain constant during admission were excluded. Instead, parameters associated with breathing and oxygenation were added to reflect the daily condition. The SCODA score was subsequently applied to the BEAT-COVID cohort to describe COVID-19 severity over time and to determine the timing of clinical recovery for each patient, an important marker in pathophysiological studies. The BEAT-COVID study included patients with PCR confirmed COVID-19 who were hospitalized between April 2020 and March 2021 in the Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands. RESULTS: The SCODA score consists of 6 clinical and 2 routine lab parameters. 191 patients participated in the BEAT-COVID study. Median age was 66, and 74.4% was male. The modal timepoint at which recovery was clinically initiated occurred on days 8 and 24 since symptom onset for non-ICU and ICU-patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a daily score which can be used to track disease severity of patients admitted due to COVID-19. This score is useful for improving insight in COVID-19 pathophysiology, its clinical course and to evaluate interventions. In a future stage this score can also be used in other (emerging) infectious respiratory diseases.

The risk of venous thromboembolism after minor surgical procedures: A population-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is a well-known risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, for several minor surgical procedures, thromboprophylaxis is not advised. OBJECTIVES: These "low-risk" procedures include a wide variation of interventions for which we estimated the VTE risk to verify their "low-risk" status. PATIENTS/METHODS: We used data from a large population-based case-control study (Multiple Environment and Genetic Assessment study) into causes of VTE, and linked these to the Dutch Hospital Data Registry to identify exposure to surgical procedures. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for the 90-day and 1-year relative risks of VTE following these procedures, which were adjusted for body mass index (BMI), sex, age, comorbidities, and infection/inflammation. RESULTS: We included 4247 patients with VTE and 5538 control subjects. Median age and BMI were 48.5 years and 25.5 m2/kg, respectively. Nine unique procedures or groups of procedures were analyzed. One hundred twenty-three participants-90 cases and 33 controls-had undergone a minor procedure within 90 days of the index date, resulting in a 3.5-fold (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.3-5.3) overall increased VTE risk. Furthermore, venous stripping (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.2), open abdominal/inguinal hernia repair (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.2-11.6), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.0-10.6) were associated with an increased risk. Other minor procedures were less strongly or not associated with an increased risk. In the 1-year period before the index date, all odds ratios were lower. CONCLUSION: Of the "low-risk" procedures, we found that venous stripping, open abdominal/inguinal hernia repair, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy were associated with a clearly increased risk of VTE within 90 postoperative days.

No Uniformity in the References of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bariatric Surgery: a Review of 3 Similar Guidelines Published in 2020.

In 2020, updated versions of the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, the Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Dutch Federation for Medical Specialist clinical practice guidelines on bariatric surgery were published. We systematically reviewed and compared them on recommendations and references. Although the authors would have had access to the same literature, only 5 out of 655 unique references were used by all 3 guidelines and just 49 references by any combination of 2 guidelines. These findings attest to the subjectivity involved in clinical practice guidelines development and could be the cause for the observed differences in recommendations. International cooperation in guideline development might be a conceivable solution.