Perioperative management of non-deferrable oncologic surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic in Madrid, Spain. Is it safe?

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment during Covid-19 pandemic is controversial. Currently, most clinical guidelines advise to defer surgical patients during the Covid-19 pandemic, although the supporting data is sparse. We assumed that a Covid-19-free hospital, on the back of strong isolation measures and targeted screening, could reduce complications and enable us to continue treating high-risk patients. METHODS: Prospective study with retrospective analysis of 355 patients who had undergone nondeferrable oncological surgery between March 16th, 2020, and April 14th, 2020, at our institution. The aim of the study was to assess the hospital restructuring and surgical protocols to be able to safely handle non-deferrable surgeries during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. We implemented structural changes and an updated surgical-anesthetic protocol in order to isolate Covid-19 patients from other surgical patients. Comprehensive targeted screening for Covid-19 patients was made. PCR tests were requested for suspected Covid-19 patients. We analyzed mortality and complications related to both surgery and Covid-19 during hospital admission and also 15 and 30 days after surgery. We compared it with a sample of similar patients in the pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Of the 355 patients enrolled in our study, 21 were removed due to Covid-19 infection, leaving a total of 334 patients in our final analysis. Post-operative complications were found in 37 patients (11.07%). Two patients died after surgery (0.6%). At the end of the study, Covid-19-related adverse outcomes were detected in six patients (1.79%). When comparing the complications of our original sample with the complications that occurred in the pre-covid era, we found no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the surgical treatment of oncologic patients during the Covid-19 pandemic is safe, as long as the hospital performs surgeries under strict isolation measures and a robust screening method. It is necessary to select Covid-19 free hospitals for this matter in this and future pandemics.

Manejo perioperatorio de cirugías oncológicas no diferibles durante la pandemia de covid-19 en Madrid, España ¿Es seguro? / Perioperative management of non-deferrable oncologic surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic in Madrid, Spain. Is it safe?

Introducción: El tratamiento quirúrgico durante la pandemia de COVID-19 es controvertido. Actualmente, la mayoría de las guías clínicas recomiendan posponer la cirugía a los pacientes durante la pandemia de COVID-19, aunque los datos de apoyo son escasos. Asumimos que un hospital sin COVID-19, apoyado en fuertes medidas de aislamiento y exámenes de detección específicos, podría reducir las complicaciones y nos permitiría continuar tratando a pacientes de alto riesgo. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo con análisis retrospectivo de 355 pacientes sometidos a cirugía oncológica no diferible entre el 16 de marzo de 2020 y el 14 de abril de 2020 en nuestra institución. El objetivo del estudio fue valorar la reestructuración hospitalaria y de los protocolos quirúrgicos para poder manejar con seguridad las cirugías no diferibles durante la primera ola de pandemia por COVID-19. Implementamos cambios estructurales y un protocolo anestésico-quirúrgico actualizado para aislar a los pacientes con COVID-19 de otros pacientes quirúrgicos. Se realizó una evaluación exhaustiva dirigida a detectar pacientes con COVID-19. Se solicitaron pruebas de PCR para pacientes sospechosos de COVID-19. Analizamos la mortalidad y las complicaciones relacionadas tanto con la cirugía como con la COVID-19 durante el ingreso hospitalario y también a los 15 días y al mes de la cirugía. Comparamos nuestros resultados con una muestra de pacientes similar en el periodo pre-pandemia. Resultados: De los 355 pacientes incluidos en nuestro estudio, 21 fueron eliminados debido a la infección por COVID-19, lo que deja un total de 334 pacientes en nuestro análisis final. Se encontraron complicaciones postoperatorias en 37 pacientes (11,07%). Dos pacientes fallecieron tras la cirugía (0,6%).(AU)

Introduction: Surgical treatment during COVID-19 pandemic is controversial. Currently, most clinical guidelines advise to defer surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the supporting data is sparse. We assumed that a COVID-19-free hospital, on the back of strong isolation measures and targeted screening, could reduce complications and enable us to continue treating high-risk patients. Methods: Prospective study with retrospective analysis of 355 patients who had undergone nondeferrable oncological surgery between March 16th, 2020, and April 14th, 2020, at our institution. The aim of the study was to assess the hospital restructuring and surgical protocols to be able to safely handle non-deferrable surgeries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We implemented structural changes and an updated surgical-anesthetic protocol in order to isolate COVID-19 patients from other surgical patients. Comprehensive targeted screening for COVID-19 patients was made. PCR tests were requested for suspected COVID-19 patients. We analyzed mortality and complications related to both surgery and COVID-19 during hospital admission and also 15 and 30 days after surgery. We compared it with a sample of similar patients in the pre-pandemic period. Results: Of the 355 patients enrolled in our study, 21 were removed due to COVID-19 infection, leaving a total of 334 patients in our final analysis. Post-operative complications were found in 37 patients (11.07%). Two patients died after surgery (0.6%). At the end of the study, COVID-19-related adverse outcomes were detected in six patients (1.79%). When comparing the complications of our original sample with the complications that occurred in the pre-COVID era, we found no statistically significant differences.(AU)

[Perioperative management of non-deferrable oncologic surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic in Madrid, Spain. Is it safe?] / Manejo perioperatorio de cirugías oncológicas no diferibles durante la pandemia de covid-19 en Madrid, España ¿Es seguro?

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment during COVID-19 pandemic is controversial. Currently, most clinical guidelines advise to defer surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the supporting data is sparse. We assumed that a COVID-19-free hospital, on the back of strong isolation measures and targeted screening, could reduce complications and enable us to continue treating high-risk patients. METHODS: Prospective study with retrospective analysis of 355 patients who had undergone nondeferrable oncological surgery between March 16th, 2020, and April 14th, 2020, at our institution. The aim of the study was to assess the hospital restructuring and surgical protocols to be able to safely handle non-deferrable surgeries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We implemented structural changes and an updated surgical-anesthetic protocol in order to isolate COVID-19 patients from other surgical patients. Comprehensive targeted screening for COVID-19 patients was made. PCR tests were requested for suspected COVID-19 patients. We analyzed mortality and complications related to both surgery and COVID-19 during hospital admission and also 15 and 30 days after surgery. We compared it with a sample of similar patients in the pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Of the 355 patients enrolled in our study, 21 were removed due to COVID-19 infection, leaving a total of 334 patients in our final analysis. Post-operative complications were found in 37 patients (11.07%). Two patients died after surgery (0.6%). At the end of the study, COVID-19-related adverse outcomes were detected in six patients (1.79%). When comparing the complications of our original sample with the complications that occurred in the pre-COVID era, we found no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the surgical treatment of oncologic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is safe, as long as the hospital performs surgeries under strict isolation measures and a robust screening method. It is necessary to select COVID-19 free hospitals for this matter in this and future pandemics.

Perioperative management of non-deferrable oncologic surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic in Madrid, Spain. Is it safe? / Manejo perioperatorio de cirugías oncológicas no diferibles durante la pandemia de covid-19 en Madrid, España ¿Es seguro?

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment during COVID-19 pandemic is controversial. Currently, most clinical guidelines advise to defer surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the supporting data is sparse. We assumed that a COVID-19-free hospital, on the back of strong isolation measures and targeted screening, could reduce complications and enable us to continue treating high-risk patients. METHODS: Prospective study with retrospective analysis of 355 patients who had undergone nondeferrable oncological surgery between March 16th, 2020, and April 14th, 2020, at our institution. The aim of the study was to assess the hospital restructuring and surgical protocols to be able to safely handle non-deferrable surgeries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We implemented structural changes and an updated surgical-anesthetic protocol in order to isolate COVID-19 patients from other surgical patients. Comprehensive targeted screening for COVID-19 patients was made. PCR tests were requested for suspected COVID-19 patients. We analyzed mortality and complications related to both surgery and COVID-19 during hospital admission and also 15 and 30 days after surgery. We compared it with a sample of similar patients in the pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Of the 355 patients enrolled in our study, 21 were removed due to COVID-19 infection, leaving a total of 334 patients in our final analysis. Post-operative complications were found in 37 patients (11.07%). Two patients died after surgery (0.6%). At the end of the study, COVID-19-related adverse outcomes were detected in six patients (1.79%). When comparing the complications of our original sample with the complications that occurred in the pre-COVID era, we found no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the surgical treatment of oncologic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is safe, as long as the hospital performs surgeries under strict isolation measures and a robust screening method. It is necessary to select COVID-19 free hospitals for this matter in this and future pandemics.

The original and simplified Wells rules and age-adjusted D-dimer testing to rule out pulmonary embolism: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

Essentials Evidence for the simplified Wells rule in ruling out acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is scarce. This was a post-hoc analysis on data from 6 studies comprising 7268 patients with suspected PE. The simplified Wells rule combined with age-adjusted D-dimer testing may safely rule out PE. Given its ease of use, the simplified Wells rule is to be preferred over the original Wells rule. SUMMARY: Background The Wells score and D-dimer testing can safely rule out pulmonary embolism (PE). A simplification of the Wells score has been proposed to improve clinical applicability, but evidence on its performance is scarce. Objectives To compare the performances of the original and simplified Wells scores alone and in combination with age-adjusted D-dimer testing. Methods Individual patient data from 7268 patients with suspected PE enrolled in six management studies were used to evaluate the discriminatory performances of the original and simplified Wells scores. The efficiency and failure rate of the dichotomized original and simplified scores combined with age-adjusted D-dimer testing were compared by use of a one-stage random effects meta-analysis. Efficiency was defined as the proportion of patients in whom PE could be considered to be excluded on the basis of a 'PE unlikely' Wells score and a negative age-adjusted D-dimer test result. Failure rate was defined as the proportion of patients with symptomatic venous thromboembolism during a 3-month follow-up. Results The discriminatory performances of the original and simplified Wells scores were comparable (c-statistic 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.75] versus 0.72 [95% CI 0.70-0.73]). When combined with age-adjusted D-dimer testing, the original and simplified Wells rules had comparable efficiency (3% [95% CI 25-42%] versus 30% [95% CI 21-40%]) and failure rates (0.9% [95% CI 0.6-1.5%] versus 0.8% [95% CI 0.5-1.3%]). Conclusion The original and simplified Wells rules combined with age-adjusted D-dimer testing have similar performances in ruling out PE. Given its ease of use in clinical practice, the simplified Wells rule is to be preferred.

Is stand-alone D-dimer testing safe to rule out acute pulmonary embolism?

Essentials A stand-alone D-dimer below 750 µg/L has been proposed to rule out acute pulmonary embolism (PE). This was a post-hoc analysis on data from 6 studies comprising 7268 patients with suspected PE. The negative predictive value of a D-dimer <750 µg/L ranged from 79% to 96% in various subgroups. Stand-alone D-dimer testing seems to be unsafe to rule out PE in all patients. SUMMARY: Background Recently, stand-alone D-dimer testing at a positivity threshold of 750 µg L-1 has been proposed as a safe and efficient approach to rule out acute pulmonary embolism (PE), without additional imaging, but this approach needs validation. Objectives To evaluate stand-alone D-dimer testing at a positivity threshold of 750 µg L-1 to rule out PE. Methods Individual data from 7268 patients with suspected PE previously enrolled in six prospective management studies were used. Patients were assessed by the Wells rule followed by quantitative D-dimer testing in those with a 'PE unlikely' score. Patients were classified post hoc as having a negative (< 750 µg L-1 ) or positive (≥ 750 µg L-1 ) D-dimer. Using a one-stage meta-analytic approach, the negative predictive value (NPV) of stand-alone D-dimer testing was evaluated overall and in different risk subgroups. Results The pooled incidence of PE was 23% (range, 13-42%). Overall, 44% of patients had a D-dimer < 750 µg L-1 , of whom 2.8% were diagnosed with PE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up (NPV, 97.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94.9-98.5). The NPV was highest in patients with a low probability of PE according to the Wells rule (99.2%; 95% CI, 98.6-99.5%) and lowest in those with a high probability of PE (79.3%; 95% CI, 53.0-92.8%). The NPVs in patients with active cancer, patients with previous venous thromboembolism and inpatients were 96.2% (95% CI, 85.6-99.1%), 94.7% (95% CI, 88.6-97.6%) and 92.7% (95% CI, 79.3-97.7%), respectively. Conclusions Our findings suggest that stand-alone D-dimer testing at a positivity threshold of 750 µg L-1 is not safe to rule out acute PE.

Amnesia global transitoria en el contexto de una anestesia general / Transient global amnesia after general anaesthesia

La amnesia global transitoria es un síndrome neurológico en el que se produce una pérdida abrupta y pasajera de la capacidad para crear nuevos recuerdos, así como una amnesia retrógrada de intensidad variable, permaneciendo, sin embargo, preservadas la conciencia, la identidad personal y la atención. Se trata de una entidad poco frecuente tras un proceso anestésico. Existen distintas hipótesis etiopatogénicas (base epiléptica, migrañosa o isquémica) y desencadenantes (dolor, la ansiedad, los cambios de temperatura, el ejercicio, las maniobras de Valsalva, las pruebas diagnósticas o determinados medicamentos). Describimos el caso de una paciente con alto grado de ansiedad preoperatoria que sufrió un episodio de amnesia global transitoria tras una intervención quirúrgica otorrinolaringológica. Ante un episodio de amnesia aguda y mantenida tras una anestesia general debemos plantear, en primer lugar, un adecuado diagnóstico diferencial que incluya la amnesia global transitoria, puesto que, en la mayoría de los casos, se trata de un diagnóstico de exclusión. La ansiedad preoperatoria puede ser un desencadenante a tener en cuenta en esta entidad, siendo importante el tratamiento ansiolítico previo a la intervención(AU)

Transient global amnesia is a neurological syndrome in which there is a sudden and brief inability to form new memories, as well as an intense retrograde amnesia. However, awareness, personal identity and attention remain intact. It is an uncommon condition seen after an anaesthetic procedure. There are several aetiopathogenic hypotheses (epileptic, migrainous or ischaemic origin) and triggering factors (pain, anxiety, temperature changes, exercise, Valsalva manoeuvres, diagnostic tests or certain drugs). We describe the case of a patient with a high level of pre-operative anxiety who suffered an episode of transient global amnesia after undergoing otolaryngology surgery. With an acute and continued amnesia after general anaesthesia, the first thing that must be done is to establish a suitable differencial diagnosis, which should include transient global amnesia, as this is mainly an exclusion diagnosis. Preoperative anxiety may be a triggering factor to take into account in this condition, with anxiolytic treatment prior to the surgery being important(AU)

[Transient global amnesia after general anaesthesia]. / Amnesia global transitoria en el contexto de una anestesia general.

Transient global amnesia is a neurological syndrome in which there is a sudden and brief inability to form new memories, as well as an intense retrograde amnesia. However, awareness, personal identity and attention remain intact. It is an uncommon condition seen after an anaesthetic procedure. There are several aetiopathogenic hypotheses (epileptic, migrainous or ischaemic origin) and triggering factors (pain, anxiety, temperature changes, exercise, Valsalva manoeuvres, diagnostic tests or certain drugs). We describe the case of a patient with a high level of pre-operative anxiety who suffered an episode of transient global amnesia after undergoing otolaryngology surgery. With an acute and continued amnesia after general anaesthesia, the first thing that must be done is to establish a suitable differencial diagnosis, which should include transient global amnesia, as this is mainly an exclusion diagnosis. Preoperative anxiety may be a triggering factor to take into account in this condition, with anxiolytic treatment prior to the surgery being important.

Effectiveness of a diagnostic algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism in an emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of a simplified algorithm using the Wells clinical decision rule, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography (CT) in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in an Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: Patients with clinically suspected PE from the Emergency Department were included from May 2007 through December 2008. Clinical probability was assessed using the Wells clinical decision rule and a VIDAS D-dimer assay was used to measure D-dimer concentration. Patients were categorized as "pulmonary embolism unlikely" or "pulmonary embolism likely" using the dichotomized version of the Wells clinical decision rule. Pulmonary embolism was considered excluded in patients with unlikely probability and normal D-dimer test (< 500 ng/ml). All other patients underwent CT, and pulmonary embolism was considered present or excluded based on the results. Anticoagulants were withheld from patients classified as excluded, and all patients were followed up for 3 months. RESULTS: 241 patients were included in the study. The prevalence of PE in the entire population was 23.6%. The combination of unlikely probability using the dichotomized Wells clinical decision rule and a normal D-dimer level occurred in 23.6%, thus making CT unnecessary. During the followup period, no thromboembolic events were recorded and there were no deaths related to venous thromboembolic disease (3-month thromboembolic risk 0% [95% CI, 0%-8%]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study we have confirmed the effectiveness of a diagnostic management strategy using a simple clinical decision rule, D-dimer testing, and CT in the evaluation and management of patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism.