Emergency Department Visits and Deaths from Cardiovascular Diseases at a Referral Center for Cardiology During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed measures of social distancing and, during this time, there has been an elevation in cardiovascular mortality rates and a decrease in the number of emergency visits. Objectives To assess and compare in-hospital mortality for cardiovascular diseases and emergency department visits during the COVID-19 pandemic and the same period in 2019. Methods Retrospective, single-center study that evaluated emergency visits and in-hospital deaths between March 16, 2020 and June 16, 2020, when the steepest fall in the number of emergency admissions for COVID-19 was registered. These data were compared with the emergency visits and in-hospital deaths between March 16 and June 16, 2019. We analyzed the total number of deaths, and cardiovascular deaths. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Results There was a 35% decrease in the number of emergency visits and an increase in the ratio of the number of deaths to the number of emergency visits in 2020. The increase in the ratio of the number of all-cause deaths to the number of emergency visits was 45.6% and the increase in the ratio of the number of cardiovascular deaths to the number of emergency visits was 62.1%. None of the patients who died in the study period in 2020 tested positive for COVID-19. Conclusion In-hospital mortality for cardiovascular diseases increased proportionally to the number of emergency visits during the COVID-19-imposed social distancing compared with the same period in 2019. (Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

Geographic Variation in the Utilization of and Mortality After Emergency General Surgery Operations in the Northeastern and Southeastern United States.

OBJECTIVE: To define geographic variations in emergency general surgery (EGS) care, we sought to determine how much variability exists in the rates of EGS operations and subsequent mortality in the Northeastern and Southeastern United States (US). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: While some geographic variations in healthcare are normal, unwarranted variations raise questions about the quality, appropriateness, and cost-effectiveness of care in different areas. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years who underwent 1 of 10 common EGS operations were identified using the State Inpatient Databases (2011-2012) for 6 states, representing Northeastern (New York) and Southeastern (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi) US. Geographic unit of analysis was the hospital service area (HSA). Age-standardized rates of operations and in-hospital mortality were calculated and mapped. Differences in rates across geographic areas were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and variance quantified using linear random-effects models. Variation profiles were tabulated via standardized rates of utilization and mortality to compare geographically heterogenous areas. RESULTS: 227,109 EGS operations were geospatially analyzed across the 6 states. Age-standardized EGS operation rates varied significantly by region (Northeast rate of 22.7 EGS operations per 10,000 in population versus Southeast 21.9; P < 0.001), state (ranging from 9.9 to 29.1; P < 0.001), and HSA (1.9-56.7; P < 0.001). The geographic variability in age-standardized EGS mortality rates was also significant at the region level (Northeast mortality rate 7.2 per 1000 operations vs Southeast 7.4; P < 0.001), state-level (ranging from 5.9 to 9.0 deaths per 1000 EGS operations; P < 0.001), and HSA-level (0.0-77.3; P < 0.001). Maps and variation profiles visually exhibited widespread and substantial differences in EGS use and morality. CONCLUSIONS: Wide geographic variations exist across 6 Northeastern and Southeastern US states in the rates of EGS operations and subsequent mortality. More detailed geographic analyses are needed to determine the basis of these variations and how they can be minimized.

Midterm outcomes of emergency surgery for acute type A aortic dissection in octogenarians.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of elderly patients with acute type A aortic dissection is increasing. A recent analysis of the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection failed to show a mortality benefit with surgery compared with medical management in octogenarians. Therefore, we compared our institutional outcomes of emergency surgery for acute type A aortic dissection in octogenarians versus septuagenarians to understand the outcomes of surgical intervention in elderly patients. METHODS: From 2002 to 2017, 70 octogenarians (aged ≥80 years) and 165 septuagenarians (70-79 years) underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection (N = 235, total). Quality of life was assessed by the RAND Short Form-36 quality of life survey. Midterm clinical and functional data were obtained retrospectively. RESULTS: At baseline, septuagenarians had a higher prevalence of diabetes (20.6% vs 5.7%, P = .01). The prevalence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 4.8% versus 10.0% (P = .24) in septuagenarians and octogenarians. The prevalence of cardiogenic shock was 18.2% versus 27.1% (P = .17). Thirty-day/in-hospital mortality was 21.2% versus 28.6% (P = .29). Multivariable logistic regression identified cardiogenic shock as an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 10.07; 95% confidence interval, 2.30-44.03) in octogenarians. Survival at 5 years was 49.7% (42.1%-58.6%) versus 34.2% (23.9%-48.8%) in septuagenarians and octogenarians, respectively. Responses to the quality of life survey were no different between septuagenarians and octogenarians across all 8 quality of life categories. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection are similar in octogenarians and septuagenarians. For discharged survivors, quality of life remains favorable and does not differ between the 2 groups.

Natural history, growth rates, and treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of a cohort of patients monitored for popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) has not been well described. A prevailing uncertainty exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategies and timing of treatment. The primary aim of the present study was to describe the care trajectory of all patients with PAAs identified at two tertiary vascular centers, both in surveillance and eventually treated. The secondary aim was to define the PAA growth rates. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study was performed of all patients with PAAs at two vascular centers in two countries (Sweden, 2009-2016; New Zealand, 2009-2017). Data were collected from electronic medical records regarding the comorbidities, treatment, and outcomes and analyzed on a patient- and extremity-specific level. Treatment was indicated at the occurrence of emergent symptoms or considered at a PAA threshold of >2 cm. The PAAs were divided into small (≤15 mm) and large (>15 mm) aneurysms. The mean surveillance follow-up was 5.1 years. RESULTS: Most of the 241 identified patients (397 limbs) with a diagnosis of PAAs had bilateral aneurysms (n = 156). Most patients were treated within the study period (163 of 241; 68%), and one half of the diagnosed extremities with PAA had been treated (54%; 215 of 397). Among those who had undergone elective repair, treatment had usually occurred within 1 year after the diagnosis (66%; 105 of 158). More small PAAs were detected in the group that had required emergent repair compared with elective repair (6 of 57 [11%] vs 12 of 158 [8%]; P < .001). No differences were found in the mean diameters between the elective and emergent groups (30.1 mm vs 32.2 mm; P = .39). Growth was recorded in 110 PAAs and on multivariate analysis was associated with a larger index diameter (odds ratio, 1.138; 95% confidence interval, 1.040-1.246; P = .005) and a concurrent abdominal aortic aneurysm (odds ratio, 2.553; 95% confidence interval, 1.018-6.402; P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: The present cohort of patients represented a true contemporary clinical setting of monitored PAAs and showed that most of these patients will require elective repair, usually within 1 year. The risk of emergent repair is not negligible for patients with smaller diameter PAAs. However, the optimal selection strategy for preventive early repair is still unknown. Future morphologic studies are needed to support the development of individualized surveillance protocols.

Machine learning for outcome predictions of patients with trauma during emergency department care.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a machine learning model for predicting patient with trauma mortality within the US emergency departments. METHODS: This was a retrospective prognostic study using deidentified patient visit data from years 2007 to 2014 of the National Trauma Data Bank. The predictive model intelligence building process is designed based on patient demographics, vital signs, comorbid conditions, arrival mode and hospital transfer status. The mortality prediction model was evaluated on its sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operating curve (AUC), positive and negative predictive value, and Matthews correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Our final dataset consisted of 2 007 485 patient visits (36.45% female, mean age of 45), 8198 (0.4%) of which resulted in mortality. Our model achieved AUC and sensitivity-specificity gap of 0.86 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.87), 0.44 for children and 0.85 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.85), 0.44 for adults. The all ages model characteristics indicate it generalised, with an AUC and gap of 0.85 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.85), 0.45. Excluding fall injuries weakened the child model (AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.86) but strengthened adult (AUC 0.87, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.87) and all ages (AUC 0.86, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.86) models. CONCLUSIONS: Our machine learning model demonstrates similar performance to contemporary machine learning models without requiring restrictive criteria or extensive medical expertise. These results suggest that machine learning models for trauma outcome prediction can generalise to patients with trauma across the USA and may be able to provide decision support to medical providers in any healthcare setting.

The preoperative risk tool SURPAS accurately predicts outcomes in emergency surgery

O Sistema de Avaliação Pré-operatória de Risco Cirúrgico (SURPAS) utiliza oito variáveis para prever com precisão complicações pós-operatórias , mas não foi suficientemente estudado em cirurgia de emergência. Avaliamos o SURPAS em cirurgia de emergência, comparando-o com o Emergency Surgery Score (ESS). As estimativas SURPAS e ESS de mortalidade em 30 dias e morbidade geral foram calculadas para operações de emergência no banco de dados ACS-NSQIP de 2009­2018 e comparadas usando gráficos e taxas observadas com as esperadas, índices c e pontuações de Brier. Foram excluídos os casos com dados incompletos. Em 205.318 pacientes de emergência, o SURPAS subestimou (8,1%; 35,9%) enquanto a ESS superestimou (10,1%; 43,8%) observou mortalidade e morbidade (8,9%; 38,8%). Cada um mostrou boa calibração em gráficos observados e esperados. O SURPAS apresentou melhores índices c (0,855 vs. 0,848 de mortalidade; 0,802 vs. 0,755 de morbidade), enquanto o escore de Brier foi melhor para ESS para mortalidade (0,0666 vs. 0,0684) e para SURPAS para morbidade (0,1772 vs. 0,1950). O SURPAS previu com precisão a mortalidade e a morbidade em cirurgias de emergência usando oito variáveis preditoras.

Determinants of the decision-to-delivery interval and the effect on perinatal outcome after emergency caesarean delivery: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Preventing prolongation of the decision-to-delivery interval (DDI) for emergency caesarean delivery (CD) remains central to improving perinatal health. This study evaluated the effects of the DDI on perinatal outcome following emergency CD. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study involving 205 consenting women who had emergency CD at a tertiary hospital in Nigeria was conducted. The time-motion documentation of events from decision to delivery was documented; the outcome measures were perinatal morbidity (neonatal resuscitation, 5-minute Apgar score, neonatal intensive admission) and mortality. Data analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 20.0, and P<0.05 was considered significant. Results: The overall mean DDI was 233.99±132.61 minutes (range 44-725 minutes); the mean DDI was shortest for cord prolapse (86.25±86.25 minutes) and was shorter for booked participants compared with unbooked participants (207.19±13.88 minutes vs 249.25±12.05 minutes; P=0.030) and for general anaesthesia compared with spinal anaesthesia (219.48±128.60 minutes vs 236.19±133.42 minutes; P=0.543). All neonatal parameters were significantly worse for unbooked women compared with booked women, including perinatal mortality (10.8% vs 1.3%; P=0.012). Neonatal morbidity increased with DDI for clinical indications, UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Robson classification for CDs; perinatal mortality was 73.2 per 1000 live births, all were category 1 CDs and all except one occurred with DDI greater than 90 minutes. Severe preeclampsia/eclampsia, obstructed labour and placenta praevia tolerated DDI greater than 90 minutes compared with abruptio placentae and umbilical cord prolapse. However, logistic regression showed no statistical correlation between the DDI and neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: Perinatal morbidity and mortality increased with DDI relative to the clinical urgency but perinatal deaths were increased with DDI greater than 90 minutes. For no category of emergency CD should the DDI exceed 90 minutes, while patient and institutional factors should be addressed to reduce the DDI.

Health care workers experiences in emergency obstetric care following implementation of an in-service training program: case of 2 Referral Hospitals in Botswana.

BACKGROUND: Maternal mortality rate remains a challenge in many developing countries. OBJECTIVES: This study explored experiences of Health Care Workers on Emergency Obstetrics Care (EMOC) in-service training and its effect on maternal mortality. METHODS: Descriptive qualitative study design was conducted using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Participants were EMOC trained midwives and doctors purposively selected from the 2 referral hospitals in the country. Data were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analysed using Grounded Theory approach. RESULTS: Four themes emerged including training, EMOC implementation, maternal death factors and EMOC prioritisation. The duration of training was viewed inadequate but responsiveness to and confidence in managing obstetric emergencies improved post EMOC training. Staff shortage, HCWs non-adherence and negative attitude to EMOC guidelines; delays in instituting interventions, inadequate community involvement, minimal or no health talk to women and their partners and communities on sexual reproductive matters and non-prioritisation of EMOC by authorities were concerns raised. CONCLUSION: Strengthening health education at health facility levels, stakeholders' involvement; and prioritising EMOC in-service training are necessary in reducing the national maternal mortality.

Avaliação da eficiência das unidades de urgência e emergência: Análise Envoltória de Dados / Efficiency assessment of urgency and emergency units: Data Envelopment Analysis

Presumindo-se que os gestores de unidade de saúde do SUS tenham dois objetivos principais: 1. maximizar o número de internações (modelo orientado à produção), 2. reduzir os recursos consumidos em excesso, ou seja, quanto poderia reduzir em número de leitos, pessoal e valor de AIH para produzir as mesmas altas (modelo orientado à redução de consumo). O índice de eficiência, que assume o valor no intervalo de [0, 1], é capaz de fazer a relação entre os resultados atingidos pelas unidades de saúde no sentido de minimizar gastos/consumos e maximizar a produção. A análise envoltória de dados (DEA ­ do inglês data envelopment analysis) é uma técnica de pesquisa operacional, cujo objetivo é analisar comparativamente unidades independentes no que se refere ao desempenho relativo. Uma unidade de tomada de decisão (DMU ­ do inglês Decision Making Units) é considerada eficiente se pertencer à fronteira de eficiência dos dados, ou seja, quanto mais próximo a 1, mais eficiente é considerada a DMU, sendo que valores iguais a 1 indicam eficiência máxima. A análise envoltória de dados (DEA ­ do inglês data envelopment analysis) é uma técnica de pesquisa operacional, cujo objetivo é analisar comparativamente unidades independentes no que se refere ao desempenho relativo. Uma unidade de tomada de decisão (DMU ­ do inglês Decision Making Units) é considerada eficiente se pertencer à fronteira de eficiência dos dados, ou seja, quanto mais próximo a 1, mais eficiente é considerada a DMU, sendo que valores iguais a 1 indicam eficiência máxima

Assuming that SUS health unit managers have two main objectives: 1. Maximize the number of hospitalizations (production-oriented model),2. reduce the resources consumed in excess, that is, how much could be reduced in the number of beds, personnel and value of AIH to produce the same discharges (model oriented to the reduction of consumption). The efficiency index, which assumes the value in the range of [0, 1], is able to make the relationship between the results achieved by the health units in order to minimize expenses/consumptions and maximize production. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is an operations research technique whose objective is to comparatively analyze independent units with regard to relative performance. A decision making unit (DMU) is considered efficient if it belongs to the data efficiency frontier, that is, the closer to 1, the more efficient the DMU is considered, with values ​​equal to 1 indicating maximum efficiency. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is an operations research technique whose objective is to comparatively analyze independent units with regard to relative performance. A decision making unit (DMU) is considered efficient if it belongs to the data efficiency frontier, that is, the closer to 1, the more efficient the DMU is considered, with values ​​equal to 1 indicating maximum efficiency

Long-term survival in high-risk older adults following emergency general surgery admission.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions are increasingly common among nursing home residents. While such patients have a high risk of in-hospital mortality, long-term outcomes in this group are not well described, which may have implications for goals of care discussions. In this study, we evaluate long-term survival among nursing home residents admitted for EGS conditions. METHODS: We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of nursing home residents (65 years or older) admitted for one of eight EGS diagnoses (appendicitis, cholecystitis, strangulated hernia, bowel obstruction, diverticulitis, peptic ulcer disease, intestinal ischemia, or perforated viscus) from 2006 to 2018 in a large regional health system. The primary outcome was 1-year survival. To ascertain the effect of EGS admission independent of baseline characteristics, patients were matched to nursing home residents without an EGS admission based on demographics and baseline health. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate survival across groups. RESULTS: A total of 7,942 nursing home residents (mean age, 85 years) were admitted with an EGS diagnosis and matched to controls. One quarter of patients underwent surgery, and 18% died in hospital. At 1 year, 55% of cases were alive, compared with 72% of controls (p < 0.001). Among those undergoing surgery, 61% were alive at 1 year, compared with 72% of controls (p < 0.001). The 1-year survival probability was 57% in patients who did not require mechanical ventilation, 43% in those who required 1 to 2 days of ventilation, and 30% in those who required ≥3 days of ventilation. CONCLUSION: Although their risk of in-hospital mortality is high, most nursing home residents admitted for an EGS diagnosis survive at least 1 year. While nursing home residents presenting with an EGS diagnosis should be cited realistic odds for the risk of death, long-term survival is achievable in the majority of these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic in stroke code activation and time from symptom onset to hospital arrival in a Portuguese comprehensive stroke centre. / El impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 en la activación del Código Ictus y en el tiempo desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta la llegada al hospital en un centro de ictus portugués.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impacted emergency services worldwide. AIM: We aimed to evaluate COVID-19 effect on the number of stroke code activations and timings during the first two months of the pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the stroke code database of a single comprehensive stroke centre in Portugal for the number of activations through 2019-2020. We compared the pathway timings between March and April 2020 (COVID-19 period) and the homologous months of the previous four years (pre-COVID-19 period), whilst using February as a control. RESULTS: Monthly stroke code activation rates decreased up to 34.2% during COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the pre-COVID-19 period, we observed an increase in the time from symptom onset to emergency call, with a significant number of patients waiting more than four hours (March 20.8% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.034; April 23.8% vs. 6%, p = 0.01); as well as an increase in the time from symptom onset to hospital arrival (March: median 136 minutes [IQR 106-410] vs. 100 [IQR 64-175], p = 0.001; April: median 188 [IQR 96-394] vs. 98 [IQR 66-168], p = 0.007). No difference between both periods was found concerning in-hospital times, patient characteristics, stroke/mimic diagnosis, stroke severity, and mortality. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 related factors probably reduced healthcare services utilization, and delayed emergency calls and hospital arrival after stroke onset. These highlight the importance of health education to improve the effectiveness of medical assistance. The preservation of in-hospital times validates the feasibility of the protected stroke code protocol.

TITLE: El impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 en la activación del Código Ictus y en el tiempo desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta la llegada al hospital en un centro de ictus portugués.Introducción. La enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) provocó un considerable impacto mundial en los servicios de emergencia. Objetivo. Se pretende evaluar el efecto de la COVID-19 sobre el número y los tiempos de activaciones del Código Ictus en el comienzo de la pandemia. Material y métodos. Se revisó la base de datos del Código Ictus de un centro de ictus de Portugal entre 2016 y 2020. Se compararon los tiempos de activación entre marzo y abril de 2020 (período COVID-19) y los meses homólogos de los cuatro años anteriores, mientras que se utilizó febrero como control. Resultados. Las tasas mensuales de activación disminuyeron hasta el 34,2% durante la pandemia. En comparación con el período previo, se observó un aumento del tiempo desde los síntomas hasta la llamada de emergencia, con un aumento de pacientes que esperaron más de cuatro horas (marzo: 20,8 frente a 6,8%, p = 0,034; abril: 23,8 frente a 6%, p = 0,01) y del tiempo desde los síntomas hasta la llegada al hospital ­marzo: mediana de 136 minutos (rango intercuartílico [RIC]: 106-410) frente a 100 (RIC: 64-175), p = 0,001; abril: mediana de 188 (RIC: 96-394) frente a 98 (RIC: 66-168), p = 0,007­. No hubo diferencias en los tiempos de internamiento, las características de los pacientes, el diagnóstico de ictus/stroke mimics, la gravedad del ictus o la mortalidad. Conclusión. Los factores relacionados con la COVID-19 redujeron la utilización de los servicios sanitarios y retrasaron las llamadas de emergencia y el tiempo de llegada al hospital. Esto demuestra la importancia de la educación sanitaria para mejorar la eficacia de la asistencia médica.

Factors associated with potentially avoidable interhospital transfers in emergency general surgery-A call for quality improvement efforts.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery conditions are common, require urgent surgical evaluation, and are associated with high mortality and costs. Although appropriate interhospital transfers are critical to successful emergency general surgery care, the performance of emergency general surgery transfer systems remains unclear. We aimed to describe emergency general surgery transfer patterns and identify factors associated with potentially avoidable transfers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of emergency general surgery episodes in 8 US states using the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and Emergency Department Databases and the American Hospital Association Annual Surveys. We identified Emergency Department-to-Inpatient and Inpatient-to-Inpatient interhospital emergency general surgery transfers. Potentially avoidable transfers were defined as discharge within 72 hours after transfer without undergoing any procedure or operation at the destination hospital. We examined transfer incidence and characteristics. We performed multilevel regression examining patient-level and hospital-level factors associated with potentially avoidable transfers. RESULTS: Of 514,410 adult emergency general surgery episodes, 26,281 (5.1%) involved interhospital transfers (Emergency Department-to-Inpatient: 65.0%, Inpatient-to-Inpatient: 35.1%). Over 1 in 4 transfers were potentially avoidable (7,188, 27.4%), with the majority occurring from the emergency department. Factors associated with increased odds of potentially avoidable transfers included self-pay (versus government insurance, odds ratio: 1.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.45, P = .002), level 1 trauma centers (versus non-trauma centers, odds ratio: 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.47, P = .01), and critical access hospitals (versus non-critical access, odds ratio: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.47, P < .001). Hospital-level factors (size, trauma center, ownership, critical access, location) accounted for 36.1% of potentially avoidable transfers variability. CONCLUSION: Over 1 in 4 emergency general surgery transfers are potentially avoidable. Understanding factors associated with potentially avoidable transfers can guide research, quality improvement, and infrastructure development to optimize emergency general surgery care.

Adapting an emergency general surgery service in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, our emergency general surgery (EGS) service underwent significant restructuring, including establishing an enhanced ambulatory service and undertaking nonoperative management of selected pathologies. The aim of this study was to compare the activity of our EGS service before and after these changes. METHODS: Patients referred by the emergency department were identified prospectively over a 4-week period beginning from the date our EGS service was reconfigured (COVID) and compared with patients identified retrospectively from the same period the previous year (Pre-COVID), and followed up for 30 days. Data were extracted from handover documents and electronic care records. The primary outcomes were the rate of admission, ambulation and discharge. RESULTS: There were 281 and 283 patients during the Pre-COVID and COVID periods respectively. Admission rate decreased from 78.7% to 41.7%, while there were increased rates of ambulation from 7.1% to 17.3% and discharge from 6% to 22.6% (all p<0.001). For inpatients, mean duration of admission decreased (6.9 to 4.8 days), and there were fewer operative or endoscopic interventions (78 to 40). There were increased ambulatory investigations (11 to 39) and telephone reviews (0 to 39), while early computed tomography scan was increasingly used to facilitate discharge (5% vs 34.7%). There were no differences in 30-day readmission or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Restructuring of our EGS service in response to COVID-19 facilitated an increased use of ambulatory services and imaging, achieving a decrease of 952 inpatient bed days in this critical period, while maintaining patient safety.

Safety of emergency, elective and day case operating during the winter period at East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust: lessons from the outcomes of 4,254 surgical patients from the first COVID-19 wave.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on perioperative outcomes of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform continued operating into the winter period. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the rate of 30-day COVID-19 transmission and mortality of all surgical patients in the three hospitals in our trust in the East of England during the first lockdown in March 2020. All patients who underwent a swab were swabbed on or 24 hours prior to admission. RESULTS: There were 4,254 patients and an overall 30-day mortality of 0.99%. The excess surgical mortality in our region was 0.29%. There were 39 patients who were COVID-19 positive within 30 days of admission, 12 of whom died. All 12 were emergency admissions with a length of stay longer than 24 hours. There were three deaths among those who underwent day case surgery, one of whom was COVID-19 negative, and the other two were not swabbed but not suspected to have COVID-19. There were two COVID-19 positive elective cases and none in day case elective or emergency surgery. There were no COVID-19 positive deaths in elective or day case surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There was a low rate of COVID-19 transmission and mortality in elective and day case operations. Our data have allowed us to guide patients in the consent process and provided the evidence base to restart elective and day case operating with precautions and regular review. A number of regions will be similarly affected and should perform a review of their data for the winter period and beyond.

Travel time to emergency care not by geographic time, but by optimal time: A nationwide cross-sectional study for establishing optimal hospital access time to emergency medical care in South Korea.

Increase in travel time, beyond a critical point, to emergency care may lead to a residential disparity in the outcome of patients with acute conditions. However, few studies have evaluated the evidence of travel time benchmarks in view of the association between travel time and outcome. Thus, this study aimed to establish the optimal hospital access time (OHAT) for emergency care in South Korea. We used nationwide healthcare claims data collected by the National Health Insurance System database of South Korea. Claims data of 445,548 patients who had visited emergency centers between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2014 were analyzed. Travel time, by vehicle from the residence of the patient, to the emergency center was calculated. Thirteen emergency care-sensitive conditions (ECSCs) were selected by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The 30-day mortality after discharge was set as the outcome measure of emergency care. A change-point analysis was performed to identify the threshold where the mortality of ECSCs changed significantly. The differences in risk-adjusted mortality between patients living outside of OHAT and those living inside OHAT were evaluated. Five ECSCs showed a significant threshold where the mortality changed according to their OHAT. These were intracranial injury, acute myocardial infarction, other acute ischemic heart disease, fracture of the femur, and sepsis. The calculated OHAT were 71-80 min, 31-40 min, 70-80 min, 41-50 min, and 61-70 min, respectively. Those who lived outside the OHAT had higher risks of death, even after adjustment (adjusted OR: 1.04-7.21; 95% CI: 1.03-26.34). In conclusion, the OHAT for emergency care with no significant increase in mortality is in the 31-80 min range. Optimal travel time to hospital should be established by optimal time for outcomes, and not by geographic time, to resolve the disparities in geographical accessibility to emergency care.

Emergency appendicectomy during COVID-19 pandemic - A single UK centre experience.

Background - In December 2019 following an outbreak of Novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, it spread rapidly overwhelming the healthcare systems globally. With little knowledge of COVID-19 virus, very few published reports on surgical outcomes; hospitals stopped elective surgery, whilst emergency surgery was offered only after exhausting all conservative treatment modalities. This study presents our experience of outcomes of emergency appendectomies performed during the pandemic. Methods - Prospectively we collected data on 132 patients in peak pandemic period from 1st March to 5th June 2020 and data compared with 206 patients operated in similar period in 2019. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, pre-operative events, investigations, surgical management, postoperative outcomes and complications were analysed. Results - Demographics and ASA grades of both cohorts were comparable. In study cohort 84.4% and 96.7% in control cohort had laparoscopic appendicectomy. Whilst the study cohort had 13.6% primary open operations, control cohort had 5.3%. Mean length of stay and early post-operative complications (<30 days) were similar in both cohorts apart from surgical site infections (p = 0.02) and one mortality in study cohort. Conclusion - In these overwhelming pandemic times, although conservative treatment of acute appendicitis is an option, a proportion of patients will need surgery. Our study shows that with careful planning and strict theatre protocols, emergency appendicectomy can be safely offered with minimal risk of spreading COVID-19 infection. These observations warrant further prospective randomised studies. Keywords - appendicectomy, COVID-19, Coronavirus, emergency surgery, laparoscopy.