Deep recurrent reinforced learning model to compare the efficacy of targeted local versus national measures on the spread of COVID-19 in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To prevent the emergence of new waves of COVID-19 caseload and associated mortalities, it is imperative to understand better the efficacy of various control measures on the national and local development of this pandemic in space-time, characterise hotspot regions of high risk, quantify the impact of under-reported measures such as international travel and project the likely effect of control measures in the coming weeks. METHODS: We applied a deep recurrent reinforced learning based model to evaluate and predict the spatiotemporal effect of a combination of control measures on COVID-19 cases and mortality at the local authority (LA) and national scale in England, using data from week 5 to 46 of 2020, including an expert curated control measure matrix, official statistics/government data and a secure web dashboard to vary magnitude of control measures. RESULTS: Model predictions of the number of cases and mortality of COVID-19 in the upcoming 5 weeks closely matched the actual values (cases: root mean squared error (RMSE): 700.88, mean absolute error (MAE): 453.05, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE): 0.46, correlation coefficient 0.42; mortality: RMSE 14.91, MAE 10.05, MAPE 0.39, correlation coefficient 0.68). Local lockdown with social distancing (LD_SD) (overall rank 3) was found to be ineffective in preventing outbreak rebound following lockdown easing compared with national lockdown (overall rank 2), based on prediction using simulated control measures. The ranking of the effectiveness of adjunctive measures for LD_SD were found to be consistent across hotspot and non-hotspot regions. Adjunctive measures found to be most effective were international travel and quarantine restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of using adjunctive measures in addition to LD_SD following lockdown easing and suggests the potential importance of controlling international travel and applying travel quarantines. Further work is required to assess the effect of variant strains and vaccination measures.

Prophylactic corticosteroids for paediatric heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are routinely given to children undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in an attempt to ameliorate the inflammatory response. Their use is still controversial and the decision to administer the intervention can vary by centre and/or by individual doctors within that centre. OBJECTIVES: This review is designed to assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic corticosteroids in children between birth and 18 years of age undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science in June 2020. We also searched four clinical trials registers and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of prophylactic administration of corticosteroids, including single and multiple doses, and all types of corticosteroids administered via any route and at any time-point in the perioperative period. We excluded studies if steroids were administered therapeutically. We included individually randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with two or more groups (e.g. multi-drug or dose comparisons with a control group) but not 'head-to-head' trials without a placebo or a group that did not receive corticosteroids. We included studies in children, from birth up to 18 years of age, including preterm infants, undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of CPB. We also excluded studies in patients undergoing heart or lung transplantation, or both; studies in patients already receiving corticosteroids; in patients with abnormalities of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis; and in patients given steroids at the time of cardiac surgery for indications other than cardiac surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the Covidence systematic review manager to extract and manage data for the review. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consultation with a third review author. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We found 3748 studies, of which 888 were duplicate records. Two studies had the same clinical trial registration number, but reported different populations and interventions. We therefore included them as separate studies. We screened titles and abstracts of 2868 records and reviewed full text reports for 84 studies to determine eligibility. We extracted data for 13 studies. Pooled analyses are based on eight studies. We reported the remaining five studies narratively due to zero events for both intervention and placebo in the outcomes of interest. Therefore, the final meta-analysis included eight studies with a combined population of 478 participants. There was a low or unclear risk of bias across the domains. There was moderate certainty of evidence that corticosteroids do not change the risk of in-hospital mortality (five RCTs; 313 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 2.07) for children undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. There was high certainty of evidence that corticosteroids reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation (six RCTs; 421 participants; mean difference (MD) 11.37 hours lower, 95% CI -20.29 to -2.45) after the surgery. There was high-certainty evidence that the intervention probably made little to no difference to the length of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay (six RCTs; 421 participants; MD 0.28 days lower, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.24) and moderate-certainty evidence that the intervention probably made little to no difference to the length of the postoperative hospital stay (one RCT; 176 participants; mean length of stay 22 days; MD -0.70 days, 95% CI -2.62 to 1.22). There was moderate certainty of evidence for no effect of the intervention on all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up (five RCTs; 313 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.07) or cardiovascular mortality at the longest follow-up (three RCTs; 109 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.46). There was low certainty of evidence that corticosteroids probably make little to no difference to children separating from CPB (one RCT; 40 participants; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.92). We were unable to report information regarding adverse events of the intervention due to the heterogeneity of reporting of outcomes. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for several reasons, including imprecision due to small sample sizes, a single study providing data for an individual outcome, the inclusion of both appreciable benefit and harm in the confidence interval, and publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids  probably do not change the risk of mortality for children having heart surgery using CPB at any time point. They probably reduce the duration of postoperative ventilation in this context, but have little or no effect on the total length of postoperative ICU stay or total postoperative hospital stay. There was inconsistency in the adverse event outcomes reported which, consequently, could not be pooled. It is therefore impossible to provide any implications and policy-makers will be unable to make any recommendations for practice without evidence about adverse effects. The review highlighted the need for well-conducted RCTs powered for clinical outcomes to confirm or refute the effect of corticosteroids versus placebo in children having cardiac surgery with CPB. A core outcome set for adverse event reporting in the paediatric major surgery and intensive care setting is required.

A survey of minimally invasive cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Lack of scientific data on the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) during the COVID-19 pandemic has made clinical decision making challenging. This survey aimed to appraise MICS activity in UK cardiac units and establish a consensus amongst front-line MICS surgeons regarding standard best MICS practise during the pandemic. METHODS: An online questionnaire was designed through the 'googleforms' platform. Responses were received from 24 out of 28 surgeons approached (85.7%), across 17 cardiac units. RESULTS: There was a strong consensus against a higher risk of conversion from minimally invasive to full sternotomy (92%; n = 22) nor there is increased infection (79%; n = 19) or bleeding (96%; n = 23) with MICS compared to full sternotomy during the pandemic. The majority of respondents (67%; n = 16) felt that it was safe to perform MICS during COVID-19, and that it should not be halted (71%; n = 17). London cardiac units experienced a decrease in MICS (60%; n = 6), whereas non-London units saw no reduction. All London MICS surgeons wore an FP3 mask compared to 62% (n = 8) of non-London MICS surgeons, 23% (n = 3) of which only wore a surgical mask. London MICS surgeons felt that routine double gloving should be done (60%; n = 6) whereas non-London MICS surgeons held a strong consensus that it should not (92%; n = 12). CONCLUSION: Whilst more robust evidence on the effect of COVID-19 on MICS is awaited, this survey provides interesting insights for clinical decision-making regarding MICS and aids to facilitate the development of standardised MICS guidelines for an effective response during future pandemics.

The ongoing impact of COVID-19 on adult cardiac surgery and suggestions for safe continuation throughout the pandemic: a review of expert opinions.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adult cardiac surgery by reviewing current data and use this to establish methods for safely continuing to carry out surgery. METHODS: Conduction of a literature search via PubMed using the search terms: '(adult cardiac OR cardiothoracic OR surgery OR minimally invasive OR sternotomy OR hemi-sternotomy OR aortic valve OR mitral valve OR elective OR emergency) AND (COVID-19 or coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR 2019-nCoV OR 2019 novel coronavirus OR pandemic)'. Thirty-two articles were selected. RESULTS: Cardiac surgery patients have an increased risk of complications from COVID-19 and require vital finite resources such as intensive care beds, also required by COVID-19 patients. Thus reducing their admission and potential hospital-acquired infection with COVID-19 is paramount. During the peak, only emergencies such as acute aortic dissections were treated, triaging patients according to surgical priority and cancelling all elective procedures. Screening and 2-week quarantine prior to admission were essential changes, alongside additional levels of PPE. Focus was on reducing length of stay and switching to day-cases to reduce post-operative transmission risk, whilst several hospitals adopted 'hot' and 'cold' operating theatres for covid-confirmed and covid-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: This paper suggests a 'CARDIO' approach for reintroducing elective procedures: 'Care, Assess, Re-Evaluate, Develop, Implement, Overcome'; prioritising the mental and physical health of the workforce, learning from and sharing experiences and objectively prioritising patients to improve case load.

Adult cardiac surgery in Trinidad and Tobago during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons from a developing country.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen the cancellation of elective cardiac surgeries worldwide. Here we report the experience of a cardiac surgery unit in a developing country in response to the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: From 6th April to 12th June 2020, 58 patients underwent urgent or emergency cardiac surgery. Data was reviewed from a prospectively entered unit-maintained cardiac surgery database. To ensure safe delivery of care to patients, a series of strict measures were implemented which included: a parallel healthcare system maintaining a COVID-19 cold site, social isolation of patients for one to 2 weeks before surgery, polymerase chain reaction testing for COVID-19, 72 hours before surgery, discrete staff assigned only to cardiac surgical cases socially isolated for 2 weeks as necessary. RESULTS: The mean age at surgery was 59.7 ± 11 years and 41 (70.7%) were male. Fifty-two patients were hypertensive (90%), and 32 were diabetic (55.2%). There were three emergency type A aortic dissections. Forty-seven patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery with all but three performed off-pump. Fourteen cases required blood product transfusion. One patient had postoperative pneumonia associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The median length of stay was 5.7 ± 1.8 days. All patients were discharged home after rehabilitation. There were no cases of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers during the study period. CONCLUSION: These strategies allowed us to maintain a service for urgent and emergency procedures and may prove useful for larger countries when there is decrease in COVID-19 cases and planning for the restart of elective cardiac surgery.

The Pan London Emergency Cardiac Surgery service blueprint.

The authors share their experience of managing the cardiac surgery services across London during the challenging Covid-19 pandemic. The Pan London Emergency Cardiac Surgery Service model could serve as a blueprint to design policies applicable to other surgical specialities and parts of the UK and worldwide.

Cardiac surgery in the time of the coronavirus.

The current Covid-19 pandemic is a significant global health threat. The outbreak has profoundly affected all healthcare professionals, including heart surgeons. To adapt to these exceptional circumstances, cardiac surgeons had to change their practice significantly. We herein discuss the challenges and broad implications of the Covid-19 pandemic from the perspective of the heart surgeons.