Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of endocrine surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on endocrine surgeons. METHODS: A survey on the professional, educational, and clinical impact was sent to active and corresponding members of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) in September 2020. Chi-square and paired t-test were used for analysis. RESULTS: 77 surgeons responded (14.8 %). All reported suspension of elective surgeries; 37.7 % were reassigned to other duties during this time. The median number of cases backlogged was 30 (IQR 15-50). Most surgeons reported decreased clinical volume (74.6 %). The use of virtual platforms for clinical and educational purposes increased from pre-COVID-19 levels (all p < 0.001). Use of in-office procedures (p < 0.001) and length of observation prior to discharge for thyroid surgery (p < 0.05) decreased. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to suspension of operations and decreased practice volume for endocrine surgeons. Surgeons increased use of virtual platforms, decreased in-office procedures, and decreased duration of observation for thyroid surgery in response.

Where did the patients go? Changes in acute appendicitis presentation and severity of illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic restricted movement of individuals and altered provision of health care, abruptly transforming health care-use behaviors. It serves as a natural experiment to explore changes in presentations for surgical diseases including acute appendicitis. The objective was to determine if the pandemic was associated with changes in incidence of acute appendicitis compared to a historical control and to determine if there were associated changes in disease severity. METHODS: The study is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of adults (N = 956) presenting with appendicitis in nonpandemic versus pandemic time periods (December 1, 2019-March 10, 2020 versus March 11, 2020-May 16, 2020). Corresponding time periods in 2018 and 2019 composed the historical control. Primary outcome was mean biweekly counts of all appendicitis presentations, then stratified by complicated (n = 209) and uncomplicated (n = 747) disease. Trends in presentations were compared using difference-in-differences methodology. Changes in odds of presenting with complicated disease were assessed via clustered multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There was a 29% decrease in mean biweekly appendicitis presentations from 5.4 to 3.8 (rate ratio = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]) after the pandemic declaration, with a significant difference in differences compared with historical control (P = .003). Stratified by severity, the decrease was significant for uncomplicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.47-0.91]) when compared with historical control (P = .03) but not for complicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.52-1.52]); (P = .49). The odds of presenting with complicated disease did not change (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [95% confidence interval 0.83-2.25]). CONCLUSION: The pandemic was associated with decreased incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis without an accompanying increase in complicated disease. Changes in individual health care-use behaviors may underlie these differences, suggesting that some cases of uncomplicated appendicitis may resolve without progression to complicated disease.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

The Boston Medical Center Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Procedure Team: Optimizing the surgeon's role in pandemic care at a safety-net hospital.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has claimed many lives and strained the US health care system. At Boston Medical Center, a regional safety-net hospital, the Department of Surgery created a dedicated coronavirus disease 2019 Procedure Team to ease the burden on other providers coping with the surge of infected patients. As restrictions on social distancing are lifted, health systems are bracing for additional surges in coronavirus disease 2019 cases. Our objective is to quantify the volume and types of procedures performed, review outcomes, and highlight lessons for other institutions that may need to establish similar teams. METHODS: Procedures were tracked prospectively along with patient demographics, immediate complications, and time from donning to doffing of the personal protective equipment. Retrospective chart review was conducted to obtain patient outcomes and delayed adverse events. We hypothesized that a dedicated surgeon-led team would perform invasive bedside procedures expeditiously and with few complications. RESULTS: From March 30, 2020 to April 30, 2020, there were 1,196 coronavirus disease 2019 admissions. The Procedure Team performed 272 procedures on 125 patients, including placement of 135 arterial catheters, 107 central venous catheters, 25 hemodialysis catheters, and 4 thoracostomy tubes. Specific to central venous access, the average procedural time was 47 minutes, and the rate of immediate complications was 1.5%, including 1 arterial cannulation and 1 pneumothorax. CONCLUSION: Procedural complication rate was less than rates reported in the literature. The team saved approximately 192 hours of work that could be redirected to other patient care needs. In times of crisis, redeployment of surgeons (who arguably have the most procedural experience) into procedural teams is a practical approach to optimize outcomes and preserve resources.