The negative effects of COVID-19 and national lockdown on emergency surgery morbidity due to delayed access.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective comparative study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 and delayed emergency department access on emergency surgery outcomes, by comparing the main clinical outcomes in the period March-May 2019 (group 1) with the same period during the national COVID-19 lockdown in Italy (March-May 2020, group 2). METHODS: A comparison (groups 1 versus 2) and subgroup analysis were performed between patients' demographic, medical history, surgical, clinical and management characteristics. RESULTS: Two-hundred forty-six patients were included, 137 in group 1 and 109 in group 2 (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in the peri-operative characteristics of the two groups. A declared delay in access to hospital and preoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were 15.5% and 5.8%, respectively in group 2. The overall morbidity (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.08-4.55, p = 0.03) and 30-day mortality (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.33-5.50, =0.68) were significantly higher in group 2. The delayed access cohort showed a close correlation with increased morbidity (OR = 3.19, 95% CI 0.89-11.44, p = 0.07), blood transfusion (OR = 5.13, 95% CI 1.05-25.15, p = 0.04) and 30-day mortality risk (OR = 8.00, 95% CI 1.01-63.23, p = 0.05). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher risk of blood transfusion (20% vs 7.8%, p = 0.37) and ICU admissions (20% vs 2.6%, p = 0.17) and a longer median LOS (9 days vs 4 days, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: This article provides enhanced understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient access to emergency surgical care. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 changed the quality of surgical care with poorer prognosis and higher morbidity rates. Delayed emergency department access and a "filter effect" induced by a fear of COVID-19 infection in the population resulted in only the most severe cases reaching the emergency department in time.

Learning from organisational changes in the management of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Preparing for a second wave at a breast unit in northern Italy.

Italy was the first western country to be hit by the initial wave of severe adult respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, which has been more widespread in the country's northern regions. Early reports showing that cancer patients are more susceptible to the infection posed a particular challenge that has guided our Breast Unit at Hub Hospital in Trento to making a number of stepwise operational changes. New internal guidelines and treatment selection criteria were drawn up by a virtual multidisciplinary tumour board that took into account the risks and benefits of treatment, and distinguished the patients requiring immediate treatment from those whose treatment could be delayed. A second wave of the pandemic is expected in the autumn as gatherings in closed places increase. We will take advantage of the gained experience and organisational changes implemented during the first wave in order to improve further, and continue to offer breast cancer management and treatment to our vulnerable patient population.

Short-term outcome associated with remote evaluation (telecardiology) of patients with cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: During the recent COVID-19 outbreak, Italian health authorities mandated to replace in-person outpatient evaluations with remote evaluations. METHODS: From March 16th 2020 to April 22th 2020, all outpatients scheduled for in-person cardiac evaluations were instead evaluated by phone. We aimed to report the short-term follow-up of 345 patients evaluated remotely and to compare it with a cohort of patients evaluated in-person during the same period in 2019. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 54 ± 11 days, a significantly higher proportion of patients evaluated in-person in 2019 visited the emergency department or died for any cause (39/391, 10% versus 13/345 3.7%, p = 0.001) and visited the emergency department for cardiovascular causes (19/391, 4.9% versus 7/345, 2.0%, p = 0.04) compared to 2020. No cardiovascular death was recorded in the two periods. To an evaluation with a satisfaction questionnaire 49% of patients would like to continue using remote controls in addition to traditional ones. CONCLUSION: These findings may have important implications for the management of patients during the current COVID-19 pandemic because they suggest that remote cardiovascular evaluations may replace in-hospital visits for a limited period.