Three-Day Icatibant on Top of Standard Care in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2, Proof-of-Concept Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate icatibant, a competitive antagonist of the bradykinin B2 receptors, for the treatment of inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia admitted in the early hypoxemic stage. METHODS: The randomized, open-label clinical trial of icatibant for COVID-19 pneumonia (ICAT·COVID, registered as NCT04978051 at ClinicalTrials.gov) was conducted in Barcelona. Inpatients requiring supplemental but not high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation were allocated (1:1) to treatment with either three 30-mg icatibant doses/d for 3 consecutive days plus standard care or standard care alone, and followed for up to 28 days after initial discharge. The primary and key secondary outcomes were clinical response on study day 10/discharge and clinical efficacy at 28 days from initial discharge, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical response occurred in 27 of 37 patients (73.0%) in the icatibant group and 20 of 36 patients (55.6%) in the control group (rate difference, 17.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.22 to 39.06; P = .115). Clinical efficacy ensued in 37 patients (100.0%) in the icatibant group and 30 patients (83.3%) in the control group (rate difference, 16.67; 95% CI, 4.49-28.84; P = .011). No patient died in the icatibant group, compared with 6 patients (16.7%) in the control group (P = .011). All patients but 1 had adverse events, which were evenly distributed between study arms. No patient withdrew because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adding icatibant to standard care was safe and improved both COVID-19 pneumonia and mortality in this proof-of-concept study. A larger, phase 3 trial is warranted to establish the clinical value of this treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04978051.

Prospective individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized trials on convalescent plasma for COVID-19 outpatients.

Data on convalescent plasma (CP) treatment in COVID-19 outpatients are scarce. We aimed to assess whether CP administered during the first week of symptoms reduced the disease progression or risk of hospitalization of outpatients. Two multicenter, double-blind randomized trials (NCT04621123, NCT04589949) were merged with data pooling starting when <20% of recruitment target was achieved. A Bayesian-adaptive individual patient data meta-analysis was implemented. Outpatients aged ≥50 years and symptomatic for ≤7days were included. The intervention consisted of 200-300mL of CP with a predefined minimum level of antibodies. Primary endpoints were a 5-point disease severity scale and a composite of hospitalization or death by 28 days. Amongst the 797 patients included, 390 received CP and 392 placebo; they had a median age of 58 years, 1 comorbidity, 5 days symptoms and 93% had negative IgG antibody-test. Seventy-four patients were hospitalized, 6 required mechanical ventilation and 3 died. The odds ratio (OR) of CP for improved disease severity scale was 0.936 (credible interval (CI) 0.667-1.311); OR for hospitalization or death was 0.919 (CI 0.592-1.416). CP effect on hospital admission or death was largest in patients with ≤5 days of symptoms (OR 0.658, 95%CI 0.394-1.085). CP did not decrease the time to full symptom resolution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04621123 and NCT04589949. REGISTRATION: NCT04621123 and NCT04589949 on https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Characteristics and Outcomes by Ceiling of Care of Subjects Hospitalized with COVID-19 During Four Waves of the Pandemic in a Metropolitan Area: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The profiles of patients with COVID-19 have been widely studied, but little is known about differences in baseline characteristics and in outcomes between subjects with a ceiling of care assigned at hospital admission and subjects without a ceiling of care. The aim of this study is to compare, by ceiling of care, clinical features and outcomes of hospitalized subjects during four waves of COVID-19 in a metropolitan area in Catalonia. METHODS: Observational study conducted during the first (March-April 2020), second (October-November 2020), third (January-February 2021), and fourth wave (July-August 2021) of COVID-19 in five centers of Catalonia. All subjects were adults (> 18 years old) hospitalized with a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and with therapeutic ceiling of care assessed by the attending physician at hospital admission. RESULTS: A total of 5813 subjects were analyzed. Subjects with a ceiling of care were mainly older (difference in median age of 20 years), with more comorbidities (Charlson index 3 points higher) and with fewer clinical signs at baseline than patients without a ceiling of care. Some features of their clinical profiles changed among waves. There were differences in treatments received during hospital admission across waves, but not between subjects with and without a ceiling of care. Subjects with a ceiling of care had a death incidence more than four times the death incidence of subjects a without a ceiling of care (risk ratio (RR) ranging from 3.5 in the first wave to almost 6 in the third and fourth). Incidence of severe pneumonia and complications for subjects with a ceiling of care was around 1.5 times the incidence in subjects without a ceiling of care. DISCUSSION: Analysis of hospitalized subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infection should be stratified according to therapeutic ceiling of care to avoid bias and outcome misestimation.

Suspected adverse events following immunization against SARS-CoV2 in a university hospital in 2021: Observational study.

AIM: Vaccination against SARS-CoV2 has been proposed as a fundamental element for the control of the pandemic. This study aimed to describe the suspected adverse reactions (ADR) reported by vaccinated hospital workers. METHODS: A descriptive study of suspected ADR was conducted between January and March 2021. The suspected ADR were identified using a specifically designed electronic form and spontaneous reporting. Data were also collected regarding the characteristics of the professionals, vaccine administered, severity, and outcome of ADR. RESULTS: 8169 professionals received 2 doses of SARS-CoV2 vaccine (6672 Comirnaty® and 1497 Spikevax®) and 894 reports of suspected ADR were reported (762 for Comirnaty® and 132 for Spikevax®), resulting in a cumulative ADR incidence of 10.94% (95%CI: 10.27-11.62). The majority of ADR were reported only after the second dose, 497 (56.2%), while 211 (23.6%) were reported only after the first dose and 186 (21%) after both doses. The symptoms were mostly mild, did not require medical assistance, and disappeared within approximately 3 days. One hundred and seventeen professionals had a history of COVID-19 infection. These studies reported, statistically significant, more suspected ADR after the first dose (42.7%) than those with no history of COVID-19 (20.7%). Among professionals, more ADR occurred after the first dose with the Spikevax® vaccine (41.6%) than with the Comirnaty® vaccine (20.5%). CONCLUSION: The majority of suspected ADR reported were described in the summary of product characteristics (SmPC). Professionals with a history of COVID-19 reported more suspected ADR after the first dose than did those without a history.

Use of failure-to-rescue after emergency surgery as a dynamic indicator of hospital resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical failure-to-rescue (FTR, death rate following complications) is a reliable cross-sectional quality of care marker, but has not been evaluated dynamically. We aimed to study changes in FTR following emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Matched cohort study including all COVID-19-non-infected adult patients undergoing emergency general surgery in 25 Spanish hospitals during COVID-19 pandemic peak (March-April 2020), non-peak (May-June 2020), and 2019 control periods. A propensity score-matched comparative analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model, in which period was regressed on observed baseline characteristics. Subsequently, a mixed effects logistic regression model was constructed for each variable of interest. Main variable was FTR. Secondary variables were post-operative complications, readmissions, reinterventions, and length of stay. RESULTS: 5003 patients were included (948, 1108, and 2947 in the pandemic peak, non-peak, and control periods), with comparable clinical characteristics, prognostic scores, complications, reintervention, rehospitalization rates, and length of stay across periods. FTR was greater during the pandemic peak than during non-peak and pre-pandemic periods (22.5% vs. 17.2% and 12.7%), being this difference confirmed in adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.27-3.66). There was sensible inter-hospital variability in FTR changes during the pandemic peak (median FTR change +8.77%, IQR 0-29.17%) not observed during the pandemic non-peak period (median FTR change 0%, IQR -6.01-6.72%). Greater FTR increase was associated with higher COVID-19 incidence (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.31-4.16) and some hospital characteristics, including tertiary level (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.27-8.00), medium-volume (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.14-7.34), and high basal-adjusted complication risk (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.07-4.72). CONCLUSION: FTR following emergency surgery experienced a heterogeneous increase during different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting it to behave as an indicator of hospital resilience. FTR monitoring could facilitate identification of centres in special needs during ongoing health care challenges.

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, proof-of-concept phase II clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of icatibant in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and admitted to hospital units without invasive mechanical ventilation: study protocol (ICAT-COVID).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has quickly become a global pandemic with a substantial number of deaths and is a considerable burden for healthcare systems worldwide. Although most cases are paucisymptomatic and limited to the viral infection-related symptoms, some patients evolve to a second phase, with an impaired inflammatory response (cytokine storm) that may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. This is thought to be caused by increased bradykinin synthesis. METHODS: ICAT-COVID is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, proof-of-concept phase II clinical trial assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of adding icatibant to the standard of care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 without invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients hospitalized with a confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis (RT-PCR or antigen test ≤ 10 days prior to randomization, and radiographic evidence of pulmonary infiltrates), rated "4" or "5" on the WHO's clinical status scale, are eligible. Patients will be randomized on a 1:1 ratio to either standard of care-plus-icatibant (experimental group) or to standard of care alone (control group). The experimental group will receive 30 mg of icatibant subcutaneously 3 times a day for 3 days (for a total of 9 doses). The expected sample size is 120 patients (60 per group) from 2 sites in Spain. Primary outcomes are the efficacy and safety of Icatibant. The main efficacy outcome is the number of patients reaching grades "2" or "1" on the WHO scale within 10 days of starting treatment. Secondary outcomes include "long-term efficacy": number of patients discharged who do not present COVID-19-related relapse or comorbidity up until 28 days after discharge, and mortality. DISCUSSION: Icatibant, a bradykinin type 2 receptor antagonist with proven effectiveness and safety against hereditary angioedema attacks, may be beneficial for COVID-19 patients by inhibiting bradykinin's action on endothelial cells and by inhibiting the SARS-CoV-2 M protease. Our working hypothesis is that treatment with standard of care-plus-icatibant is effective and safe to treat patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to hospital for pneumonia without invasive mechanical ventilation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2020-002166-13. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT04978051.

High-titre methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma as an early treatment for outpatients with COVID-19: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been proposed as an early treatment to interrupt the progression of early COVID-19 to severe disease, but there is little definitive evidence. We aimed to assess whether early treatment with convalescent plasma reduces the risk of hospitalisation and reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load among outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in four health-care centres in Catalonia, Spain. Adult outpatients aged 50 years or older with the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms 7 days or less before randomisation were eligible for enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one intravenous infusion of either 250-300 mL of ABO-compatible high anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres (EUROIMMUN ratio ≥6) methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma (experimental group) or 250 mL of sterile 0·9% saline solution (control). Randomisation was done with the use of a central web-based system with concealment of the trial group assignment and no stratification. To preserve masking, we used opaque tubular bags that covered the investigational product and the infusion catheter. The coprimary endpoints were the incidence of hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline and the mean change in viral load (in log10 copies per mL) in nasopharyngeal swabs from baseline to day 7. The trial was stopped early following a data safety monitoring board recommendation because more than 85% of the target population had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Primary efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, safety was assessed in all patients who received the investigational product. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04621123. FINDINGS: Between Nov 10, 2020, and July 28, 2021, we assessed 909 patients with confirmed COVID-19 for inclusion in the trial, 376 of whom were eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment (convalescent plasma n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=160]; placebo n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=166]). Median age was 56 years (IQR 52-62) and the mean symptom duration was 4·4 days (SD 1·4) before random assignment. In the intention-to-treat population, hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline occurred in 22 (12%) participants who received convalescent plasma versus 21 (11%) who received placebo (relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·41]). The mean change in viral load from baseline to day 7 was -2·41 log10 copies per mL (SD 1·32) with convalescent plasma and -2·32 log10 copies per mL (1·43) with placebo (crude difference -0·10 log10 copies per mL [95% CI -0·35 to 0·15]). One participant with mild COVID-19 developed a thromboembolic event 7 days after convalescent plasma infusion, which was reported as a serious adverse event possibly related to COVID-19 or to the experimental intervention. INTERPRETATION: Methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma did not prevent progression from mild to severe illness and did not reduce viral load in outpatients with COVID-19. Therefore, formal recommendations to support the use of convalescent plasma in outpatients with COVID-19 cannot be concluded. FUNDING: Grifols, Crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono.

P-POSSUM as mortality predictor in COVID-19-infected patients submitted to emergency digestive surgery. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection is associated with a higher mortality rate in surgical patients, but surgical risk scores have not been validated in the emergency setting. We aimed to study the capacity for postoperative mortality prediction of the P-POSSUM score in COVID-19-positive patients submitted to emergency general and digestive surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing emergency general and digestive surgery from March to June 2020, and from March to June 2019 in 25 Spanish hospitals were included in a retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME: 30-day mortality. P-POSSUM discrimination was quantified by the area under the curve (AUC) of ROC curves; calibration was assessed by linear regression slope (ß estimator); and sensitivity and specificity were expressed as percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: 4988 patients were included: 177 COVID-19-positive; 2011 intra-pandemic COVID-19-negative; and 2800 pre-pandemic. COVID-19-positive patients were older, with higher surgical risk, more advanced pathologies, and higher P-POSSUM values (1.79% vs. 1.09%, p < 0.001, in both the COVID-19-negative and control cohort). 30-day mortality in the COVID-19-positive, intra-pandemic COVID-19-negative and pre-pandemic cohorts were: 12.9%, 4.6%, and 3.2%. The P-POSSUM predictive values in the three cohorts were, respectively: AUC 0.88 (95% CI 0.81-0.95), 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.92), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93); ß value 0.97 (95% CI 0.74-1.2), 0.99 (95% CI 0.82-1.16), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82); sensitivity 83% (95% CI 61-95), 91% (95% CI 84-96), and 89% (95% CI 80-94); and specificity 81% (95% CI 74-87), 76% (95% CI 74-78), and 80% (95% CI 79-82). CONCLUSION: The P-POSSUM score showed a good predictive capacity for postoperative mortality in COVID-19-positive patients submitted to emergency general and digestive surgery.

Multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV-III study to evaluate the efficacy of cloxacillin plus fosfomycin versus cloxacillin alone in adult patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: study protocol for the SAFO trial.

INTRODUCTION: Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia is a frequent condition, with high mortality rates. There is a growing interest in identifying new therapeutic regimens able to reduce therapeutic failure and mortality observed with the standard of care of beta-lactam monotherapy. In vitro and small-scale studies have found synergy between cloxacillin and fosfomycin against S. aureus. Our aim is to test the hypothesis that cloxacillin plus fosfomycin achieves higher treatment success than cloxacillin alone in patients with MSSA bacteraemia. METHODS: We will perform a superiority, randomised, open-label, phase IV-III, two-armed parallel group (1:1) clinical trial at 20 Spanish tertiary hospitals. Adults (≥18 years) with isolation of MSSA from at least one blood culture ≤72 hours before inclusion with evidence of infection, will be randomly allocated to receive either cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous plus fosfomycin 3 g/6-hour intravenous or cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous alone for 7 days. After the first week, sequential treatment and total duration of antibiotic therapy will be determined according to clinical criteria by the attending physician.Primary endpoints: (1) Treatment success at day 7, a composite endpoint comprising all the following criteria: patient alive, stable or with improved quick-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, afebrile and with negative blood cultures for MSSA at day 7. (2) Treatment success at test of cure (TOC) visit: patient alive and no isolation of MSSA in blood culture or at another sterile site from day 8 until TOC (12 weeks after randomisation).We assume a rate of treatment success of 74% in the cloxacillin group. Accepting alpha risk of 0.05 and beta risk of 0.2 in a two-sided test, 183 subjects will be required in each of the control and experimental groups to obtain statistically significant difference of 12% (considered clinically significant). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bellvitge University Hospital (AC069/18) and from the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency (AEMPS, AC069/18), and is valid for all participating centres under existing Spanish legislation. The results will be presented at international meetings and will be made available to patients and funders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol has been approved by AEMPS with the Trial Registration Number EudraCT 2018-001207-37. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959345; Pre-results.

Immunomodulatory therapy, risk factors and outcomes of hospital-acquired bloodstream infection in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a Spanish case-control matched multicentre study (BACTCOVID).

OBJECTIVES: The effect of the use of immunomodulatory drugs on the risk of developing hospital-acquired bloodstream infection (BSI) in patients with COVID-19 has not been specifically assessed. We aim to identify risk factors for, and outcomes of, BSI among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a severity matched case-control study (1:1 ratio) nested in a large multicentre prospective cohort of hospitalized adults with COVID-19. Cases with BSI were identified from the cohort database. Controls were matched for age, sex and acute respiratory distress syndrome. A Cox proportional hazard ratio model was performed. RESULTS: Of 2005 patients, 100 (4.98%) presented 142 episodes of BSI, mainly caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci, Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Polymicrobial infection accounted for 23 episodes. The median time from admission to the first episode of BSI was 15 days (IQR 9-20), and the most frequent source was catheter-related infection. The characteristics of patients with and without BSI were similar, including the use of tocilizumab, corticosteroids, and combinations. In the multivariate analysis, the use of these immunomodulatory drugs was not associated with an increased risk of BSI. A Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) model showed that after adjusting for the time factor, BSI was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality risk (HR 2.59; 1.65-4.07; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Hospital-acquired BSI in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia was uncommon and the use of immunomodulatory drugs was not associated with its development. When adjusting for the time factor, BSI was associated with a higher mortality risk.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection at the University of Barcelona during the Third COVID-19 Pandemic Wave in Spain.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic started in December 2019 and still is a major global health challenge. Lockdown measures and social distancing sparked a global shift towards online learning, which deeply impacted universities' daily life, and the University of Barcelona (UB) was not an exception. Accordingly, we aimed to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic at the UB. To that end, we performed a cross-sectional study on a sample of 2784 UB members (n = 52,529). Participants answered a brief, ad hoc, online epidemiological questionnaire and provided a nasal swab for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 analysis and a venous blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay. Total prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive RT-PCR or positive IgG) was 14.9% (95%CI 13.3 to 17.0%). Forty-four participants (1.6%, 95%CI: 1.2-2.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. IgG against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in 12.8% (95%CI: 11.6-14.1%) of participants. Overall, while waiting for population vaccination and/or increased herd immunity, we should concentrate on identifying and isolating new cases and their contacts.

Impact of comprehensive molecular testing to reduce antibiotic use in community-acquired pneumonia (RADICAP): a randomised, controlled, phase IV clinical trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a major health problem worldwide and is one of the main reasons for prescribing antibiotics. However, the causative agent is often not identified, resulting in antibiotic overtreatment, which is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance and adverse events. We aim to test the hypothesis that comprehensive molecular testing, compared with routine microbiological testing, would be effective in reducing antibiotic use in patients with CAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a randomised, controlled, open-label clinical trial with two parallel groups (1:1) at two tertiary hospitals between 2020 and 2022. Non-severely immunosuppressed adults hospitalised for CAP will be considered eligible. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive either the experimental diagnosis (comprehensive molecular testing plus routine microbiological testing) or standard diagnosis (only microbiological routine testing). The primary endpoint will be antibiotic consumption measured as days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 patient-days. Secondary endpoints will be de-escalation to narrower antibiotic treatment, time to switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics, days to reaching an aetiological diagnosis, antibiotic-related side effects, length of stay, days to clinical stability, intensive care unit admission, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital readmission up to 30 days after randomisation and death from any cause by 48 hours and 30 days after randomisation. We will need to include 440 subjects to be able to reject the null hypothesis that both groups have equal days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 patient-days with a probability >0.8. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bellvitge Hospital (AC028/19) and from the Spanish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency, and it is valid for all participating centres under existing Spanish legislation. Results will be presented at international meetings and will be made available to patients, their caregivers and funders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials: NCT04158492. EudraCT: 2018-004880-29.

Postoperative complications and mortality following emergency digestive surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicenter collaborative retrospective cohort study protocol (COVID-CIR).

ABSTRACT: Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to contribute significantly to increased postoperative complications and mortality after emergency surgical procedures. Additionally, the fear of COVID-19 contagion delays the consultation of patients, resulting in the deterioration of their acute diseases by the time of consultation. In the specific case of urgent digestive surgery patients, both factors significantly worsen the postoperative course and prognosis. Main working hypothesis: infection by COVID-19 increases postoperative 30-day-mortality for any cause in patients submitted to emergency/urgent general or gastrointestinal surgery. Likewise, hospital collapse during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic increased 30-day-mortality for any cause. Hence, the main objective of this study is to estimate the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30-days-after-surgery. Secondary objectives are: to estimate the cumulative incidence of postoperative complications and to develop a specific postoperative risk propensity model for COVID-19-infected patients.A multicenter, observational retrospective cohort study (COVID-CIR-study) will be carried out in consecutive patients operated on for urgent digestive pathology. Two cohorts will be defined: the "pandemic" cohort, which will include all patients (classified as COVID-19-positive or -negative) operated on for emergency digestive pathology during the months of March to June 2020; and the "control" cohort, which will include all patients operated on for emergency digestive pathology during the months of March to June 2019. Information will be gathered on demographic characteristics, clinical and analytical parameters, scores on the usual prognostic scales for quality management in a General Surgery service (POSSUM, P-POSSUM and LUCENTUM scores), prognostic factors applicable to all patients, specific prognostic factors for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, postoperative morbidity and mortality (at 30 and 90 postoperative days). The main objective is to estimate the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days after surgery. As secondary objectives, to estimate the cumulative incidence of postoperative complications and to develop a specific postoperative risk propensity model for SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.The protocol (version1.0, April 20th 2020) was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (Ethic-and-Clinical-Investigation-Committee, code PR169/20, date 05/05/20). The study findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant national and international scientific meetings.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04479150 (July 21, 2020).