Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. METHODS: A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018­2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations.

Safety of Esophageal Cancer Surgery During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitals postponed elective surgical care during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Some centers continued elective surgery, including esophageal cancer surgery, with the use of preoperative screening methods; however, there is no evidence supporting the safety of this strategy as postoperative outcomes after esophageal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic have not yet been investigated. METHODS: This multicenter study in four European tertiary esophageal cancer referral centers included consecutive adult patients undergoing elective esophageal cancer surgery from a prospectively maintained database in a COVID-19 pandemic cohort (1 March 2020-31 May 2020) and a control cohort (1 October 2019-29 February 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: The COVID-19 cohort consisted of 139 patients, versus 168 patients in the control cohort. There was no difference in the rate of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (13.7% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.127) and number of pulmonary complications (32.4% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.646) between the COVID-19 cohort and the control cohort. Overall, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable between both cohorts. History taking and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used as preoperative screening methods to detect a possible severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in all centers. No patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 pre- or postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Esophageal cancer surgery during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with an increase in pulmonary complications as no patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. Esophageal cancer surgery can be performed safely with the use of adequate preoperative SARS-CoV-2 screening methods.

Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.