Surgical challenges and research priorities in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: EAES membership survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems and general surgeons are being challenged by the current pandemic. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) aimed to evaluate surgeons' experiences and perspectives, to identify gaps in knowledge, to record shortcomings in resources and to register research priorities. METHODS: An ad hoc web-based survey of EAES members and affiliates was developed by the EAES Research Committee. The questionnaire consisted of 69 items divided into the following sections: (Ι) demographics, (II) institutional burdens and management strategies, and (III) analysis of resource, knowledge, and evidence gaps. Descriptive statistics were summarized as frequencies, medians, ranges,, and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. RESULTS: The survey took place between March 25th and April 16th with a total of 550 surgeons from 79 countries. Eighty-one percent had to postpone elective cases or suspend their practice and 35% assumed roles not related to their primary expertise. One-fourth of respondents reported having encountered abdominal pathologies in COVID-19-positive patients, most frequently acute appendicitis (47% of respondents). The effect of protective measures in surgical or endoscopic procedures on infected patients, the effect of endoscopic surgery on infected patients, and the infectivity of positive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were prioritized as knowledge gaps and research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Perspectives and priorities of EAES members in the era of the pandemic are hereto summarized. Research evidence is urgently needed to effectively respond to challenges arisen from the pandemic.

Assessment of a Crisis Standards of Care Scoring System for Resource Prioritization and Estimated Excess Mortality by Race, Ethnicity, and Socially Vulnerable Area During a Regional Surge in COVID-19.

Importance: Crisis standards of care (CSOC) scores designed to allocate scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic could exacerbate racial disparities in health care. Objective: To analyze the association of a CSOC scoring system with resource prioritization and estimated excess mortality by race, ethnicity, and residence in a socially vulnerable area. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included adult patients in the intensive care unit during a regional COVID-19 surge from April 13 to May 22, 2020, at 6 hospitals in a health care network in greater Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were scored by acute severity of illness using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and chronic severity of illness using comorbidity and life expectancy scores, and only participants with complete scores were included. The score was ordinal, with cutoff points suggested by the Massachusetts guidelines. Exposures: Race, ethnicity, Social Vulnerability Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion of patients in the lowest priority score category stratified by self-reported race. Secondary outcomes were discrimination and calibration of the score overall and by race, ethnicity, and neighborhood Social Vulnerability Index. Projected excess deaths were modeled by race, using the priority scoring system and a random lottery. Results: Of 608 patients in the intensive care unit during the study period, 498 had complete data and were included in the analysis; this population had a median (IQR) age of 67 (56-75) years, 191 (38.4%) female participants, 79 (15.9%) Black participants, and 225 patients (45.7%) with COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the priority score was 0.79 and was similar across racial groups. Black patients were more likely than others to be in the lowest priority group (12 [15.2%] vs 34 [8.1%]; P = .046). In an exploratory simulation model using the score for ventilator allocation, with only those in the highest priority group receiving ventilators, there were 43.9% excess deaths among Black patients (18 of 41 patients) and 28.6% (58 of 203 patients among all others (P = .05); when the highest and intermediate priority groups received ventilators, there were 4.9% (2 of 41 patients) excess deaths among Black patients and 3.0% (6 of 203) among all others (P = .53). A random lottery resulted in more excess deaths than the score. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a CSOC priority score resulted in lower prioritization of Black patients to receive scarce resources. A model using a random lottery resulted in more estimated excess deaths overall without improving equity by race. CSOC policies must be evaluated for their potential association with racial disparities in health care.

The role of childrens' vaccination for COVID-19-Pareto-optimal allocations of vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for children of age five and older in many countries. However, there is an ongoing debate as to whether children should be vaccinated and at what priority. In this work, we use mathematical modeling and optimization to study how vaccine allocations to different age groups effect epidemic outcomes. In particular, we consider the effect of extending vaccination campaigns to include the vaccination of children. When vaccine availability is limited, we consider Pareto-optimal allocations with respect to competing measures of the number of infections and mortality and systematically study the trade-offs among them. In the scenarios considered, when some weight is given to the number of infections, we find that it is optimal to allocate vaccines to adolescents in the age group 10-19, even when they are assumed to be less susceptible than adults. We further find that age group 0-9 is included in the optimal allocation for sufficiently high values of the basic reproduction number.

Optimal vaccine allocation for COVID-19 in the Netherlands: A data-driven prioritization.

For the control of COVID-19, vaccination programmes provide a long-term solution. The amount of available vaccines is often limited, and thus it is crucial to determine the allocation strategy. While mathematical modelling approaches have been used to find an optimal distribution of vaccines, there is an excessively large number of possible allocation schemes to be simulated. Here, we propose an algorithm to find a near-optimal allocation scheme given an intervention objective such as minimization of new infections, hospitalizations, or deaths, where multiple vaccines are available. The proposed principle for allocating vaccines is to target subgroups with the largest reduction in the outcome of interest. We use an approximation method to reconstruct the age-specific transmission intensity (the next generation matrix), and express the expected impact of vaccinating each subgroup in terms of the observed incidence of infection and force of infection. The proposed approach is firstly evaluated with a simulated epidemic and then applied to the epidemiological data on COVID-19 in the Netherlands. Our results reveal how the optimal allocation depends on the objective of infection control. In the case of COVID-19, if we wish to minimize deaths, the optimal allocation strategy is not efficient for minimizing other outcomes, such as infections. In simulated epidemics, an allocation strategy optimized for an outcome outperforms other strategies such as the allocation from young to old, from old to young, and at random. Our simulations clarify that the current policy in the Netherlands (i.e., allocation from old to young) was concordant with the allocation scheme that minimizes deaths. The proposed method provides an optimal allocation scheme, given routine surveillance data that reflect ongoing transmissions. This approach to allocation is useful for providing plausible simulation scenarios for complex models, which give a more robust basis to determine intervention strategies.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Liver Transplantation and Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease in the USA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The surge in unhealthy alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic may have detrimental effects on the rising burden of alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) on liver transplantation (LT) in the USA. We evaluated the effect of the pandemic on temporal trends for LT including ALD. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Using data from United Network for Organ Sharing, we analyzed wait-list outcomes in the USA through March 1, 2021. In a short-period analysis, patients listed or transplanted between June 1, 2019, and February 29, 2020, were defined as the "pre-COVID" era, and after April 1, 2020, were defined as the "COVID" era. Interrupted time-series analyses using monthly count data from 2016-2020 were constructed to evaluate the rate change for listing and LT before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rates for listings (P = 0.19) and LT (P = 0.14) were unchanged during the pandemic despite a significant reduction in the monthly listing rates for HCV (-21.69%, P < 0.001) and NASH (-13.18%; P < 0.001). There was a significant increase in ALD listing (+7.26%; P < 0.001) and LT (10.67%; P < 0.001) during the pandemic. In the COVID era, ALD (40.1%) accounted for more listings than those due to HCV (12.4%) and NASH (23.4%) combined. The greatest increase in ALD occurred in young adults (+33%) and patients with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (+50%). Patients with ALD presented with a higher acuity of illness, with 30.8% of listings and 44.8% of LT having a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score ≥30. CONCLUSIONS: Since the start of COVID-19 pandemic, ALD has become the most common indication for listing and the fastest increasing cause for LT. Collective efforts are urgently needed to stem the rising tide of ALD on health care resources.

Elective surgery cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic: global predictive modelling to inform surgical recovery plans.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. METHODS: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian ß-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. RESULTS: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. CONCLUSION: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely.

ANTECEDENTES: La pandemia de COVID-19 ha interrumpido los servicios hospitalarios habituales a nivel mundial. En este estudio se calculó el número total de operaciones electivas para adultos que se cancelarían en todo el mundo durante las 12 semanas de interrupción máxima debido a COVID'19. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio global de respuestas de expertos para obtener proyecciones sobre la proporción de cirugía electiva que se cancelaría o pospondría durante las 12 semanas del pico máximo de disrupción. Se usó un modelo bayesiano de regresión beta para estimar las tasas de cancelación durante 12 semanas en 190 países. Se determinaron los datos de la casuística de casos quirúrgicos electivos, estratificados por especialidad e indicación (cáncer versus cirugía benigna). Esta casuística de casos se aplicó a volúmenes quirúrgicos a nivel de país. Las tasas de cancelación de las 12 semanas se aplicaron a estas cifras para calcular el total de operaciones suspendidas. RESULTADOS: La mejor estimación fue que 28.404.603 operaciones hubieran sido canceladas o pospuestas durante las 12 semanas del pico de disrupción por COVID-19 (2.367.050 operaciones por semana). La mayoría hubieran sido operaciones por enfermedad benigna (90,2%, 25.638.922/28. 404. 603). La tasa de cancelación general en 12 semanas sería del 72,3%. A nivel mundial, el 81,7% (25.638.921/31.378.062) de la cirugía benigna, el 37,7% (2. 324.069/6.162.311) de la cirugía por cáncer y el 25,4% (441.611/1.735.483) de las cesáreas electivas hubieran sido canceladas o pospuestas. Si los países aumentan su volumen quirúrgico normal en un 20% después de la pandemia, se tardaría una mediana de 45 semanas para eliminar la acumulación de operaciones resultantes de la disrupción por COVID'19. CONCLUSIÓN: Se cancelará o pospondrá un número muy grande de operaciones debido a la disrupción causada por COVID-19. Los gobiernos deberían mitigar esta importante carga para los pacientes mediante el desarrollo de planes de recuperación e implementando estrategias para reiniciar de manera segura la actividad quirúrgica.

Stressors, coping, and resources needed during the COVID-19 pandemic in a sample of perinatal women.

BACKGROUND: Psychological stress and coping experienced during pregnancy can have important effects on maternal and infant health, which can also vary by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Therefore, we assessed stressors, coping behaviors, and resources needed in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic in a sample of 162 perinatal (125 pregnant and 37 postpartum) women in the United States. METHODS: A mixed-methods study captured quantitative responses regarding stressors and coping, along with qualitative responses to open-ended questions regarding stress and resources needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistic and linear regression models were used to analyze differences between pregnant and postpartum participants, as well as differences across key demographic variables. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze open-ended questions. RESULTS: During the COVID-pandemic, food scarcity and shelter-in-place restrictions made it difficult for pregnant women to find healthy foods. Participants also reported missing prenatal appointments, though many reported using telemedicine to obtain these services. Financial issues were prevalent in our sample and participants had difficulty obtaining childcare. After controlling for demographic variables, pregnant women were less likely to engage in healthy stress-coping behaviors than postpartum women. Lastly, we were able to detect signals of increased stressors induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and less social support, in perinatal women of racial and ethnic minority, and lower-income status. Qualitative results support our survey findings as participants expressed concerns about their baby contracting COVID-19 while in the hospital, significant others missing the delivery or key obstetric appointments, and wanting support from friends, family, and birthing classes. Financial resources, COVID-19 information and research as it relates to maternal-infant health outcomes, access to safe healthcare, and access to baby supplies (formula, diapers, etc.) emerged as the primary resources needed by participants. CONCLUSIONS: To better support perinatal women's mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers should engage in conversations regarding access to resources needed to care for newborns, refer patients to counseling services (which can be delivered online/via telephone) and virtual support groups, and consistently screen pregnant women for stressors.

The opportunity costs of birth in Australia: Hospital resource savings for a post-COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 caused significant disruptions to health systems globally; however, restricting the family presence during birth saw an increase in women considering community birth options. This study aimed to quantify the hospital resource savings that could occur if all low-risk women in Australia gave birth at home or in birth centers. METHODS: A whole-of-population linked administrative data set containing all women (n = 44 498) who gave birth in Queensland, Australia, between 01/07/2012 and 30/06/2015 was reweighted to represent all Australian women giving birth in 2017. A static microsimulation model of woman and infant health service resource use was created based on 2017 data. The model was comprised of a base model, representing "current" care, and a counterfactual model, representing hypothetical scenarios where all low-risk Australian women gave birth at home or in birth centers. RESULTS: If all low-risk women gave birth at home in 2017, cesarean rates would have reduced from 13.4% to 2.7%. Similarly, there would have been 860 fewer inpatient bed days and 10.1 fewer hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births. If all women gave birth in birth centers, cesarean rates would have reduced to 6.7%. In addition, over 760 inpatient bed days would have been saved along with 5.6 hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births. CONCLUSIONS: Significant health resource savings could occur by shifting low-risk births from hospitals to home birth and birth center services. Greater examination of Australian women's preferences for home birth and birth center birth models of care is needed.

Oncological colorectal surgery during the COVID-19pandemic-a national survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to clarify the surgical supply situation of oncological colorectal patients in Germany during limitations of the OR caseload due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between 11th and 19th April 2020, all members of a consortium of German colorectal cancer centers were invited to participate in a web-based survey on the current status of surgical care situation of colorectal cancer patients in Germany. RESULTS: A total of 112 colorectal surgeons of 101 German hospitals participated in the survey. Eighty-seven percent of the participating hospitals had to reduce their total surgical caseload and 34% their surgical volume for oncological colorectal patients during COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions of the surgical caseload were independent of the size of the hospital and the number of cases of COVID-19 in the federal state of the hospital. Sixteen percent of colorectal surgeons consider surgical limitations to be not justified and 78% to be justified only if the care of oncological patients is ensured. Ninety-five percent of the colorectal surgeons interviewed stated that all oncological colorectal patients with an indication for surgery should be operated in time, despite the current reservations for COVID-19 patients. For the majority of the respondents (63% and 51%, respectively), an extended waiting time for surgery of up to 2 weeks was acceptable for non-metastatic and metastatic patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: In Germany, there is a temporarily relevant reduction of surgical volume in oncological colorectal patients. Most colorectal surgeons stated that oncological colorectal surgery should not be compromised despite the measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 Pandemic Planning: Simulation Models to Predict Biochemistry Test Capacity for Patient Surges.

BACKGROUND: Patient surges beyond hospital capacity during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic emphasized a need for clinical laboratories to prepare test processes to support future patient care. The objective of this study was to determine if current instrumentation in local hospital laboratories can accommodate the anticipated workload from COVID-19 infected patients in hospitals and a proposed field hospital in addition to testing for non-infected patients. METHODS: Simulation models predicted instrument throughput and turn-around-time for chemistry, ion-selective-electrode, and immunoassay tests using vendor-developed software with different workload scenarios. The expanded workload included tests from anticipated COVID patients in 2 local hospitals and a proposed field hospital with a COVID-specific test menu in addition to the pre-pandemic workload. RESULTS: Instrumentation throughput and turn-around time at each site was predicted. With additional COVID-patient beds in each hospital, the maximum throughput was approached with no impact on turnaround time. Addition of the field hospital workload led to significantly increased test turnaround times at each site. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation models depicted the analytic capacity and turn-around times for laboratory tests at each site and identified the laboratory best suited for field hospital laboratory support during the pandemic.

Public attitudes toward allocating scarce resources in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The general public is subject to triage policies that allocate scarce lifesaving resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the worst public health emergencies in the past 100 years. However, public attitudes toward ethical principles underlying triage policies used during this pandemic are not well understood. Three experiments (preregistered; online samples; N = 1,868; U.S. residents) assessed attitudes toward ethical principles underlying triage policies. The experiments evaluated assessments of utilitarian, egalitarian, prioritizing the worst-off, and social usefulness principles in conditions arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, involving resource scarcity, resource reallocation, and bias in resource allocation toward at-risk groups, such as the elderly or people of color. We found that participants agreed with allocation motivated by utilitarian principles and prioritizing the worst-off during initial distribution of resources and disagreed with allocation motivated by egalitarian and social usefulness principles. At reallocation, participants agreed with giving priority to those patients who received the resources first. Lastly, support for utilitarian allocation varied when saving the greatest number of lives resulted in disadvantage for at-risk or historically marginalized groups. Specifically, participants expressed higher levels of agreement with policies that shifted away from maximizing benefits to one that assigned the same priority to members of different groups if this mitigated disadvantage for people of color. Understanding these attitudes can contribute to developing triage policies, increase trust in health systems, and assist physicians in achieving their goals of patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Spatiotemporal analysis of medical resource deficiencies in the U.S. under COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China as an infectious disease, and has quickly resulted in an ongoing pandemic. A data-driven approach was developed to estimate medical resource deficiencies due to medical burdens at county level during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study duration was mainly from February 15, 2020 to May 1, 2020 in the U.S. Multiple data sources were used to extract local population, hospital beds, critical care staff, COVID-19 confirmed case numbers, and hospitalization data at county level. We estimated the average length of stay from hospitalization data at state level, and calculated the hospitalized rate at both state and county level. Then, we developed two medical resource deficiency indices that measured the local medical burden based on the number of accumulated active confirmed cases normalized by local maximum potential medical resources, and the number of hospitalized patients that can be supported per ICU bed per critical care staff, respectively. Data on medical resources, and the two medical resource deficiency indices are illustrated in a dynamic spatiotemporal visualization platform based on ArcGIS Pro Dashboards. Our results provided new insights into the U.S. pandemic preparedness and local dynamics relating to medical burdens in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

Cataract service redesign in the post-COVID-19 era.

COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 has impacted all aspects of clinical practice in the UK. Cataract services suffered severe disruption due to necessary measures taken to reduce elective surgery in order to release capacity to support intensive care requirements. Faced with a potential 50% increase in cataract surgery workload per week in the post-COVID-19 world, eye units should use this event to innovate, not just survive but to also evolve for a sustainable future. In this article, we discuss the inadequacies of existing service rationing options to tackle the COVID-19 cataract backlog. This includes limiting rationing based on visual acuity, limiting surgery to first or only seeing eyes, and postponing clinic and surgical dates according to referral dates. We propose units use the lockdown time to reset and develop a comprehensive patient-centred care pathway using principles of value-based healthcare: the cataract integrated practice units. Developing an agile surgical database that incorporates all aspects of patient need from education to follow-up in their individual cataract journey will allow units to react and plan quickly in the early phase of recovery and beyond. We also discuss the considerations units should bear in mind on telemedicine, modifications for face-to-face clinics, theatre organisation and options of expanding cataract throughput capacity. The pause in elective surgery due to the pandemic may have provided cataract services a rare opportunity to reset and transform cataract service pathways for the digital era.

Don't forget shared decision-making in the COVID-19 crisis.

Mechanical ventilation as a resource is limited and may lead to poor outcomes in at-risk populations. Critical care supports may not be preferred by those at risk of deterioration in the COVID-19 setting. Patient-centred communication and shared decision-making should continue to remain central to clinical practice.