Surgical oncology operative experience at a high-volume safety-net hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to disruptions in operative and hospital capabilities as the country triaged resources and canceled elective procedures. This study details the operative experience of a safety-net hospital for cancer-related operations during a 3-month period at the height of the pandemic. METHODS: Patients operated on for or diagnosed with malignancies of the abdomen, breast, skin, or soft-tissue (September 3, 2020-September 6, 2020) were identified from operative/clinic schedules. Sociodemographics, tumor and treatment characteristics, and COVID-19 information was identified through retrospective chart review of a prospectively maintained database. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty patients evaluated within this window underwent oncologic surgery. Median age was 61 (interquartile range: 53-68), 56% were female, 86% were White, and 66% were Hispanic. The majority (28%) were for colon cancer. Only two patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively or within 30 days of their operation. There were no mortalities during the 1-year study period. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals and operative centers limited interventions to preserve resources, but oncologic procedures continued at many large-volume academic cancer centers. This study underscores the importance of continuing to offer surgery during the pandemic for surgical oncology cases at safety-net hospitals to minimize delays in time-sensitive oncologic treatment.

Impact of COVID-19 on gastric cancer treatment in Japanese high-volume centers: a JCOG stomach cancer study group survey.

PURPOSES: The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected socioeconomic and healthcare systems in many countries. Accordingly, many individuals may have canceled their annual health-check programs, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy, which would have resulted in lower numbers of newly diagnosed patients with gastric cancer in comparison to other times. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to 62 hospitals every week from May 2020 to August 2020 (total 744) through mailing lists of the Stomach Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. The number of patients with gastric cancer and hospital systems during the COVID-19 pandemic were surveyed. RESULTS: In total, 74% (551 out of 744) of the questionnaires were answered and analyzed. In early May, approximately 50% of hospitals had to restrict surgical slots due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they gradually loosened the restrictions thereafter. The number of gastrectomies was < 80% that of the same period in the previous year, and hospitals in Tokyo were seriously affected by a 50% decrease in the number of gastrectomies. CONCLUSIONS: The number of gastrectomies was lower than that in the previous year. Further multi-center follow-up studies are required to evaluate the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the clinical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer.

Impact of the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary referral centre for kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a centralized specialist kidney cancer care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient and pathway characteristics including prioritization strategies at the Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer located at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFH) before and during the surge of COVID-19. RESULTS: On 18 March 2020 all elective surgery was halted at RFH to redeploy resources and staff for the COVID-19 surge. Prioritizing of patients according to European Association of Urology guidance was introduced. Clinics and the specialist multidisciplinary team (SMDT) meetings were maintained with physical distancing, kidney surgery was moved to a COVID-protected site, and infection prevention measurements were enforced. During the 7 weeks of lockdown (23 March to 10 May 2020), 234 cases were discussed at the SMDT meetings, 53% compared to the 446 cases discussed in the 7 weeks pre-lockdown. The reduction in referrals was more pronounced for small and asymptomatic renal masses. Of 62 low-priority cancer patients, 27 (43.5%) were deferred. Only one (4%) COVID-19 infection occurred postoperatively, and the patient made a full recovery. No increase in clinical or pathological upstaging could be detected in patients who underwent deferred surgery compared to pre-COVID practice. CONCLUSION: The first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted diagnosis, referral and treatment of kidney cancer at a tertiary referral centre. With a policy of prioritization and COVID-protected pathways, capacity for time-sensitive oncological interventions was maintained and no immediate clinical harm was observed.

Adult cardiac surgery during COVID-19 lockdown: Impact on activity and outcomes in a high-volume centre.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak had a direct impact on adult cardiac surgery activity, which systematically necessitates a postoperative stay in intensive care. AIM: To study the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on cardiac surgery activity and outcomes, by making a comparison with the corresponding period in 2019. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study compared adult cardiac surgery activity in our high-volume referral university hospital from 9 March to 10 May 2020 versus 9 March to 10 May 2019. Data were collected in our local certified database and a national database sponsored by the French society of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. The primary study endpoints were operative mortality and postoperative complications. RESULTS: With 105 interventions in 2020, our activity dropped by 57% compared with the same period in 2019. Patients were at higher risk, with a significantly higher EuroSCORE II score (3.8±4.5% vs. 2.0±1.8%; P<0.001) and higher rates of active endocarditis (7.6% vs. 2.9%; P=0.047) and recent myocardial infarction (9.5% vs. 0%; P<0.001). The weight and priority of the interventions were significantly different in 2020 (P=0.019 and P<0.001, respectively). The rate of acute aortic syndromes was also significantly higher in 2020 (P<0.001). Operative mortality was higher during the lockdown period (5.7% vs. 1.7%; P=0.038). The postoperative course was more complicated in 2020, with more postoperative bleeding (P=0.003), mechanical circulatory support (P=0.032) and prolonged mechanical ventilation (P=0.005). Only two patients (1.8%) developed a positive status for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Adult cardiac surgery was heavily affected by the COVID-19 lockdown. A further modulation plan is necessary to improve outcomes and reduce postponed operations to decrease operative mortality and morbidity.

Renal transplantation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the UK: Experience from a large-volume center.

There is uncertainty about the safety of kidney transplantation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic due to the risk of donor transmission, nosocomial infection and immunosuppression use. We describe organ donation and transplant practice in the UK and assess whether kidney transplantation conferred a substantial risk of harm. Data from the UK transplant registry were used to describe kidney donation and transplant activity in the UK, and a detailed analysis of short-term, single-center, patient results in two periods: during the pre-pandemic era from 30th December 2019 to 8th March 2020 ("Pre-COVID era") and the 9th March 2020 to 19th May 2020 ("COVID era"). Donor and recipient numbers fell by more than half in the COVID compared to the pre-COVID era in the UK, but there were more kidney transplants performed in our center (42 vs. 29 COVID vs. pre-COVID respectively). Overall outcomes, including re-operation, delayed graft function, primary non-function, acute rejection, length of stay and graft survival were similar between COVID and pre-COVID era. 6/71 patients became infected with SARS-CoV-2 but all were discharged without critical care requirement. Transplant outcomes have remained similar within the COVID period and no serious sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection were observed in the peri-transplant period.

Tracheotomy Outcomes in 64 Ventilated COVID-19 Patients at a High-Volume Center in Bronx, NY.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Few studies have reported COVID-19 specific tracheotomy outcomes, and the optimal timing and patient selection criteria for tracheotomy remains undetermined. We delineate our outcomes for tracheotomies performed on COVID-19 patients during the peak of the pandemic at a major epicenter in the United States. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational cohort study. Mortality, ventilation liberation rate, complication rate, and decannulation rate were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients with COVID-19 underwent tracheotomy between April 1, 2020 and May 19, 2020 at two tertiary care hospitals in Bronx, New York. The average duration of intubation prior to tracheotomy was 20 days ((interquartile range [IQR] 16.5-26.0). The mortality rate was 33% (n = 21), the ventilation liberation rate was 47% (n = 30), the decannulation rate was 28% (n = 18), and the complication rate was 19% (n = 12). Tracheotomies performed by Otolaryngology were associated with significantly improved survival (P < .05) with 60% of patients alive at the conclusion of the study compared to 9%, 12%, and 19% of patients undergoing tracheotomy performed by Critical Care, General Surgery, and Pulmonology, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: So far, this is the second largest study describing tracheotomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients in the United States. Our early outcomes demonstrate successful ventilation liberation and decannulation in COVID-19 patients. Further inquiry is necessary to determine the optimal timing and identification of patient risk factors predictive of improved survival in COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4-retrospective cohort study Laryngoscope, 131:E1797-E1804, 2021.

Assessing the Burden of Nondeferrable Major Uro-oncologic Surgery to Guide Prioritisation Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from Three Italian High-volume Referral Centres.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an unprecedented emergency scenario for all aspects of health care, including urology. At the time of writing, Italy was the country with the highest rates of both infection and mortality. A panel of experts recently released recommendations for prioritising urologic surgeries in a low-resource setting. Of note, major cancer surgery represents a compelling challenge. However, the burden of these procedures and the impact of such recommendations on urologic practice are currently unknown. To fill this gap, we assessed the yearly proportion of high-priority major uro-oncologic surgeries at three Italian high-volume academic centres. Of 2387 major cancer surgeries, 32.3% were classified as high priority (12.6% of radical nephroureterectomy, 17.3% of nephrectomy, 33.9% of radical prostatectomy, and 36.2% of radical cystectomy cases). Moreover, 26.4% of high-priority major cancer surgeries were performed in patients at higher perioperative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3), with radical cystectomy contributing the most to this cohort (50%). Our real-life data contextualise ongoing recommendations on prioritisation strategies during the current COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for better patient selection for surgery. We found that approximately two-thirds of elective major uro-oncologic surgeries can be safely postponed or changed to another treatment modality when the availability of health care resources is reduced. PATIENT SUMMARY: We used data from three high-volume Italian academic urology centres to evaluate how many surgeries performed for prostate, bladder, kidney, and upper tract urothelial cancer can be postponed in times of emergency. We found that approximately two-thirds of patients with these cancers do not require high-priority surgery. Conversely, of patients requiring high-priority surgery, approximately one in four is considered at high perioperative risk. These patients may pose challenges in allocation of resources in critical scenarios such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.