PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - T. E. F. Abbott AU - A. J. Fowler AU - T. D. Dobbs AU - J. Gibson AU - T. Shahid AU - P. Dias AU - A. Akbari AU - I. S. Whitaker AU - R. M. Pearse TI - Mortality after surgery with SARS-CoV-2 infection in England: A population-wide epidemiological study AID - 10.1101/2021.02.17.21251928 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.02.17.21251928 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/20/2021.02.17.21251928.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/20/2021.02.17.21251928.full AB - Objectives To confirm the incidence of perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated mortality after surgery.Design and setting Analysis of routine electronic health record data from National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England.Methods We extracted data from Hospital Episode Statistics in England describing adult patients undergoing surgery between 1st January 2020 and 31st October 2020. The exposure was SARS-CoV-2 infection defined by ICD-10 codes. The primary outcome measure was 90-day in-hospital mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, Charlson co-morbidity index, index of multiple deprivation, presence of cancer, surgical procedure type and admission acuity. Results are presented as n (%) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.Results We identified 1,972,153 patients undergoing surgery of whom 11,940 (0.6%) had SARS-CoV-2. In total, 19,100 (1.0%) patients died in hospital. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a much greater risk of death (SARS-CoV-2: 2,618/11,940 [21.9%] vs No SARS-CoV-2: 16,482/1,960,213 [0.8%]; OR: 5.8 [5.5 – 6.1]; p<0.001). Amongst patients undergoing elective surgery 1,030/1,374,985 (0.1%) had SARS-CoV-2 of whom 83/1,030 (8.1%) died, compared with 1,092/1,373,955 (0.1%) patients without SARS-CoV-2 (OR: 29.0 [22.5 −37.3]; p<0.001). Amongst patients undergoing emergency surgery 9,742/437,891 (2.2%) patients had SARS-CoV-2, of whom 2,466/9,742 (25.3%) died compared with 14,817/428,149 (3.5%) patients without SARS-CoV-2 (OR: 5.7 [5.4 – 6.0]; p<0.001).Conclusions The low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in NHS surgical pathways suggests current infection prevention and control policies are highly effective. However, the high mortality amongst patients with SARS-CoV-2 suggests these precautions cannot be safely relaxed.What is already known on this topicHigh mortality rates have been reported amongst surgical patients who develop COVID-19 but we don’t know how this compares to the concurrent surgical population unaffected by COVID-19.Strict infection prevention and control procedures have substantially reduced the capacity of surgical treatment pathways in many hospitals.The very large backlog in delayed and cancelled surgical procedures is a growing public health concern.What this study addsFewer than 1 in 100 surgical patients are affected by COVID-19 in the English National Health Service.Elective surgical patients who do develop COVID-19 are 30 times more likely to die while in hospital.Infection prevention and control procedures in NHS surgical pathways are highly effective but cannot be safely relaxed.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form and declare: AJF holds a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research fellowship (DRF-2018-11-ST2-062). TDD reports funding from the Welsh Clinical Academic Training (WCAT) Fellowship. IW reports active grants from the American Association of Plastic Surgeons and the European Association of Plastic Surgeons; is an editor for Frontiers of Surgery, associate editor for the Annals of Plastic Surgery, editorial board of BMC Medicine and numerous other editorial board roles. RP has received honoraria and/or research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Intersurgical and GlaxoSmithkline within the last five years and holds editorial roles with the British Journal of Anaesthesia, the British Journal of Surgery and BMJ Quality and Safety. TA is a member of the associate editorial board of the British Journal of Anaesthesia and has received consultancy fees from MSD unrelated to this work. All other authors report no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding StatementThis study was funded by a grant from Barts Charity. The Welsh data source was supported by Health Data Research UK, which receives its funding from HDR UK Ltd (NIWA1) funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation (BHF) and the Wellcome Trust. The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The analysis was approved by the Health Research Authority (20/HRA/3121) and the NHS Digital Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (DARS-NIC-375669-J7M7F).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data used in this study are derived from two data sources. It is not possible to share the raw patient-level data provided by NHS Digital describing NHS patients in England. Regarding data from NHS patients in Wales, the data used are available in the SAIL Databank at Swansea University, Swansea, UK, but as restrictions apply they are not publicly available. All proposals to use SAIL data are subject to review by an independent Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP). Before any data can be accessed, approval must be given by the IGRP. The IGRP gives careful consideration to each project to ensure proper and appropriate use of SAIL data. When access has been granted, it is gained through a privacy protecting safe haven and remote access system referred to as the SAIL Gateway. SAIL has established an application process to be followed by anyone who would like to access data via SAIL at https://www.saildatabank.com/application-process.