ORCID Profile
0000-0001-8995-9784
Current Organisation
Austin Health
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-03-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15458
Abstract: Peri‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30‐day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30‐day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30‐day mortality in patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4–1.5). In patients with a pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0–2 weeks, 3–4 weeks and 5–6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3–4.8), 3.9 (2.6–5.1) and 3.6 (2.0–5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9–2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2–8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4–3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6–2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 22-03-2022
DOI: 10.1007/S11605-022-05301-4
Abstract: Abdominal visceral resections incur relatively higher rates of postoperative bleeding and venous thromboembolism (VTE). While guidelines recommend the use of perioperative chemical thromboprophylaxis, the most appropriate time for its initiation is unknown. Here, we investigated whether early (before skin closure) versus postoperative commencement of chemoprophylaxis affected VTE and bleeding rates following abdominal visceral resection. Retrospective review of all elective abdominal visceral resections undertaken between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, across four tertiary-referral hospitals. Major bleeding was defined as the need for blood transfusion, reintervention, or 20 g/L fall in hemoglobin from baseline. Clinical VTE was defined as imaging-proven symptomatic disease 30 days post-surgery. A total of 945 cases were analyzed. Chemoprophylaxis was given early in 265 (28.0%) patients and postoperatively in 680 (72.0%) patients. Mean chemoprophylaxis exposure doses were similar between the two groups. Clinical VTE developed in 14 (1.5%) patients and was unrelated to chemoprophylaxis timing. Postoperative bleeding occurred in 71 (7.5%) patients, with 57 (80.3%) major bleeds, requiring blood transfusion in 48 (67.6%) cases and reintervention in 31 (43.7%) cases. Bleeding extended length-of-stay (median (IQR), 12 (7–27) versus 7 (5–11) days, p 0.001). Importantly, compared to postoperative chemoprophylaxis, early administration significantly increased the risk of bleeding (10.6% versus 6.3%, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05–1.93, p = 0.038) and independently predicted its occurrence. The risk of bleeding following elective abdominal visceral resections is substantial and is higher than the risk of clinical VTE. Compared with early chemoprophylaxis, postoperative initiation reduces bleeding risk without an increased risk of clinical VTE.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-10-2022
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.17254
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-10-2020
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.16374
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-08-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15563
Abstract: SARS‐CoV‐2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri‐operative or prior SARS‐CoV‐2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub‐study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis was defined as peri‐operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery) recent (1–6 weeks before surgery) previous (≥7 weeks before surgery) or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre‐operative anti‐coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS‐CoV‐2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri‐operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1–2.0)) and recent SARS‐CoV‐2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2–3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS‐CoV‐2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9–3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30‐day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3–6.7)). In patients with SARS‐CoV‐2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri‐operative or recent SARS‐CoV‐2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 12-2020
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.16223
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 24-03-2021
DOI: 10.1093/BJS/ZNAB101
Abstract: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18–49, 50–69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351 best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733 best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840 best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-08-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15560
Abstract: We aimed to determine the impact of pre‐operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre‐defined sub‐group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Patients who isolated pre‐operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS‐CoV‐2 incidence and high‐income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre‐operative testing use of COVID‐19‐free pathways or community SARS‐CoV‐2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-06-2020
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.15998
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 31-05-2022
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.17813
Abstract: Repeat colonoscopy may be required for tumour localisation. The aim of the study is to explore the clinical settings it was used and benchmark the quality of initial colonoscopy against standardized guidelines for tumour localisation, tattooing and colonoscopy reporting amongst clinicians. A retrospective study from 2016 to 2021 has been performed on patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer resections at the Northern Hospital. Patient demographics, colonoscopic and operative details were retrieved from the Bi‐National Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) Registry database and hospital medical records. Primary outcomes: changes in operative approach and delays to operation. Secondary outcomes: reasons for a repeat colonoscopy and complications from repeat colonoscopy. A total of 339 patients were included in this study. 94 (28.6%) underwent a repeat colonoscopy. Re‐scoping rate was 29.6% for surgeons, and 26.2% for non‐operating endoscopists. Surgeons had a 5.9% localisation error rate, and non‐operating endoscopist 6.95% ( p = 0.673). Surgeons did not have a lower rate of repeat colonoscopy ( p = 0.462). Repeat endoscopy was associated with a longer time to definitive operation (p 0.001). No complications were associated with a repeat colonoscopy. There was no difference in localisation error rates or repeat colonoscopy amongst surgeons (29.6%) and non‐operating endoscopists (26.2%) ( p = 0.462). This could be explained by the standardized endoscopy training in Australia governed by a common training board. Lack of tattooing at index colonoscopy and inadequate documentation often led to a repeat endoscopy, which was associated with a longer time to definitive operation. Standardized guidelines in tattooing of lesions and colonoscopy reporting should be implemented.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 25-06-2023
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.17869
No related grants have been discovered for Sharon Chih Lin Lee.