ORCID Profile
0000-0002-9912-717X
Current Organisations
King's College London
,
Guy's and Saint Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
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: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.BJA.2018.07.002
Abstract: Cancellation of planned surgery impacts substantially on patients and health systems. This study describes the incidence and reasons for cancellation of inpatient surgery in the UK NHS. We conducted a prospective observational cohort study over 7 consecutive days in March 2017 in 245 NHS hospitals. Occurrences and reasons for previous surgical cancellations were recorded. Using multilevel logistic regression, we identified patient- and hospital-level factors associated with cancellation due to inadequate bed capacity. We analysed data from 14 936 patients undergoing planned surgery. A total of 1499 patients (10.0%) reported previous cancellation for the same procedure contemporaneous hospital census data indicated that 13.9% patients attending inpatient operations were cancelled on the day of surgery. Non-clinical reasons, predominantly inadequate bed capacity, accounted for a large proportion of previous cancellations. Independent risk factors for cancellation due to inadequate bed capacity included requirement for postoperative critical care [odds ratio (OR)=2.92 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.12-4.02 P<0.001] and the presence of an emergency department in the treating hospital (OR=4.18 95% CI, 2.22-7.89 P<0.001). Patients undergoing cancer surgery (OR=0.32 95% CI, 0.22-0.46 P<0.001), obstetric procedures (OR=0.17 95% CI, 0.08-0.32 P<0.001), and expedited surgery (OR=0.39 95% CI, 0.27-0.56 P<0.001) were less likely to be cancelled. A significant proportion of patients presenting for surgery have experienced a previous cancellation for the same procedure. Cancer surgery is relatively protected, but bed capacity, including postoperative critical care requirements, are significant risk factors for previous cancellations.
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: 07-09-2022
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15851
Abstract: The perceived risk of transmission of aerosolised viral particles from patients to airway practitioners during the COVID‐19 pandemic led to the widespread use of aerosol precautions, including personal protective equipment and modifications to anaesthetic technique. The risk of these aerosol precautions on peri‐operative airway complications has not been assessed outside of simulation studies. This prospective, national, multicentre cohort study aimed to quantify this risk. Adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective or emergency procedures over a 96‐hour period were included. Data collected included use of aerosol precautions by the airway practitioner, airway complications and potential confounding variables. Mixed‐effects logistic regression was used to assess the risk of in idual aerosol precautions on overall and specific airway complications. Data from 5905 patients from 70 hospital sites were included. The rate of airway complications was 10.0% (95%CI 9.2–10.8%). Use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications (odds ratio 1.38, 95%CI 1.04–1.83), predominantly due to an association with difficult facemask ventilation (odds ratio 1.68, 95%CI 1.09–2.61) and desaturation on pulse oximetry (odds ratio 2.39, 95%CI 1.26–4.54). Use of goggles, powered air‐purifying respirators, long‐sleeved gowns, double gloves and videolaryngoscopy were not associated with any alteration in the risk of airway complications. Overall, the use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications, but most aerosol precautions used during the COVID‐19 pandemic were not.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 05-09-2022
Abstract: Recent recommendations describe a set of core anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA). This project aimed to generate consensus recommendations for core structures to identify during the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks. An initial longlist of structures was refined by an international panel of key opinion leaders in UGRA over a three-round Delphi process. All rounds were conducted virtually and anonymously. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for “orientation scanning” (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for “block view” (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). A “strong recommendation” was made if ≥75% of participants rated any structure as “definitely include” in any round. A “weak recommendation” was made if % of participants rated it as “definitely include” or “probably include” for all rounds, but the criterion for strong recommendation was never met. Structures which did not meet either criterion were excluded. Forty-one participants were invited and 40 accepted 38 completed all three rounds. Participants considered the ultrasound scanning for 19 peripheral nerve blocks across all three rounds. Two hundred and seventy-four structures were reviewed for both orientation scanning and block view a “strong recommendation” was made for 60 structures on orientation scanning and 44 on the block view. A “weak recommendation” was made for 107 and 62 structures, respectively. These recommendations are intended to help standardize teaching and research in UGRA and support widespread and consistent practice.
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: BMJ
Date: 18-06-2021
Abstract: There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Kariem El-Boghdadly.