Guidance for the timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection needed reassessment given widespread vaccination, less virulent variants, contemporary evidence and a need to increase access to safe surgery. We, therefore, updated previous recommendations to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and, most importantly, patients. Patients who develop symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 7 weeks of planned surgery, including on the day of surgery, should be screened for SARS-CoV-2. Elective surgery should not usually be undertaken within 2 weeks of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For patients who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are low risk or having low-risk surgery, most elective surgery can proceed 2 weeks following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. For patients who are not low risk or having anything other than low-risk surgery between 2 and 7 weeks following infection, an individual risk assessment must be performed. This should consider: patient factors (age; comorbid and functional status); infection factors (severity; ongoing symptoms; vaccination); and surgical factors (clinical priority; risk of disease progression; grade of surgery). This assessment should include the use of an objective and validated risk prediction tool and shared decision-making, taking into account the patient\'s own attitude to risk. In most circumstances, surgery should proceed unless risk assessment indicates that the risk of proceeding exceeds the risk of delay. There is currently no evidence to support delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks for patients who have fully recovered from or have had mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background Using contemporary data from NORIC (Norwegian Registry of Invasive Cardiology) we investigated the predictive value of patient age and time from ECG diagnosis to sheath insertion (ECG-2-sheath) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods and Results Data from 11 226 patients collected from all centers offering 24/7/365 primary percutaneous coronary intervention service were explored. For patients aged <80 years the mortality rates were 5.6% and 7.6% at 30 days and 1 year, respectively. For octogenarians the corresponding rates were 15.0% and 24.2%. The Cox hazard ratio was 2.02 (1.93-2.11, P value <0.0001) per 10 years of patient age. Time from ECG-2-sheath was significantly associated with mortality with a 3.6% increase per 30 minutes of time. Using achievement of time goal <90 minutes in patients aged >80 years and mortality at 30 days, mortality was 10.5% and 17.7% for <90 or ≥90 minutes, respectively. The number needed to prevent 1 death was 39 in the whole population and 14 in the elderly. Restricted mean survival gains during median 938 days of follow-up in patients with ECG-2-sheath time <90 minutes were 24 and 76 days for patients aged <80 and ≥80 years, respectively. Conclusions Time from ECG-diagnosis to sheath insertion is strongly correlated with mortality. This applies especially to octogenarians who derive the most in terms of absolute mortality reduction. Registration URL: https://helsedata.no/en/forvaltere/norwegian-institute-of-public-health/norwegian-registry-of-invasive-cardiology/.

The impact of vaccination and new SARS-CoV-2 variants on peri-operative outcomes is unclear. We aimed to update previously published consensus recommendations on timing of elective surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and patients. The guidance remains that patients should avoid elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection, unless the benefits of doing so exceed the risk of waiting. We recommend individualised multidisciplinary risk assessment for patients requiring elective surgery within 7 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should include baseline mortality risk calculation and assessment of risk modifiers (patient factors; SARS-CoV-2 infection; surgical factors). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with previous variants increased peri-operative mortality risk three-fold throughout the 6 weeks after infection, and assumptions that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection does not add risk are currently unfounded. Patients with persistent symptoms and those with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 may require a longer delay than 7 weeks. Elective surgery should not take place within 10 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, predominantly because the patient may be infectious, which is a risk to surgical pathways, staff and other patients. We now emphasise that timing of surgery should include the assessment of baseline and increased risk, optimising vaccination and functional status, and shared decision-making. While these recommendations focus on the omicron variant and current evidence, the principles may also be of relevance to future variants. As further data emerge, these recommendations may be revised.

Conservative management of cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a first treatment option because the risk-benefit ratio for surgery is less favorable. Systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines reporting on the effectiveness of nonsurgical management have not considered the timing of management. The aim of this study was to establish consensus on effective nonsurgical treatment modalities at different stages (ie, acute, subacute, or chronic) of CR using the Delphi method approach.
Through an iterative multistage process, experts within the field rated their agreement with a list of proposed treatment modalities according to the stage of CR and could suggest missing treatment modalities. Agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to measure agreement (median, interquartile ranges, and percentage of agreement). Consensus criteria were defined a priori for each round. Consensus for Round 3 was based on ≥2 of the following: a median Likert scale value of ≥4, interquartile range value of ≤1, and/or a percentage of agreement ≥70%.
Data analysis produced a consensus list of effective treatment modalities in different stages of recovery.
According to experts, the focus of multimodal management in the acute stage should consist of patient education and spinal manipulative therapy, specific (foraminal opening) exercises, and sustained pain-relieving positions. In the subacute stage, increasing individualized physical activity including supervised motor control, specific exercises, and/or neurodynamic mobilization could be added. In the chronic stage, focus should shift to include general aerobic exercise as well as focused strength training. Postural education and vocational ergonomic assessment should also be considered.
Multimodal conservative management of individuals with CR should take the stage of the condition into consideration. The focus of therapeutic interventions should shift from passive pain-relieving intervention in the acute stage to increasingly more individualized physical activity and self-management in the chronic stage.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to analyze the 2020 standard of care in certified German chest pain units (CPU) with a special focus on non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) through a voluntary survey obtained from all certified units, using a prespecified questionnaire.
METHODS: The assessment included the collection of information on diagnostic protocols, risk assessment, management and treatment strategies in suspected NSTE-ACS, the timing of invasive therapy in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and the choice of antiplatelet therapy.
RESULTS: The response rate was 75%. Among all CPUs, 77% are currently using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/3‑h high-sensitive troponin protocol, and only 20% use the ESC 0/1‑h high-sensitive troponin protocol as a default strategy. Conventional ergometry is still the commonly performed stress test with a utilization rate of 47%. Among NSTEMI patients, coronary angiography is planned within 24 h in 96% of all CPUs, irrespective of the day of the week. Prasugrel is the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but despite the impact of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial on selection of antiplatelet therapy, ticagrelor is still favored over prasugrel in NSTE-ACS. If triple therapy is used in NSTE-ACS with atrial fibrillation, it is maintained up to 4 weeks in 51% of these patients.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides evidence that Germany\'s certified CPUs ensure a high level of guideline adherence and quality of care. The survey also identified areas in need of improvement such as the high utilization rate of stress electrocardiogram (ECG).
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: Ziel der Arbeit war eine Versorgungsanalyse für das Jahr 2020 im Hinblick auf das akute Koronarsyndrom ohne ST-Strecken-Hebung (NSTE-ACS), welche anhand eines standardisierten Fragebogens in allen zertifizierten Brustschmerzeinheiten (CPU) in Deutschland durchgeführt wurde.
METHODS: In die Bewertung flossen Diagnoseprotokolle, Risikobewertung, Management- und Behandlungsstrategien bei Verdacht auf NSTE-ACS, Zeitpunkt der invasiven Therapie beim Nicht-ST-Strecken-Hebungs-Myokardinfarkt (NSTEMI) und die Wahl der Thrombozytenaggregationshemmung ein.
UNASSIGNED: Die Rücklaufquote betrug 75 %. Von allen CPU verwenden derzeit 77 % das ESC 0/3-h-high-sensitive-Troponin-Protokoll, und nur 20 % haben das ESC 0/1-h-high-sensitive-Troponin-Protokoll als Standardstrategie. Die konventionelle Ergometrie ist mit einer Durchführungsrate von 47 % nach wie vor der am häufigsten durchgeführte Belastungstest. Bei NSTEMI-Patienten wird in 96 % aller CPU, unabhängig vom Wochentag, eine Koronarangiographie innerhalb von 24 h geplant. Prasugrel ist der P2Y12-Inhibitor der Wahl beim ST-Strecken-Hebungs-Myokardinfarkt. Trotz der Ergebnisse der ISAR-REACT-5-Studie wird Ticagrelor beim NSTE-ACS immer noch gegenüber Prasugrel bevorzugt. Wird eine Tripeltherapie beim NSTE-ACS mit Vorhofflimmern eingeleitet, wird diese in 51 % der CPU bis zu 4 Wochen empfohlen.
UNASSIGNED: Die vorliegende repräsentative Umfrage unter den zertifizierten CPU liefert Belege für ein hohes Maß an Leitlinienkonformität und Versorgungsqualität in diesen Einheiten. Die Analyse deckt jedoch auch Bereiche mit Verbesserungsbedarf (wie die unverändert hohe Rate an Belastungs-EKG) auf.

Anorectal emergencies comprise a wide variety of diseases that share common symptoms, i.e., anorectal pain or bleeding and might require immediate management. While most of the underlying conditions do not need inpatient management, some of them could be life-threatening and need prompt recognition and treatment. It is well known that an incorrect diagnosis is frequent for anorectal diseases and that a delayed diagnosis is related to an impaired outcome. This paper aims to improve the knowledge and the awareness on this specific topic and to provide a useful tool for every physician dealing with anorectal emergencies.The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the boards of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the WSES-AAST-WJES Consensus Conference on Anorectal Emergencies, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES-AAST panel of experts was reached. We structured our work into seven main topics to cover the entire management of patients with anorectal emergencies and to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

The objective of this study is to compare early versus late/standard initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI).
MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane renal group till August 15, 2020.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early versus late initiation of RRT in patients with AKI were included. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality and dialysis dependence on day 90. Secondary outcome measures were length of stay, recovery of renal functions, and adverse events.
Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction using data extraction forms.
A total of 14 RCTs with 5,234 participants were included. Three trials had low risk of bias in all the domains. There was no significant difference in the overall mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.10; moderate certainty of evidence), day 30 mortality (RR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.09; high certainty of evidence), day 90 mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.13; high certainty of evidence), and ICU mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.10; moderate certainty of evidence) between the early versus late RRT. Dialysis dependence on day 90 was significantly higher in the patients assigned to early RRT (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.15, 2.09; moderate certainty of evidence). The treatment-emergent adverse events (hypophosphatemia and hypotension) were significantly higher in the patients assigned to early RRT.
There is no added benefit of early initiation of RRT in patient with AKI; this may lead to treatment-emergent adverse events. Delaying the initiation of RRT with close monitoring and initiating RRT for emergent indications should be the acceptable criterion in critical care nephrology. Prospero Registration: CRD42016043092.

The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic means that a significant number of patients who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will require surgery. Given the potential for multisystem involvement, timing of surgery needs to be carefully considered to plan for safe surgery. This consensus statement uses evidence from a systematic review and expert opinion to highlight key principles in the timing of surgery. Shared decision-making regarding timing of surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection must account for severity of the initial infection; ongoing symptoms of COVID-19; comorbid and functional status; clinical priority and risk of disease progression; and complexity of surgery. For the protection of staff, other patients and the public, planned surgery should not be considered during the period that a patient may be infectious. Precautions should be undertaken to prevent pre- and peri-operative infection, especially in higher risk patients. Elective surgery should not be scheduled within 7 weeks of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection unless the risks of deferring surgery outweigh the risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality associated with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 causes either transient or asymptomatic disease for most patients, who require no additional precautions beyond a 7-week delay, but those who have persistent symptoms or have been hospitalised require special attention. Patients with persistent symptoms of COVID-19 are at increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality even after 7 weeks. The time before surgery should be used for functional assessment, prehabilitation and multidisciplinary optimisation. Vaccination several weeks before surgery will reduce risk to patients and might lessen the risk of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection of other patients and staff. National vaccine committees should consider whether such patients can be prioritised for vaccination. As further data emerge, these recommendations may need to be revised, but the principles presented should be considered to ensure safety of patients, the public and staff.

OBJECTIVE: International guidelines emphasise the importance of securing ruptured cerebral aneurysms within 48-72 h of ictus. We assessed the timing of treatment of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) referred to a national neurosurgical centre.
METHODS: Analysis of a prospective database of patients with aSAH admitted between 1st of February 2016 and 29th of February 2020 was performed. The timing to treatment was expressed in days and analysed in three ways: ictus to treatment, ictus to referral and referral to treatment. ORs with 95% CI were calculated for aneurysm treatment within 24, 48 and 72 h for good grade (WFSN 1-3) and poor grade (WFNS 4-5) cohorts separately.
RESULTS: Of a total of 538 patients with aSAH, the aneurysm was secured in 312 (58%) within 24 h and in 398 (74%) within 48 h of ictus. Securing the aneurysm within 48 h of ictus was achieved in 89% (395/444) of patients who were referred within 24 h of ictus, but in only 3.2% (3/94) who were referred > 24 h after ictus. Poor grade patients (WFNS 4-5) were more likely than good grade patients (WFNS 1-3) to be referred to neurosurgery within 48 h of ictus (OR 22.87, 95% CI 3.14-166.49, p = 0.0020) and for their aneurysm to be secured within 48 h (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.06-2.98, p = 0.0297) of ictus. Ictus to referral delay was highest in WFNS grade 1 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In centres with 7 day per week provision of interventional neuroradiology and vascular neurosurgery, the majority of patients with aSAH can be treated within the timeframes recommended by international guidelines and this applies to all grades of aSAH. However, delays still occur in a significant proportion of patients and this particularly applies to delays in presentation and diagnosis in good grade patients.

Current guidelines do not specify timing for management of acute spinal cord injury (aSCI) due to lack of high-quality evidence supporting specific intervals for intervention. Randomized prospective trials may be unethical. Nonetheless, physicians have been sued for delays in diagnosis and intervention.
The authors reviewed both the medical literature supporting the guidelines and the legal cases reported in the Westlaw and Lexis Advance databases from 1972 to 2018 resulting in awards or settlements, to identify whether surgeons are vulnerable to litigation despite the existence of guidelines not mandating specific timing of care.
Timing of intervention was related to claims in 59 (36%) of 163 cases involving SCI. All 22 trauma cases identified cited timing of intervention, sometimes related to delayed diagnosis, as a reason for the lawsuit. The mean award of 10 cases in which the plaintiffs\' awards were disclosed was $4,294,384. In the majority of cases, award amounts were not disclosed.
Because conduct of a prospective, randomized trial to investigate surgical timing of intervention for aSCI may not be achievable, evidence-based guidelines will be unlikely to mandate specific timing. Nonetheless, surgeons who unreasonably delay intervention for aSCI may be at risk for litigation due to treatment delay. This is increasingly likely in an environment where \"complete\" SCI is difficult to verify. SCI may at some point be recognized as a surgical emergency, as brain injury generally is, despite a lack of prospective randomized trials supporting this implementation, challenging the feasibility of the US trauma infrastructure to provide care for these patients.