The use of preoperative clinical risk assessment in COVID-19 screening among asymptomatic individuals, its cost-effectiveness and impact on surgical outcomes and management decisions: A rapid review
https://doi.org/10.47895/amp.vi0.4429
- Author:
Eva I. Bautista
1
,
2
;
Patricia Pauline Remalante-Rayco
2
;
Howell Henrian G. Bayona
2
;
Leonila F. Dans
2
;
Marissa M. Alejandria
2
Author Information
1. FEU-NRMF
2. Institute of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Preoperative;
Clinical risk assessment
- MeSH:
COVID-19;
Mass Screening
- From:
Acta Medica Philippina
2020;54(Rapid Reviews on COVID19):1-7
- CountryPhilippines
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Objective:This rapid review aimed to summarize data on the accuracy, benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of preoperative COVID-19 clinical risk assessment for asymptomatic individuals.
Methods:A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, ChinaXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv was done until March 10, 2021, using the keywords “COVID-19”, “surgery”, “RT-PCR”, “clinical risk assessment” and “cost-effectiveness”. We searched for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative clinical risk assessment in COVID-19 screening among asymptomatic individuals, its cost-effectiveness, and its impact on surgical outcomes
and management decisions. Risk of bias was assessed using Evaluation of Articles on Diagnosis (Painless Evidence Based Medicine)10 for accuracy studies, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale11 for cohort studies, and Drummond’s checklist12 for economic evaluations. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall evidence. Data from included studies were collated qualitatively using summary tables and analyzed in Review Manager 5.4. Pooling of sensitivity and specificity, odds ratio or adjusted odds ratio, and cost-effectiveness measures using a random-effects model was planned. Heterogeneity was determined using I2. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were preplanned in case significant heterogeneity was found.
Results:Three observational studies were included. Preoperative clinical risk assessment for COVID-19 demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.15-0.72) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.92), using RT-PCR as a reference standard. Indirect evidence showed that any positive clinical risk assessment, COVID-19 antigen or RT-PCR test is done within 0–7 weeks from surgery was associated with a higher 30-day postoperative mortality (RR 3.96, 95% CI 3.41, 4.59) and pulmonary complications (RR 3.41, 95% CI 3.04, 3.83). Delaying surgery at least seven weeks from COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with lower post-surgical complications. Universal pre-endoscopy virus testing using the antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) (ICER = -26,286 €), standard RT-PCR (ICER = -11,128€), or rapid PCR (ICER = -13,703 €) combined with high-risk personal protective equipment (PPE) use in all patients irrespective of test results were found to be more cost-effective compared to no pre-endoscopy testing and no high-risk PPE use, at an, assumed COVID-19 prevalence of 1% or higher among asymptomatic individuals. Overall certainty of evidence was very low.
Conclusion:Preoperative clinical risk assessment has poor sensitivity but high specificity for detecting COVID-19 among asymptomatic individuals undergoing elective surgery. Objective diagnostic tests such as RT-PCR or Ag-RDT may still be needed to inform surgery schedules.
