Literature DB >> 32468127

How urinary stone emergencies changed in the time of COVID-19?

Simone Flammia1, Stefano Salciccia2,3, Antonio Tufano1, Gian Maria Busetto1, Gian Piero Ricciuti1, Alessandro Sciarra1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32468127      PMCID: PMC7255446          DOI: 10.1007/s00240-020-01198-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


× No keyword cloud information.
The pandemic acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), named COVID-19 [1], is generating a severe health emergency all over the world but particularly in some countries. The healthcare challenge is to provide assistance to the increasing number of infected patients, to contain ways of transmission and at the same time to treat all the non-deferrable medical conditions that continue to affect the population. Moreover, the most relevant problems are in the management of all first aid accesses and emergencies other than COVID-19. In this brief communication, we report our experience on the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requested and performed for urinary stone emergencies during a 6-week period activity in a hospital partially converted to COVID-19 care and in the highest national level of COVID-19 infection (March–April 2020), with the management performed in the same hospital in a no-COVID-19 period (March–April 2019) 1 year ago. In particular, we analyzed differences between these two time-related populations in terms of patients and urinary stone characteristics, symptoms and complications at presentation, diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, time of hospitalization. ANOVA analysis and Chi square test were used to quantify the differences between the two time periods. Some relevant data are obtained (Table 1): (1) independent to COVID-19 infection, in our hospital, the number of first aid accesses for urinary stone emergencies did not significantly change (44 cases in the no COVID-19 period versus 36 cases in the COVID-19 period) (2) patients presenting during COVID-19 time showed significantly higher serum levels of creatinine (p = 0.026) when compared to a no-COVID-19 period. These data may suggest a delay in terms of patient presentation to the hospital, related to the pandemic. (3) However, no significant differences were detected in terms of complication rates, urinary stone diameter or grade of hydronephrosis due to COVID-19 pandemic. (4) Stone position significantly changed with a higher rate of lumbar ureter and lower of juxta-vesical site during COVID-19 period (p = 0.036). The reduction of first aid access for juxta-vesical site stones may be interpreted through a higher rate of its management using medical therapies at home. (5) Diagnostic and therapeutic approach to urinary stone emergencies did not significantly change compared to the non-pandemic period. In particular, the use of nephrostomy or ureteral stent for the first aid did not significantly change. Across a 6-week period during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, urinary stone emergencies continued to be managed with few significant variations in a geographical area at medium density for COVID-19 and in a hospital partially converted in first aid cares. An effective reorganization of health care facilities in hospitals can consent to do not reduce cares and resources for patients with other urgent and emergent conditions such as urinary stones [2-3]. The findings presented here suggest that urinary stone emergencies are mainly severe, their care need to be continued and they were not significantly influenced by this pandemic.
Table 1

Patient characteristics: percentage of cases (%); mean ± SD and range

Variable1st March–15th April 20191st March–15th April 2020p value
Age (years)56.55 ± 15.98 (40–74)54.25 ± 18.54 (35–74)0.776
Weight (kg)69.18 ± 9.53 (60.0–84.0)89.00 ± 15.26 (72.0–97.0)0.003
BMI (kg/m2)25.11 ± 3.85 (20–29)26.87 ± 4.07 (20–32)0.349
Charlson Comorbidity Index0.658
 036.4%50.0%
 118.2%0.0%
 ≥ 245.5%50.0%
sCR at ED entry (mg/dl)1.20 ± 0.54 (0.80–1.70)2.87 ± 1.25 (1.25–10.93)0.026
WBC at ED entry (1000 × UI/ml)13.13 ± 5.19 (7.0–19.0)8.71 ± 3.49 (5.0–12.0)0.052
Previous history of urinary stones0.370
 Negative63.6%37.5%
 Positive36.4%62.5%
Renal colic pain as main symptom0.959
 Absent27.3%25.0%
 Present72.7%75.0%
Complicated UTI at ED entry70.659
 Absent63.6%75.0%
 Present36.4%25.0%
Imaging test at ED0.945
 US and/or X-ray45.5%37.5%
 CT scan only18.2%12.5%
 Both36.4%50.0%
Hydronefrosis at ED entry0.955
 Absent18.2%12.5%
 Present81.8%87.5%
Side of hydronefrosis0.247
 Right45.5%50.0%
 Left45.5%12.5%
 Bilateral9.0%37.5%
Grade of hydronephrosis0.633
 0–145.5%25.0%
 2–354.5%75.0%
Number of stones0.965
 163.6%62.5%
 2–527.3%25.0%
 > 59.1%12.5%
Stone position0.036
 Renal (ampulla, and/or calices)36.4%25.0%
 Lumbar ureter0.0%50.0%
 Juxta-vesical ureter54.5%12.5%
 Bladder9.1%12.5%
Maximum diameter stone (mm)10.0 ± 4.3 (6–16)8.0 ± 2.8(6–13)0.442
Nephrostomy at ED0.181
 None8 (72.7%)37.5%
 Yes3 (27.3%)62.5%
Stone treatment0.578
 Medical therapy only45.5%37.5%
 RIRS9.1%0.0%
 ULT18.2%50.0%
 BLT9.1%12.5%
 Nephrectomy18.%0.0%
Antibiotic treatment0.542
 No0.0%12.5%
 Fluoroquinolones27.3%12.5%
 Cephalosporin36.4%25.0%
 Penicillins9.1%25.0%
 Carbapenems9.1%25.0%
 Others18.1%0.0%
Hospital stay (days)6.0 ± 2.4 (3.00–12.00)10.0 ± 7.6 (1.00–33.50)0.778

p value chi-square test, sCR serum creatinine, ED emergency department, WBC white blood cells, UTI urinary tract infection, US ultrasonography; CT computer tomography, ULT ureterolithotripsy, RIRS retrograde intrarenal surgery, BLT bladder stone lithotripsy

Patient characteristics: percentage of cases (%); mean ± SD and range p value chi-square test, sCR serum creatinine, ED emergency department, WBC white blood cells, UTI urinary tract infection, US ultrasonography; CT computer tomography, ULT ureterolithotripsy, RIRS retrograde intrarenal surgery, BLT bladder stone lithotripsy
  10 in total

Review 1.  Urolithiasis treatment options during COVID-19 pandemic: review of current recommendations and triage systems.

Authors:  Ali Abdel Raheem; Ibrahim Alowidah; Mohamed Soliman; Mefarrih Haresy; Ali Almozeni; Sultan Althagafi; Mohamed Almousa; Mohamed Alturki
Journal:  Afr J Urol       Date:  2020-11-25

Review 2.  The Impact of COVID-19 Disease on Urology Practice.

Authors:  Mohamad Moussa; Mohamed Abou Chakra; Athanasios G Papatsoris; Athanasios Dellis
Journal:  Surg J (N Y)       Date:  2021-06-03

3.  A Tale of Two Eras: The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Stone Disease Presentations.

Authors:  Naveen Kachroo; Henry C Wright; Sri Sivalingam
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Comparison of Management and Outcomes of Symptomatic Urolithiasis During the COVID-19 Pandemic to a Comparative Cohort.

Authors:  Alex Nourian; Curran Uppaluri; Michelle Chen; Eric M Ghiraldi; Justin I Friedlander
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 2.633

5.  Changing patterns of urologic emergency visits and admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study.

Authors:  Pawel Rajwa; Mikolaj Przydacz; Wojciech Krajewski; Blazej Kuffel; Piotr Zapala; Aleksandra Krzywon; Alexander J Cortez; Bartosz Dybowski; Remigiusz Stamirowski; Marcin Jarzemski; Rafal B Drobot; Pawel Stelmach; Krystyna Mlynarek; Mateusz Marcinek; Maciej Przudzik; Wiktor Krawczyk; Jakub Ryszawy; Dominik Choragwicki; Lukasz Zapala; Marcin Lipa; Michal Pozniak; Dawid Janczak; Szymon Słomian; Jan Łaszkiewicz; Marcel Nowak; Marcin Miszczyk; Marek Roslan; Michał Tkocz; Romuald Zdrojowy; Andrzej Potyka; Tomasz Szydełko; Tomasz Drewa; Piotr Jarzemski; Piotr Radziszewski; Marcin Slojewski; Artur Antoniewicz; Andrzej Paradysz; Piotr L Chlosta
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 3.318

6.  COVID-19: The impact on urolithiasis treatment in Brazil.

Authors:  Fernando Korkes; Khalil Smaidi; Matheus Pascotto Salles; Antonio Correa Lopes; Ita Pfeferman Heilberg; Sidney Glina
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2022 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 7.  Triaging urological surgeries to cope with the coronavirus-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Jesse Spooner; Tarek Lawen; Jesse Ory
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 2.309

8.  Modifications regarding diagnostic approach and therapeutic management of urinary stones' disorders during COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Ilias Giannakodimos; Alexios Giannakodimos; Evangelos Fragkiadis; Dimitrios Schizas; Aikaterini Mastoraki
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Assessment of trends and clinical presentation in the emergency department of patients with renal colic during the COVID-19 pandemic era.

Authors:  D M Carrion; G Mantica; M Antón-Juanilla M; K H Pang; S Tappero; A Rodriguez-Serrano; S Parodi; V Crespo-Atín; R Cansino; C Terrone; S Nikles; J Gomez Rivas; F Esperto
Journal:  Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed)       Date:  2020-09-07

Review 10.  Changes in practice patterns of nephrolithiasis in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a review.

Authors:  Mohammad Hout; Robert Marcovich; Hemendra Shah
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 2.309

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.