Emergency urology procedures during CIVID-19 pandemic: A 2 monthly prospective study

Introduction: COVID-19 resulted in Regional tiered restrictions being introduced across the UK with subsequent implications for planned and emergency care. Specific to Merseyside Tier 4 and Tier 2 restrictions were introduced in late 2020. At the onset of the pandemic in the Spring, elective work ceased, and emergency admissions were minimal. The purpose of this study was to examine the volume and nature of all emergency admissions to a Urology unit in Merseyside in the 2nd wave of the pandemic during two different tiers of national restrictions. Method: A prospective audit examining all emergency urological activity was conducted in Whiston Hospital from October 2020 when the Tier 4 restrictions were introduced to Tier 2 was introduced. Data was obtained by identifying patients using the electronic theatre listing system. Results: A total of 52 emergency cases were performed (24 in November Tier 4, 28 in December Tier 2). A total of 12 different procedures were performed. The commonest procedure performed was stent insertion (26), followed by scrotal exploration (7). One patient required transfer to a different hospital. In total 4 calls were made by general surgery and 2 by gynaecology for urological assistance in theatre. Two urology patients returned to theatre. Direct Consultant involvement occurred in 19 cases (37%). Conclusions: Unlike the Spring lockdown acute urology operations presented despite regional restrictions. A total of 52 cases were performed with more occurring in Tier 2. Stent insertion was the commonest procedure with the majority of the cases performed by registrars.

Local control in hypofractionated RT after breast-conservative surgery among young Egyptian patients

Purpose or Objective Since the beginning of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), there is a compelling reason for the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) schedules in cancer management to safeguard the patients and the treating physicians. However, conflicting data shows that young breast cancer (BC) patients have a higher locoregional relapse after breast-conservative surgery (BCS). Given this, we aim to compare the locoregional control between conventional radiotherapy (CRT) and HFRT after BCS in a cohort of young BC patients. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed stage I-III BC patients in two centers diagnosed between 2008 and 2017 who underwent BCS and had follow-up data. Patients were categorized into two groups: CRT (50Gy in 25 fractions) vs. HFRT (40.5 - 42.5 Gy in 15-16 fractions). Boost was added to all patients. Results 247 patients were included in this analysis. Among them, 87 (35%) received CRT, while 160 (65%) were treated by HFRT. The clinicopathological characteristics of CRT vs. HFRT were as follows: The majority of the patients were T1 and T2, 92% in CRT vs. 94% in HFRT. N3 was rare in both groups, 8.3% vs. 5.1% in CRT vs. HFRT, respectively. The CRT had more stage 3 patients than HFRT, 35% vs. 23% respectively, but fewer stage 1 (18.1 vs. 23.5%, respectively). Estrogen/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) positive was 79.5% vs. 76.7%, HER2 enriched was 7% vs. 5%, while high Ki-67 was 56.3% vs. 71.4% in CRT vs. HFRT, respectively. Lymphovascular invasion was positive in 52.7% of CRT vs. 64.3% in HFRT, while the extracapsular extension was positive in 31% of CRT vs. 19.4% in HFRT. The distribution of tumor grades was similar across the groups. After a median follow up of 42 months (range: 5-135), 10% of the total 247 patients developed locoregional recurrences:13.8% (n=12) were in CRT group, whereas 8.1% (n=13) in HFRT, p = 0.158;the HFRT group had insignificant lower locoregional recurrences. In univariate and multivariate analysis, only very young age was an independent poor prognostic factor for locoregional failure. Conclusion We found no significant differences in locoregional control between CRT and the HFRT following BCS among young BC patients. In this COVID-19 pandemic, HFRT should also be considered in young BC patients to shorten the treatment time.

Scoping review of COVID-19-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses: can we really have confidence in their results?

AIM: The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence. DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed. RESULTS: A total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation. CONCLUSION: The methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitalizations for acute coronary syndromes: a multinational study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has challenged the health system organization requiring a fast reorganization of diagnostic/therapeutic pathways for patients affected by time-dependent diseases such as acute coronary syndromes (ACS). AIM: To describe ACS hospitalizations, management, and complication rate before and after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. DESIGN: Ecological retrospective study. Methods: We analyzed aggregated epidemiological data of all patients > 18 years old admitted for ACS in twenty-nine hub cardiac centers from 17 Countries across 4 continents, from December 1st, 2019 to April 15th, 2020. Data from December 2018 to April 2019 were used as historical period. RESULTS: A significant overall trend for reduction in the weekly number of ACS hospitalizations was observed (20.2%; 95% confidence interval CI [1.6, 35.4] P = 0.04). The incidence rate reached a 54% reduction during the second week of April (incidence rate ratio: 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.58]) and was also significant when compared to the same months in 2019 (March and April, respectively IRR: 0.56, 95%CI [0.48, 0.67]; IRR: 0.43, 95%CI [0.32, 0.58] p < 0.001). A significant increase in door-to-balloon, door-to-needle, and total ischemic time (p <0.04 for all) in STEMI patents were reported during pandemic period. Finally, the proportion of patients with mechanical complications was higher (1.98% vs. 0.98%; P = 0.006) whereas GRACE risk score was not different. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant decrease in ACS hospitalizations rate, an increase in total ischemic time and a higher rate of mechanical complications on a international scale.