The real impact of the delay in presenting to the emergency department with acute renal colic: which patients are at risk?

Introduction & Objectives: The optimum length of time for conservative treatment in patients with acute renal colic is unclear and there is no clear consensus on the time scale. The aim of this study is to verify the impact of delay on biochemical and clinical outcomes for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute renal colic. Materials & Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from three institutions from two European countries from 01 January to 30 April 2020. Patients who presented to the ED with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by imaging confirmed urolithiasis were included. Exclusion criteria were: flank pain not caused by urolithiasis, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) grade >II and solitary kidney. Patients with a SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR swab test were excluded. Presentation after 24 hours since the onset of symptoms was considered a delay. Patients presenting before 24 hours from the symptom onset were included in Group A, while patients presenting after 24 hours in Group B. Clinical and biochemical parameters and management were compared. Continuous parametric and non-parametric data were analyzed with Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U test respectively. Categorical variables were analyzed with Chi-squared test. All statistical tests were two sided with the significance level set at 0.05. Results: 397 patients who presented to ED with confirmed urolithiasis were analysed (Group A, n= 199;Group B, n=198). The median (IQR) delay in presentation was 2 days (1,5-4). At presentation, no statistically significant differences were found amongst the two groups of patients regarding presenting symptoms such as fever and flank pain, and the median serum levels of creatinine, C reactive protein and white blood cells (see Table 1). No differences were found in terms of conservative or operative management. (Table Presented) Conclusions: In stable and selected patients, the clinical and biochemical parameters do not tend to worsen in the first days following the first renal colic. Most patients with suspected renal colic do not necessarily need urgent attendance to the ED and may be managed as outpatients.

Assessment of trends and clinical presentation in the emergency department of patients with renal colic during the COVID-19 pandemic era. / Evaluación de las tendencias y presentación clínica de pacientes con cólico nefrítico que acuden al servicio de urgencias durante la era pandémica del COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that the recent COVID-19 pandemic may lead to a delay in renal colic patients presenting to the Emergency Department due to the fear of getting infected. This delay may lead to a more severe clinical condition at presentation with possible complications for the patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of data collected from three institutions from Spain and Italy. Patients who presented to Emergency Department with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by imaging confirmed urolithiasis during the 45 days before and after each national lockdown were included. Data collected included patients' demographics, biochemical urine and blood tests, radiological tests, signs, symptoms and the therapeutic management. Analysis was performed between two groups, Group A: patients presenting prior to the national lockdown date; and Group B: patients presenting after the national lockdown date. RESULTS: A total of 397 patients presented to Emergency Department with radiology confirmed urolithiasis and were included in the study. The number of patients presenting to Emergency Department with renal/ureteric colic was 285 (71.8%) patients in Group A and 112 (28.2%) patients in Group B (p<0.001). The number of patients reporting a delay in presentation was 135 (47.4%) in Group A and 63 (56.3%) in Group B (p=0.11). At presentation, there were no statistical differences between Group A and Group B regarding the serum creatinine level, C reactive protein, white blood cell count, fever, oliguria, flank pain and hydronephrosis. In addition, no significant differences were observed with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy. CONCLUSION: Data from our study showed a significant reduction in presentations to Emergency Department for renal colic after the lockdown in Spain and Italy. However, we did not find any significant difference with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy.

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

Introduction We hypothesized that the recent COVID-19 pandemic may lead to a delay in renal colic patients presenting to the Emergency Department due to the fear of getting infected. This delay may lead to a more severe clinical condition at presentation with possible complications for the patients. Material and methods Retrospective review of data collected from three institutions from Spain and Italy. Patients who presented to Emergency Department with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by imaging confirmed urolithiasis during the 45 days before and after each national lockdown were included. Data collected included patients’ demographics, biochemical urine and blood tests, radiological tests, signs, symptoms and the therapeutic management. Analysis was performed between two groups, Group A: patients presenting prior to the national lockdown date;and Group B: patients presenting after the national lockdown date. Results A total of 397 patients presented to Emergency Department with radiology confirmed urolithiasis and were included in the study. The number of patients presenting to Emergency Department with renal/ureteric colic was 285 (71.8%) patients in Group A and 112 (28.2%) patients in Group B (p<0.001). The number of patients reporting a delay in presentation was 135 (47.4%) in Group A and 63 (56.3%) in Group B (p=0.11). At presentation, there were no statistical differences between Group A and Group B regarding the serum creatinine level, C reactive protein, white blood cell count, fever, oliguria, flank pain and hydronephrosis. In addition, no significant differences were observed with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy. Conclusion Data from our study showed a significant reduction in presentations to Emergency Department for renal colic after the lockdown in Spain and Italy. However, we did not find any significant difference with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy. Resumen Introducción Nuestra hipótesis es que la pandemia por COVID-19, y el estado de alarma impuesto por los gobiernos, pueden haber retrasado las visitas a urgencias por cólicos nefríticos, debido al miedo a contagiarse en los centros sanitarios. Este atraso en acudir a los servicios de urgencias puede llevar a un empeoramiento clínico y aumentar las complicaciones relacionadas con la enfermedad o el tratamiento recibido. Material y métodos Realizamos una revisión retrospectiva de 3 centros hospitalarios en España e Italia. Fueron incluidos pacientes atendidos en el servicio de urgencias por cólico renal (unilateral o bilateral) secundario a litiasis confirmadas en pruebas de imagen durante los 45 días previos y posteriores a la declaración del estado de alarma de cada país. Se recolectaron datos demográficos, síntomas y signos de presentación, análisis de sangre y orina, pruebas de imagen, y manejo terapéutico. El análisis estadístico se realizó entre dos grupos, Grupo A: pacientes que acudieron antes de la declaración del estado de alarma y Grupo B: pacientes que acudieron tras la declaración del estado de alarma. Resultados Un total de 397 pacientes que acudieron a urgencias por cólicos nefríticos secundarios a litiasis fueron incluidos en el estudio, 285 (71,8%) en el Grupo A y 112 (28,2%) en el Grupo B (p<0,001). Un total de 135 (47,4%) en el Grupo A y 63 (56,3%) en el Grupo B (p=0,11) admitieron haber pospuesto su búsqueda de atención médica urgente. En el momento de la valoración inicial, no se encontraron diferencias entre ambos grupos en los niveles de creatinina sérica, leucocitosis, fiebre, oliguria, dolor, o hidronefrosis. Además, no se observaron diferencias en relación con la estancia media, ingreso en el servicio de urología, o necesidad de tratamientos invasivos. Conclusión Nuestros resultados muestran una disminución significativa de atenciones en urgencias por cólicos nefríticos tras la declaración del estado de alarma en España e Italia. A diferencia de otros estudios publicados recientemente, no encontramos diferencias en la estancia media, ingreso al servicio de urología, o necesidad de tratamientos invasivos en pacientes que se presentaron antes y después del estado de alarma.

Telemedicine and smart working: Spanish adaptation of the European Association of Urology recommendations. / Telemedicina y trabajo inteligente: adaptación al español de las recomendaciones de la Asociación Europea de Urología.

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine provides remote clinical support through technology tools. It can facilitate medical care delivery while reducing unnecessary office visits. The COVID-19 outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, where teleconsultations play a crucial role. OBJECTIVE: To provide practical recommendations for the effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Medline until April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to «telemedicine¼ and «smart working¼ that could provide valuable information. RESULTS: Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunication tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a working approach that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful and fundamental tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and will be even more in the future. It is time for us to officially give telemedicine the place it deserves in clinical practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and familiarize with all the tools and possible strategies for its optimal implementation. We must guarantee that the quality of care received by patients and perceived by them and their families is of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates remote specialized urological clinical support and solves problems caused by limited patient mobility or transfer, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics and is useful to reduce the risk of COVID-19 viral transmission.