Analysis of patient outcomes after urological surgery during the second and third waves of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a high incidence area.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze surgical safety through postoperative COVID-19 incidence and mortality at the urology department of a tertiary hospital located in Madrid (Spain). METHODS: Observational, prospective study including all patients undergoing urological surgery from 1st March 2020 to 28th February 2021. According to the hospital organization and local epidemiological situation we delimitate three epidemic waves. A set of screening and protective measures was applied from 4th May onwards. Demographic, baseline, surgical and perioperative variables, as well as postoperative outcomes, were collected. Telephone follow-up was performed at least 3 weeks after hospital discharge. RESULTS: 940 urological surgeries were performed, 12 of them had to be rescheduled due to active or recent SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by the screening protocol. Thirty-one patients developed COVID-19 (3.3% incidence) and 7 died (22.6% mortality). The average time to onset of symptoms was 62.6 days after discharge, being 25 cases attributable to community transmission. The remaining 6 cases, due to in-hospital transmission, had worse outcomes. Five of them were identified during the first wave, especially when no preoperative PCR was obtained. In contrast, during the second and third waves, fewer and milder cases were diagnosed, with just 1 in-hospital transmission among 857 urological patients. CONCLUSIONS: After implementing complete protective measures, postoperative in-hospital COVID-19 cases almost disappeared, even during the second and third waves. Most of the cases were due to community transmission and thus driven by the general epidemiological situation. While hospitals follow recommendations to avoid COVID-19 infection, urological surgery remains safe and can be maintained.

Cirugía urológica durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Análisis descriptivo de la experiencia en un Servicio de Urología durante distintas fases epidemiológicas / Urological surgery during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Descriptive analysis of the experience in a Urology Department across the pandemic phases

INTRODUCCIÓN: La pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 ha cambiado la práctica urológica a nivel mundial. Nuestro objetivo es describir los resultados en salud observados en los pacientes intervenidos en el Servicio de Urología de un hospital terciario, a lo largo de diferentes fases epidemiológicas. MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes observacional que incluye todos los pacientes intervenidos entre el 1 de marzo y el 14 de mayo. Según la organización hospitalaria, distinguimos 3 periodos: durante las primeras 2 semanas no hubo cambios (1.er periodo), en las 7 semanas siguientes solo se realizaron intervenciones urgentes previa extracción de exudado nasofaríngeo (2.o periodo), y tras el 4 de mayo se reanudó la cirugía electiva aplicando un protocolo de cribado multidisciplinar (3.er periodo). Las variables demográficas y basales, las quirúrgicas y perioperatorias, así como los resultados postoperatorios, se obtuvieron de forma retrospectiva (periodos 1 y 2) y prospectiva (periodo 3). El seguimiento telefónico se realizó al menos 3 semanas tras el alta hospitalaria. RESULTADOS: Se realizaron 103 cirugías urológicas y fueron diagnosticados de COVID-19 11 pacientes, 8 de ellos en el 1.er periodo. El diagnóstico era conocido en un paciente, mientras que los otros 10 desarrollaron la enfermedad en una media de 25 días tras la intervención y 16,6 días tras el alta. Cuatro de 7 pacientes trasplantados resultaron afectados. Se registraron 3 muertes por la enfermedad: una mujer de 69 años trasplantada y 2 varones mayores de 80 años con comorbilidades y alto riesgo anestésico a los que se realizó drenaje de absceso retroperitoneal y cirugía retrógrada intrarrenal, respectivamente. CONCLUSIONES: La infección por SARS-CoV-2 afectó principalmente a trasplantados renales o pacientes añosos con alto riesgo anestésico, durante las 2 primeras semanas de la pandemia. Tras implantar la PCR preoperatoria y un protocolo completo de cribado, los casos se redujeron de manera sustancial y se pudo operar con seguridad

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed the urological practice around the world. Our objective is to describe the outcomes presented by patients undergoing surgery in the urology department of a tertiary hospital, across the pandemic phases. METHODS: Observational, cohort study including all patients undergoing surgery from March 1 to May 14. According to the hospital organization, we identified three periods: there were no changes during the first two weeks (1st. period), the following seven weeks, when only urgent interventions were carried out after performance of nasopharyngeal swab test (2nd. period), and finally, elective surgery was resumed on May 4, after the implementation of a multidisciplinary screening protocol (3rd. period). Demographic, baseline, surgical and perioperative variables, as well as postoperative outcomes, were obtained in a retrospective (periods 1 and 2) and prospective (period 3) manner. Telephone follow-up was initiated at least 3 weeks after hospital discharge. RESULTS: 103 urological surgeries were performed, and 11 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, 8 of them within the 1st. period. The diagnosis was already known in 1 patient, while the other 10 developed the disease in an average of 25 days after the intervention and 16,6 days after discharge. Of seven transplant patients, four got the infection. Three deaths were recorded due to the disease: a 69-year-old woman transplanted and two men over 80 with comorbidities and high anesthetic risk who underwent drainage of retroperitoneal abscess and retrograde intrarenal surgery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection mainly affected renal transplant recipients or elderly patients with high anesthetic risk, during the first 2 weeks of the pandemic. After implementing preoperative PCR tests and a comprehensive screening protocol, cases were substantially reduced, and safe surgical procedures were achieved

Urological surgery during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Descriptive analysis of the experience in a Urology Department across the pandemic phases. / Cirugía urológica durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Análisis descriptivo de la experiencia en un Servicio de Urología durante distintas fases epidemiológicas.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed the urological practice around the world. Our objective is to describe the outcomes presented by patients undergoing surgery in the urology department of a tertiary hospital, across the pandemic phases. METHODS: Observational, cohort study including all patients undergoing surgery from March 1 to May 14. According to the hospital organization, we identified three periods: there were no changes during the first two weeks (1st. period), the following seven weeks, when only urgent interventions were carried out after performance of nasopharyngeal swab test (2nd. period), and finally, elective surgery was resumed on May 4, after the implementation of a multidisciplinary screening protocol (3rd. period). Demographic, baseline, surgical and perioperative variables, as well as postoperative outcomes, were obtained in a retrospective (periods 1 and 2) and prospective (period 3) manner. Telephone follow-up was initiated at least 3 weeks after hospital discharge. RESULTS: 103 urological surgeries were performed, and 11 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, 8 of them within the 1st. PERIOD: The diagnosis was already known in 1 patient, while the other 10 developed the disease in an average of 25 days after the intervention and 16,6 days after discharge. Of seven transplant patients, four got the infection. Three deaths were recorded due to the disease: a 69-year-old woman transplanted and two men over 80 with comorbidities and high anesthetic risk who underwent drainage of retroperitoneal abscess and retrograde intrarenal surgery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection mainly affected renal transplant recipients or elderly patients with high anesthetic risk, during the first 2 weeks of the pandemic. After implementing preoperative PCR tests and a comprehensive screening protocol, cases were substantially reduced, and safe surgical procedures were achieved.

Infecciones relacionadas con la asistencia sanitaria en pacientes ingresados en un servicio de Urología: patrones de resistencia y adecuación del tratamiento antibiótico empírico como factor pronóstico / Infections related to healthcare in patients hospitalized in a Urology service: Resistance patterns and adequacy of empirical antibiotic treatment as a prognostic factor

Objetivos: Evaluar la idoneidad de la antibioterapia empírica en IRAS y los patrones de resistencia a antibióticos de los microorganismos responsables, así como la incidencia de mortalidad y factores de riesgo en relación con IRAS. Método: Durante un periodo de 4 años se realiza un estudio prospectivo observacional sobre todos los pacientes de ambos sexos y mayores de 16 años ingresados por cualquier proceso urológico. Se evalúan la incidencia y las características de las IRAS y se analiza el microorganismo causante y sus resistencias, la antibioterapia empírica inicial y si esta precisó modificación, y las tasas de mortalidad. Resultados: De un total de 6.546 pacientes, el 6,3% sufrieron IRAS, correspondiendo el 70,5% a infección del tracto urinario y el 22,1% a infección de la herida quirúrgica. E. coli, Enterococcus spp., Klebsiella spp. y P. aeruginosa fueron los más frecuentemente implicados (25,1, 17,5, 13,5 y 12,3%, respectivamente). E. coli y Klebsiella spp. fueron productoras de betalactamasas de espectro extendido (BLEE) en el 24,7 y el 47,8%, respectivamente. El 4,3% de Klebsiella y el 33,3% de Pseudomonas eran resistentes a carbapenemes. La resistencia global a quinolonas fue del 50% aproximadamente. Los antibióticos más frecuentemente usados de forma empírica fueron cefalosporinas de tercera y cuarta generación (33,6%) y carbapenemes (28,2%). Se obtuvo una tasa global de adecuación de antibioterapia empírica del 82,9%. La tasa de mortalidad en los pacientes con IRAS fue del 2,2%, frente al 0,3% en los pacientes sin infección. En un análisis multivariable, las variables que se asociaron a mayor riesgo de mortalidad fueron el aislamiento de enterobacterias productoras de BLEE y el tratamiento antibiótico empírico inadecuado. Conclusiones: La selección de la antibioterapia empírica fue bastante precisa. Se está observando un aumento de IRAS por microorganismos multirresistentes, como enterobacterias BLEE o P.aeruginosa multirresistentes. El riesgo de mortalidad aumenta con una antibioterapia empírica inicial inadecuada o cuando el microorganismo responsable es una enterobacteria BLEE

Objectives: To evaluate the suitability of empirical antibiotic therapy in HAIs and the antibiotic resistance patterns of the responsible microorganisms, as well as the incidence of mortality and risk factors involved. Method: A prospective observational study was carried out on patients of both sexes older than 16 years, admitted by any urological process during a period of 4 years. The incidence and characteristics of HAIs, as well as the causative organism and its resistance, the initial empirical antibiotic therapy and its modification, if required, and mortality rates are analyzed. Results: Out of 6546 patients, 6.3% suffered HAIs, 70.5% corresponding to urinary tract infection and 22.1% to infection of the surgical wound. E.coli, Enterococcus spp., Klebsiella spp. y P. aeruginosa were the most frequently implicated (25.1%, 17.5%, 13.5% and 12.3%, respectively). E. coli and Klebsiella spp. were producers of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) in 24.7% and 47.8%, respectively. 4.3% of Klebsiella and 33.3% of Pseudomonas were carbapenems-resistant. The overall resistance to quinolones was approximately 50%. The most commonly used antibiotics for empirical therapy were cephalosporins of 3rd and 4th generation (33.6%) and carbapenems (28.2%). An overall rate of adequacy of empirical antibiotic therapy of 82.9% was obtained. The mortality rate in patients with HAIs was 2.2%, compared with 0.3% in patients without infection. In a multivariate analysis, the variables associated with the highest mortality risk were the isolation of ESBL-producing enterobacteria and the inadequate empirical antibiotic treatment. Conclusions: The selection of empirical antibiotic therapy was quite accurate. An increase in HAIs by multiresistant microorganisms, such as ESBL Enterobacteria or multiresistant P.aeruginosa is being observed. The mortality risk increases with inadequate initial empirical antibiotic therapy or when the responsible microorganism is an ESBL enterobacteria

Infections related to healthcare in patients hospitalized in a Urology service: resistance patterns and adequacy of empirical antibiotic treatment as a prognostic factor. / Infecciones relacionadas con la asistencia sanitaria en pacientes ingresados en un servicio de Urología: patrones de resistencia y adecuación del tratamiento antibiótico empírico como factor pronóstico.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the suitability of empirical antibiotic therapy in HAIs and the antibiotic resistance patterns of the responsible microorganisms, as well as the incidence of mortality and risk factors involved. METHOD: A prospective observational study was carried out on patients of both sexes older than 16years, admitted by any urological process during a period of 4years. The incidence and characteristics of HAIs, as well as the causative organism and its resistance, the initial empirical antibiotic therapy and its modification, if required, and mortality rates are analysed. RESULTS: Out of 6,546 patients, 6.3% suffered HAIs, 70.5% corresponding to urinary tract infection and 22.1% to infection of the surgical wound. E.coli, Enterococcus spp., Klebsiella spp. y P.aeruginosa were the most frequently implicated (25.1%, 17.5%, 13.5% and 12.3%, respectively). E.coli and Klebsiella spp. were producers of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) in 24.7% and 47.8%, respectively. 4.3% of Klebsiella and 33.3% of Pseudomonas were carbapenems-resistant. The overall resistance to quinolones was approximately 50%. The most commonly used antibiotics for empirical therapy were cephalosporins of 3rd and 4th generation (33.6%) and carbapenems (28.2%). An overall rate of adequacy of empirical antibiotic therapy of 82.9% was obtained. The mortality rate in patients with HAIs was 2.2%, compared with 0.3% in patients without infection. In a multivariate analysis, the variables associated with the highest mortality risk were the isolation of ESBL-producing enterobacteria and the inadequate empirical antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of empirical antibiotic therapy was quite accurate. An increase in HAIs by multiresistant microorganisms, such as ESBL Enterobacteria or multiresistant P.aeruginosa is being observed. The mortality risk increases with inadequate initial empirical antibiotic therapy or when the responsible microorganism is an ESBL enterobacteria.

Infecciones por enterobacterias productoras de carbapenemasas en un servicio de urología. Un nuevo desafío / Infections by carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae in a department of urology. A new challenge

Objetivos: Analizar las infecciones por enterobacterias productoras de carbapenemasas (EPC) y describir características y posibles factores de riesgo asociados con los pacientes de un servicio de urología. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional y retrospectivo. El criterio de inclusión fue haber estado ingresado en nuestro servicio de urología entre agosto de 2013 y diciembre de 2016. Se analizaron aquellos que presentaron positividad para EPC en al menos un cultivo. Se revisaron características basales y factores de riesgo. Asimismo se revisaron variables como presencia de infecciones urinarias previas, reingresos posteriores, el microorganismo, tipo de EPC, tratamiento administrado, un origen hospitalario o comunitario y la mortalidad. Resultados: De los 5.657 pacientes que cumplían criterio de inclusión, en 12 casos se aisló una EPC. Las infecciones por EPC representaron un 3,6% del total de infecciones relacionadas con la asistencia sanitaria y un 9,7% de las producidas por enterobacterias. Los factores analizados asociados a infección por EPC en nuestra serie son: presencia de catéteres urinarios (100%), haber sido sometido a tratamiento quirúrgico (58,3%), ingreso previo en UCI (8,3%) e inmunosupresión (16,6%). Con relación a la mortalidad, un 8,3% de los pacientes que presentaron infección por EPC fallecieron durante el ingreso. Conclusiones: Aproximadamente un 10% de las enterobacterias presenta patrón de resistencia a carbapenemasas en el paciente urológico de nuestro medio. Ser portador de catéter urinario y/o someterse a una cirugía son factores de riesgo asociados al desarrollo de estas infecciones en el paciente urológico de nuestro medio. La infección por una EPC eleva la morbimortalidad

Objectives: To analyse infections by carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) and describe the characteristics and potential risk factors associated with patients of a department of urology. Material and methods: Observational and retrospective study. The inclusion criterion was hospitalisation in our department of Urology between August 2013 and December 2016. We analysed those patients who were positive for CPE in at least 1 culture. We reviewed their baseline characteristics, risk factors and variables such as the presence of previous urinary tract infections, subsequent readmissions, the microorganism, type of CPE, treatment, origin (hospital or community) and mortality. Results: Of the 5,657 patients who met the inclusion criterion, a CPE was isolated in 12 cases. CPE infections represented 3.6% of all healthcare-associated infections and 9.7% of those caused by enterobacteria. The analysed factors associated with CPE infection in our series were the presence of urinary catheters (100%), undergoing surgery (58.3%), previous ICU admission (8.3%) and immunosuppression (16.6%). In terms of mortality, 8.3% of the patients who presented CPE infection died during hospitalisation. Conclusions: Approximately 10% of enterobacteria present a carbapenemase-resistance pattern in urological patients in our setting. Carrying a urinary catheter and/or undergoing surgery are risk factors associated with the development of these infections in urological patients in our setting. CPE infections increase morbidity and mortality

Infections by carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae in a department of urology. A new challenge. / Infecciones por enterobacterias productoras de carbapenemasas en un servicio de urología. Un nuevo desafío.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse infections by carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) and describe the characteristics and potential risk factors associated with patients of a department of urology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational and retrospective study. The inclusion criterion was hospitalisation in our department of Urology between August 2013 and December 2016. We analysed those patients who were positive for CPE in at least 1 culture. We reviewed their baseline characteristics, risk factors and variables such as the presence of previous urinary tract infections, subsequent readmissions, the microorganism, type of CPE, treatment, origin (hospital or community) and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 5,657 patients who met the inclusion criterion, a CPE was isolated in 12 cases. CPE infections represented 3.6% of all healthcare-associated infections and 9.7% of those caused by enterobacteria. The analysed factors associated with CPE infection in our series were the presence of urinary catheters (100%), undergoing surgery (58.3%), previous ICU admission (8.3%) and immunosuppression (16.6%). In terms of mortality, 8.3% of the patients who presented CPE infection died during hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 10% of enterobacteria present a carbapenemase-resistance pattern in urological patients in our setting. Carrying a urinary catheter and/or undergoing surgery are risk factors associated with the development of these infections in urological patients in our setting. CPE infections increase morbidity and mortality.

Infección de herida quirúrgica en urología. Análisis de factores de riesgo y microorganismos asociados / Surgical wound infection in urology. Analysis of risk factors and associated microorganisms

Objetivos. La cirugía abierta sigue teniendo un papel fundamental en urología, y la infección de la herida quirúrgica es una de sus principales complicaciones. Nuestro objetivo fue analizar la infección de la herida quirúrgica en pacientes intervenidos por nuestro servicio de urología y valorar factores de riesgo, microorganismos y resistencias por tipo de cirugía. Material y métodos. Estudio prospectivo y observacional. Incluyó 940 pacientes: 370 cirugías abdominal/lumbar abierta y 570 genitoperineales. Analizamos edad, sexo, comorbilidades, estancia y tipo de cirugía, así como microorganismos causantes y resistencias a antibióticos. Resultados. En cirugía genitoperineal hallamos 15 casos (2,6%) de infección de la herida quirúrgica, asociándose a cateterismo urinario previo. La mayoría de los microorganismos aislados corresponden a enterobacterias, destacando las resistencias a betalactámicos. En cirugía abdominal/lumbar encontramos 41 casos (11,1%) de infección de la herida quirúrgica. La incidencia fue del 3,3% en cirugía prostática, del 9,8% en cirugía renal y del 45,0% en cistectomía. Padecer cardiopatía se asoció a mayor incidencia de infección de la herida quirúrgica. Los microorganismos más frecuentes fueron Enterococcus spp. (27,1%), E.coli (22,9%) y Staphylococcus aureus (14,6%). Enterococcus es resistente a ampicilina en el 37,5% y E.coli productor de betalactamasas, en el 41,7%. Conclusiones. Encontramos escasa incidencia de infección de la herida quirúrgica en cirugía genitoperineal, comparada con la renal y cistectomía. La presencia de cardiopatía y portar catéter urinario previo son factores asociados a infección de la herida quirúrgica. Enterococcus y E.coli son los patógenos más frecuentes, con altas tasas de resistencia (AU)

Objectives. Open surgery continues to have a fundamental role in urology, and one of its main complications is surgical wound infection. Our objective was to analyse surgical wound infection in patients who underwent surgery in our Department of Urology and to assess the risk factors, microorganisms and resistances by type of surgery. Material and methods. This was a prospective observational study that included 940 patients: 370 abdominal/open lumbar surgeries and 570 genitoperineal surgeries. We analysed age, sex, comorbidities, stay and type of surgery, as well as the causal microorganisms and antibiotic resistances. Results. For genitoperineal surgery, we found 15 cases (2.6%) of surgical wound infection associated with previous urinary catheterisation. Most of the isolated microorganisms corresponded to enterobacteriaceae, highlighting the resistance to beta-lactam. In abdominal/lumbar surgery, we found 41 cases (11.1%) of surgical wound infection. The incidence rate was 3.3% in prostate surgery; 9.8% in renal surgery; and 45.0% in cystectomy. Heart disease was associated with a higher incidence rate of surgical wound infection. The most common microorganisms were Enterococcus spp. (27.1%), E.coli (22.9%) and Staphylococcus aureus (14.6%). Enterococcus and beta-lactamase-producing E.coli are resistant to ampicillin in 37.5% and 41.7% of cases, respectively. Conclusions. We found a low incidence rate of surgical wound infection in genitoperineal surgery, compared with renal surgery and cystectomy. The presence of heart disease and carrying a previous urinary catheter are factors associated with surgical wound infection. Enterococcus and E.coli are the most common pathogens, with high rates of resistance (AU)

Surgical wound infection in urology. Analysis of risk factors and associated microorganisms. / Infección de herida quirúrgica en urología. Análisis de factores de riesgo y microorganismos asociados.

OBJECTIVES: Open surgery continues to have a fundamental role in urology, and one of its main complications is surgical wound infection. Our objective was to analyse surgical wound infection in patients who underwent surgery in our Department of Urology and to assess the risk factors, microorganisms and resistances by type of surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study that included 940 patients: 370 abdominal/open lumbar surgeries and 570 genitoperineal surgeries. We analysed age, sex, comorbidities, stay and type of surgery, as well as the causal microorganisms and antibiotic resistances. RESULTS: For genitoperineal surgery, we found 15 cases (2.6%) of surgical wound infection associated with previous urinary catheterisation. Most of the isolated microorganisms corresponded to enterobacteriaceae, highlighting the resistance to beta-lactam. In abdominal/lumbar surgery, we found 41 cases (11.1%) of surgical wound infection. The incidence rate was 3.3% in prostate surgery; 9.8% in renal surgery; and 45.0% in cystectomy. Heart disease was associated with a higher incidence rate of surgical wound infection. The most common microorganisms were Enterococcus spp. (27.1%), E.coli (22.9%) and Staphylococcus aureus (14.6%). Enterococcus and beta-lactamase-producing E.coli are resistant to ampicillin in 37.5% and 41.7% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found a low incidence rate of surgical wound infection in genitoperineal surgery, compared with renal surgery and cystectomy. The presence of heart disease and carrying a previous urinary catheter are factors associated with surgical wound infection. Enterococcus and E.coli are the most common pathogens, with high rates of resistance.