Transplant renal artery stenosis: Study of incidence using doppler ultrasound, risk factors and analysis is effect in graft outcomes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS) is a vascular complication after kidney transplantation which estimated incidence is 13%. It could cause refractory arterial hypertension, kidney dysfunction and premature death in transplant recipients. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study including every patient who underwent renal transplantation between 2014 and 2020. They were evaluated with a systematic post-transplant renal Doppler ultrasound. To identify independent risk factors for transplant renal artery stenosis we performed a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Seven hundred twenty-four kidney transplants were included, 12% ​​were living donors and 88% were deceased donors. The mean age was 54.8 in recipients and 53 in donors. Transplant renal artery stenosis was diagnosed in 70 (10%) recipients, the majority in the first 6 months after surgery. 51% of patients with transplant renal artery stenosis were managed conservatively. The multivariate analysis showed diabetes mellitus, graft rejection, arterial resuture and donor body mass index as independent risk factors for transplant renal artery stenosis. Survival of the grafts with transplant renal artery stenosis was 98% at 6 months and 95% at two years. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic performance of Doppler ultrasound in the immediate post-transplant period diagnosed 10% of transplant renal artery stenosis in our cohort. Despite the above risk factors, an adequate monitoring and treatment could avoid the increased risk of graft loss in patients with transplant renal artery stenosis.

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.

[Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on urology surgical waiting lists and waiting lists prioritization strategies in the Post-COVID-19 era]. / Impacto del brote de COVID-19 en las listas de espera de cirugía urológica y estrategias de priorización en la era post-COVID-19.

Introduction: The suspension of most elective surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic caused the lengthening of urology surgical waiting lists. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on urology surgical waiting list in a high-volume hospital. Methods: An observational descriptive study was designed. All patients included in the urology surgical waiting list of our high-volume center on May 1st 2020 (46 days after the suspension of elective surgery) were analyzed. Baseline variables, priority on the waiting list, main urological disease, type of scheduled surgery, and waiting time were recorded. Other variables recorded were the presence of a urinary catheter, number of accesses to the emergency department, evidence of COVID-19 infection, number of deaths and their cause. The waiting time for each disease was compared with the time to surgery in 2019. Results: A total of 350 patients were included. The mean (SD) time on the waiting list was 97.33 (55.47) days. Priority 1 patients, who normally should undergo surgery within 30 days, were on the waiting list for a mean (SD) time of 60.51 (20.14) days. They were mainly patients with ureteral lithiasis (25.6%), high-risk or muscle-invasive bladder cancer (20.9%) and high-risk prostate cancer (13.9%). The mean waiting time had already significantly exceeded the mean time to surgery in 2019 for radical cystectomy (p = 0.04) and URS (p = 0.003). Conclusions: The suspension of most elective surgeries due to COVID-19 had a significant impact on urology surgical waiting list of our high-volume center, especially in priority 1 group.

Impacto del brote de COVID-19 en las listas de espera de cirugía urológica y estrategias de priorización en la era post-COVID-19 / Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on urology surgical waiting lists and waiting lists prioritization strategies in the Post-COVID-19 era

Introducción: La suspensión de la mayoría de las cirugías electivas durante la pandemia por COVID-19 ha aumentado las listas de espera de cirugía urológica. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar el impacto de la pandemia COVID-19 en la lista de espera de cirugía urológica en un hospital de alto volumen.MétodosSe diseñó un estudio descriptivo observacional. Se analizaron todos los pacientes incluidos en la lista de espera de cirugía urológica de nuestro centro de alto volumen el 1 de mayo de 2020 (46 días después de la suspensión de la cirugía electiva). Se registraron las características basales, prioridad en la lista de espera, enfermedad urológica principal, tipo de cirugía programada y tiempo de espera. Otras variables registradas fueron la presencia de catéter urinario, el número de visitas al servicio de urgencias, evidencia de infección por COVID-19, el número de muertes y su causa. El tiempo de espera de cada enfermedad se comparó con el tiempo de espera para la cirugía en 2019.ResultadosUn total de 350 pacientes fueron incluidos en el estudio. El tiempo medio (DE) en la lista de espera fue de 97,33 (55,47) días. Los pacientes de prioridad 1, que normalmente deben ser operados en un plazo de 30 días, estuvieron en la lista de espera por un tiempo medio de 60,51 (20,14) días. Eran principalmente pacientes con litiasis ureteral (25,6%), cáncer de vejiga de alto riesgo o músculo-invasivo (20,9%) y cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo (13,9%). El tiempo medio de espera superaba significativamente el tiempo medio (DE) de espera para cistectomía radical (p = 0,04) y URS (p = 0,003) en 2019.ConclusionesLa suspensión de la mayoría de las cirugías electivas debido a la pandemia por COVID-19 tuvo un impacto significativo en la lista de espera de cirugía urológica de nuestro centro de alto volumen, especialmente en el grupo de prioridad 1. (AU)

Introduction: The suspension of most elective surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic caused the lengthening of urology surgical waiting lists. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on urology surgical waiting list in a high-volume hospital.MethodsAn observational descriptive study was designed. All patients included in the urology surgical waiting list of our high-volume center on May 1st 2020 (46 days after the suspension of elective surgery) were analyzed. Baseline variables, priority on the waiting list, main urological disease, type of scheduled surgery, and waiting time were recorded. Other variables recorded were the presence of a urinary catheter, number of accesses to the emergency department, evidence of COVID-19 infection, number of deaths and their cause. The waiting time for each disease was compared with the time to surgery in 2019.ResultsA total of 350 patients were included. The mean (SD) time on the waiting list was 97.33 (55.47) days. Priority 1 patients, who normally should undergo surgery within 30 days, were on the waiting list for a mean (SD) time of 60.51 (20.14) days. They were mainly patients with ureteral lithiasis (25.6%), high-risk or muscle-invasive bladder cancer (20.9%) and high-risk prostate cancer (13.9%). The mean waiting time had already significantly exceeded the mean time to surgery in 2019 for radical cystectomy (p = 0.04) and URS (p = 0.003).ConclusionsThe suspension of most elective surgeries due to COVID-19 had a significant impact on urology surgical waiting list of our high-volume center, especially in priority 1 group. (AU)

Estudio de las infecciones relacionadas con la asistencia sanitaria tras la realización de cistectomía radical / Evaluation of health care-associated infections following radical cystectomy

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVO: La cistectomía radical es una cirugía compleja con una alta tasa de complicaciones, entre ellas las infecciones, conllevando un aumento de la morbimortalidad, estancia hospitalaria y costes. El objetivo de este trabajo es estudiar las infecciones relacionadas con la asistencia sanitaria (IRAS) en estos pacientes, así como de los microorganismos asociados, perfiles de resistencia antibiótica y factores de riesgo. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo del 2012 al 2017. Se recogen variables epidemiológicas, comorbilidades y variables quirúrgicas. Se analizan los microorganismos implicados y patrones de susceptibilidad antibiótica. RESULTADOS: Estudio de 122 pacientes. Edad media 67 años (DE:18,42). Estancia hospitalaria media 23,5 días (18,42). Tasa de IRAS del 45%, predominando las infecciones del tracto urinario (43%) y de la herida quirúrgica (31%). Cultivos positivos en el 78,6% de los casos. Mayor aislamiento de Enterococcus (18%) y Escherichia coli (13%). El 43% de los microorganismos presentaban resistencia a la amoxicilina/ampicilina, 23% a las betalactamasas y 36% a las quinolonas. El tratamiento empírico fue adecuado en el 87,5%. Se observa un aumento en la estancia hospitalaria (17 días, p < 0,05) por padecer una IRAS. Menor tasa de complicaciones infecciosas en el abordaje laparoscópico frente al abierto (p < 0,001) y en las derivaciones ortotópicas frente al conducto ileal (p = 0,04). CONCLUSIONES: Encontramos una elevada tasa de IRAS en nuestra serie de cistectomías radicales, con un predominio de infecciones del tracto urinario y de la herida quirúrgica. E. coli y Enterococcus spp. son los microorganismos más frecuentemente aislados, con altas tasas de resistencia a algunos antibióticos de uso común

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Radical cystectomy is a complex surgery with a high rate of complications including infections, which lead to increased morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stay and higher costs. The aim of this work is to evaluate health care-associated infections (HAIs) in these patients, as well as associated microorganisms, antibiotic resistance profiles and risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study from 2012 to 2017. Epidemiologic variables, comorbidities and surgical variables are collected. The microorganisms involved and antibiotic susceptibility patterns are analyzed. RESULTS: 122 patients. Mean age 67 (SD:18,42). Mean hospital stay 23.5 days (18.42). HAIs rate of 45%, with predominant urinary tract infections (43%) and surgical wound infections (31%). Positive cultures in 78.6% of cases. Increased isolation of Enterococcus (18%) and Escherichia coli (13%). Forty-three percent of microorganisms were resistant to amoxicillin/ampicillin, 23% to beta-lactamases and 36% to quinolones. Empirical treatment was adequate in 87.5%. Hospital stay is increased (17 days, p < 0.05) due to HAIs. Lower rate of infectious complications in the laparoscopic vs. open approach (p < 0.001) and in orthotopic vs. ileal conduit diversion (p = 0.04) CONCLUSIONS: We found a high rate of HAIs in our radical cystectomy series, with predominant urinary tract and surgical wound infections. E.coli and Enterococcus spp. are the most frequently isolated microorganisms, with high rates of resistance to some commonly used antibiotics

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on urology surgical waiting lists and waiting lists prioritization strategies in the Post-COVID-19 era. / Impacto del brote de COVID-19 en las listas de espera de cirugía urológica y estrategias de priorización en la era post-COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The suspension of most elective surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic caused the lengthening of urology surgical waiting lists. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on urology surgical waiting list in a high-volume hospital. METHODS: An observational descriptive study was designed. All patients included in the urology surgical waiting list of our high-volume center on May 1st 2020 (46 days after the suspension of elective surgery) were analyzed. Baseline variables, priority on the waiting list, main urological disease, type of scheduled surgery, and waiting time were recorded. Other variables recorded were the presence of a urinary catheter, number of accesses to the emergency department, evidence of COVID-19 infection, number of deaths and their cause. The waiting time for each disease was compared with the time to surgery in 2019. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included. The mean (SD) time on the waiting list was 97.33 (55.47) days. Priority 1 patients, who normally should undergo surgery within 30 days, were on the waiting list for a mean (SD) time of 60.51 (20.14) days. They were mainly patients with ureteral lithiasis (25.6%), high-risk or muscle-invasive bladder cancer (20.9%) and high-risk prostate cancer (13.9%). The mean waiting time had already significantly exceeded the mean time to surgery in 2019 for radical cystectomy (p = 0.04) and URS (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The suspension of most elective surgeries due to COVID-19 had a significant impact on urology surgical waiting list of our high-volume center, especially in priority 1 group.

Evaluation of health care-associated infections following radical cystectomy. / Estudio de las infecciones relacionadas con la asistencia sanitaria tras la realización de cistectomía radical.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Radical cystectomy is a complex surgery with a high rate of complications including infections, which lead to increased morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stay and higher costs. The aim of this work is to evaluate health care-associated infections (HAIs) in these patients, as well as associated microorganisms, antibiotic resistance profiles and risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study from 2012 to 2017. Epidemiologic variables, comorbidities and surgical variables are collected. The microorganisms involved and antibiotic susceptibility patterns are analyzed. RESULTS: 122 patients. Mean age 67 (SD:18,42). Mean hospital stay 23.5 days (18.42). HAIs rate of 45%, with predominant urinary tract infections (43%) and surgical wound infections (31%). Positive cultures in 78.6% of cases. Increased isolation of Enterococcus (18%) and Escherichia coli (13%). Forty-three percent of microorganisms were resistant to amoxicillin/ampicillin, 23% to beta-lactamases and 36% to quinolones. Empirical treatment was adequate in 87.5%. Hospital stay is increased (17 days, p< 0.05) due to HAIs. Lower rate of infectious complications in the laparoscopic vs. open approach (p< 0.001) and in orthotopic vs. ileal conduit diversion (p = 0.04) CONCLUSIONS: We found a high rate of HAIs in our radical cystectomy series, with predominant urinary tract and surgical wound infections. E.coli and Enterococcus spp. are the most frequently isolated microorganisms, with high rates of resistance to some commonly used antibiotics.

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

Diseño de un protocolo asistencial para el reinicio de la cirugía urológica programada en periodo de epidemia COVID-19 / Design of an assistance protocol for the restart of scheduled urologic surgery in a COVID-19 epidemic period

OBJETIVO: Diseñar un protocolo asistencial para reiniciar la actividad quirúrgica programada en un servicio de Urología de un hospital de tercer nivel de la Comunidad de Madrid, de manera segura para nuestros pacientes y profesionales en el contexto de la epidemia por coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Constituimos un grupo multidisciplinar que se encargó de analizar las diferentes recomendaciones de la literatura, organizaciones sanitarias nacionales e internacionales y sociedades científicas, así como de su aplicación a nuestro medio. Una vez reiniciada la cirugía programada, se está llevando a cabo un seguimiento de los pacientes intervenidos en cuanto a complicaciones relacionadas con COVID-19. RESULTADOS: Desde el reinicio de la actividad quirúrgica se han programado 19 pacientes, de los cuales 2 han sido suspendidos por presentar COVID-19, diagnosticado uno por PCR positiva para SARS-CoV-2, y otro por alteraciones analíticas y radiológicas compatibles con esta infección. En el seguimiento realizado no se han detectado complicaciones relacionadas con COVID-19, con una mediana de seguimiento de 10 días (4-14 días). CONCLUSIONES: Resultados preliminares indican que el protocolo diseñado para asegurar la correcta aplicación de medidas de prevención de transmisión de la infección por coronavirus está siendo seguro y efectivo

OBJECTIVE: Design a care protocol to restart scheduled surgical activity in a Urology service of a third level hospital in the Community of Madrid, in a safe way for our patients and professionals in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus epidemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary group reviewed the different recommendations of the literature, national and international health organizations and scientific societies, as well as their application to our environment. Once scheduled surgery has restarted, the patients undergoing surgery for complications related to COVID-19 are being followed up. RESULTS: Since the resumption of surgical activity, 19 patients have been scheduled, of which 2 have been suspended for presenting COVID-19, one diagnosed by positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, and another by laboratory and imaging findings compatible with this infection. With a median follow-up of 10 days (4-14 days), no complications related to covid-19 were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results indicate that the protocol designed to ensure the correct application of preventive measures against the transmission of coronavirus infection is being safe and effective

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.

Design of an assistance protocol for the restart of scheduled urologic surgery in a COVID-19 epidemic period. / Diseño de un protocolo asistencial para el reinicio de la cirugía urológica programada en periodo de epidemia COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Design a care protocol to restart scheduled surgical activity in a Urology service of a third level hospital in the Community of Madrid, in a safe way for our patients and professionals in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus epidemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary group reviewed the different recommendations of the literature, national and international health organizations and scientific societies, as well as their application to our environment. Once scheduled surgery has restarted, the patients undergoing surgery for complications related to COVID-19 are being followed up. RESULTS: Since the resumption of surgical activity, 19 patients have been scheduled, of which 2 have been suspended for presenting COVID-19, one diagnosed by positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, and another by laboratory and imaging findings compatible with this infection. With a median follow-up of 10 days (4-14 days), no complications related to COVID-19 were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results indicate that the protocol designed to ensure the correct application of preventive measures against the transmission of coronavirus infection is being safe and effective.

Evolución de las derivaciones desde Atención Primaria a Urología tras la creación de un grupo de trabajo y la instauración de protocolos y cursos de formación continuada / Analysis of referrals after a synergic work between primary care and urology. Impact of joint protocol implementation and a continuing education program in our healthcare area

Objetivo: Analizar la evolución y adecuación de las derivaciones de Atención Primaria a Urología tras la implantación de protocolos sobre las enfermedades urológicas más frecuentes y la instauración de un programa de formación continuada. Material y métodos: En el 2011 se creó un grupo de trabajo Atención Primaria-Urología. Se instauraron inicialmente protocolos de actuación y práctica clínica en enfermedad prostática (HBP y PSA), que se apoyaron con sesiones formativas a los médicos de Atención Primaria. Tras analizar su efecto, en el 2015 se añadieron otros 3(enfermedad escrotal, infecciones urinarias e incontinencia urinaria). Analizamos y comparamos las derivaciones y su adecuación antes y después de la instauración. Resultados: El motivo más frecuente de derivación son los síntomas del tracto urinario inferior (STUI) por HBP que, inicialmente, suponían un 22,8% del total, y que han disminuido al 16,9%. Tras la introducción de los demás algoritmos, observamos una disminución de las derivaciones sobre enfermedad escrotal (del 13-14 al 7,8%), que permanecen estables (en torno al 10%) las relacionadas con infecciones urinarias y que aumentan las derivaciones por incontinencia urinaria (del 3 al 10,3%). La adecuación a los protocolos fue mejorando progresivamente en las relacionadas con STUI (del 46 al 65,3%); en PSA (del 55 al 84,4%) y en incontinencia urinaria (del 66,2 al 73,1%). Descendió la adecuación en cuanto a enfermedad escrotal (del 67,1 al 63,3%) y se mantuvo similar en ITU (en torno al 76%). Conclusiones: El trabajo conjunto entre Urología y Atención Primaria consigue mejorar la adecuación de las derivaciones en las enfermedades urológicas más frecuentes

Objective: To analyse the evolution and adequacy of referrals from Primary Care to Urology, after the implementation of referral protocols on the most frequent urological diseases and the establishment of a continuing education program. Material and methods: A Primary Care-Urology work group was created in 2011. Initially, performance and clinical practice protocols in prostatic pathology (BPH and PSA) were established. These were supported by training sessions for primary care physicians. After analysing the effect of the mentioned joint work, 3more (scrotal pathology, urinary tract infections and urinary incontinence) were included. We analysed and compared the referrals and their adequacy before and after the establishment of the protocols. Results: The most common referral causes were symptoms of the lower urinary tract due to BPH, which initially represented 22.8% of the total, and decreased to 16.9%. After the introduction of the new algorithms, we observed a decrease in referrals for scrotal pathology (13-14% to 7.8%), an increase in urinary incontinence referrals (3% al 10.3%) and those related to urinary tract infections remained stable. The adequacy to the protocols improved progressively: LUTS from 46% to 65.3%; PSA from 55% to 84.4% and urinary incontinence from 66.2% to 73.1%. Adequacy in scrotal pathology decreased (de 67.1% a 63.3%), while in UTI it stayed much the same (around 76%). Conclusions: The joint work between Urology and Primary Care achieves an improvement in referrals adequacy regarding the most frequent urological pathologies

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

Analysis of referrals after a synergic work between Primary Care and Urology. Impact of joint protocol implementation and a continuing education program in our healthcare area. / Evolución de las derivaciones desde Atención Primaria a Urología tras la creación de un grupo de trabajo y la instauración de protocolos y cursos de formación continuada.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the evolution and adequacy of referrals from Primary Care to Urology, after the implementation of referral protocols on the most frequent urological diseases and the establishment of a continuing education program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Primary Care-Urology work group was created in 2011. Initially, performance and clinical practice protocols in prostatic pathology (BPH and PSA) were established. These were supported by training sessions for primary care physicians. After analysing the effect of the mentioned joint work, 3more (scrotal pathology, urinary tract infections and urinary incontinence) were included. We analysed and compared the referrals and their adequacy before and after the establishment of the protocols. RESULTS: The most common referral causes were symptoms of the lower urinary tract due to BPH, which initially represented 22.8% of the total, and decreased to 16.9%. After the introduction of the new algorithms, we observed a decrease in referrals for scrotal pathology (13-14% to 7.8%), an increase in urinary incontinence referrals (3% al 10.3%) and those related to urinary tract infections remained stable. The adequacy to the protocols improved progressively: LUTS from 46% to 65.3%; PSA from 55% to 84.4% and urinary incontinence from 66.2% to 73.1%. Adequacy in scrotal pathology decreased (de 67.1% a 63.3%), while in UTI it stayed much the same (around 76%). CONCLUSIONS: The joint work between Urology and Primary Care achieves an improvement in referrals adequacy regarding the most frequent urological pathologies.

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.