Search

Introduction: The crisis in the SARSCoV-2 coronavirus causing COVID-19 is putting health systems around the world to the test. In a great effort to standardize the management and treatment guidelines, the different health authorities and scientific associations have tried to issue recommendations on how to act in this new and complex scenario. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the existing evidence and recommendations about urological emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Furthermore, we propose a general action protocol for these patients., Material and Methods: The document is based ont he scarce evidence on SARS / Cov-2 and the experience of the authors in the management of COVID-19 in their institutions, including specialists from Andalusia, Cantabria, Madrid and the Basque Country. A web and PubMed search was performed using the keywords "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID19",  "COVID Urology", "COVID19 surgery" and "emergency care". A narrative review of the literature was carried out until April 30, 2020, including only articles and documents written in Spanish and English. After the nominal group technique modified due to the extraordinary restrictions, a first draft was made to unify criteria. Finally, a definitive version was made, agreed by all the authors on May 12, 2020., Results: General principles of action are set out, as well as specific recommendations for the most frequent urgent urological procedures., Conclusions: Given the exceptional nature of the situation, there is a lack of evidence regarding the optimal management of the patient with urgent urological pathology. The information is changing, as the epidemiological knowledge of the disease advances. The establishment of multidisciplinary surgical committees that develop and implement action protocols appropriate to the different resources and particular situations of each center is recommended. Likewise, these committees must individually assess each possible urological surgical emergency situation and ensure compliance with protective measures for the patient and other healthcare personnel.

Objectives: To describe the characteristics of care received by patients who come to the emergency department with a first epileptic seizure versus a recurrent seizure in a patient with diagnosed epileps., Material and Methods: ACESUR (Acute Epileptic Seizures in the Emergency Department) is a prospective multicenter, multipurpose registry of cases obtained by systematic sampling on even days in February and July 2017 and on odd days in April and October 2017. Patients were aged 18 years or older and had an emergency department diagnosis of epileptic seizure. We recorded clinical variables and details related to care given during each patient's visit, including whether the event was a first or recurrent seizure., Results: A total of 664 patients attended by 18 Spanish emergency departments were entered into the ACESUR registry. Two hundred twenty-nine (34.5%) were first seizures and 435 (65.5%) were recurrences. Patients who were attended for first seizures were older, consulted for a wider variety of reasons, and were transported in ambulances (P<.001, all comparisons). Care received differed between patients with first seizures versus recurrent seizures. Specific complementary testing was more likely in patients with first seizures (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 13.94; 95% CI, 29-26.7; P<.001), and they were more often hospitalized or stayed longer in the emergency department, (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.11-2.58; P=.015). Pharmacologic treatment did not differ between the groups, either in the acute phase or for prevention (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.94-2.09; P=.096). Antiepileptic drugs were given to 100 patients (43.7%) after a first seizure and were restarted or changed in 142 patients with recurrent seizure (32.6%)., Conclusion: The clinical characteristics of adults attended for a first epileptic seizure differ from those of patients with diagnosed epilepsy who were attended for recurrent seizures in Spain. The care received also differs.