Adequate rectal preparation reduces hospital admission for urosepsis after transrectal ultrasound - guided prostate biopsy

ABSTRACT Objectives: Previous studies have compared infectious outcomes on the basis of whether rectal preparation was performed; however, they failed to evaluate the quality of each rectal preparation, which may have led to confounding results. This study aimed to compare hospitalizations for urosepsis within 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy between patients with adequate and traditional rectal preparations. Materials and Methods: Between January 2011 and December 2016, a total of 510 patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound - guided prostate biopsy at our institutions and were orally administered prophylactic antibiotics (levofloxacin) were included. Two rectal preparations were performed: (1) adequate rectal preparation confirmed by digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound (Group A, n = 310) and (2) traditional rectal preparation (Group B, n = 200). All patient characteristics were recorded. A logistic regression model was used to assess the effects of the two different rectal preparations on urosepsis, adjusted by patient characteristics. Results: There were a total of three and nine hospitalizations for urosepsis in Groups A and B, respectively. Differences in the demographic data between the two groups were insignificant. Logistic regression showed that adequate rectal preparation before biopsy significantly decreased the risk for urosepsis after biopsy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.2; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 – 0.78; P = 0.021). Conclusions: Adequate rectal preparation could significantly reduce hospitalizations for urosepsis within 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. The quality of rectal preparation should be evaluated before biopsy. If adequate rectal preparation is not achieved, postponing the biopsy and adjusting the rectal preparation regimen are suggested.

[1]  M. Meng,et al.  An Update of the American Urological Association White Paper on the Prevention and Treatment of the More Common Complications Related to Prostate Biopsy , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[2]  J. Fierer,et al.  Clinical and microbiological determinants of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy. , 2015, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[3]  M. Yıldırım,et al.  The comparison of the influence between two different bowel preparation methods on sepsis after prostate biopsies , 2015, Central European journal of urology.

[4]  N. Lawrentschuk,et al.  Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? , 2014, BJU international.

[5]  Yair Lotan,et al.  Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. , 2013, European urology.

[6]  O. Gofrit,et al.  A single dose of 240 mg gentamicin during transrectal prostate biopsy significantly reduces septic complications. , 2013, Urology.

[7]  R. Sutherland,et al.  Outcomes of transperineal template‐guided prostate biopsy in 409 patients , 2013, BJU international.

[8]  A. Larcher,et al.  Complications and quality of life after template-assisted transperineal prostate biopsy in patients eligible for focal therapy. , 2013, Urology.

[9]  M. Pearle,et al.  Cost‐effectiveness of standard vs intensive antibiotic regimens for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)‐guided prostate biopsy prophylaxis , 2012, BJU international.

[10]  J. Cashy,et al.  Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[11]  A. Meshref,et al.  Rising incidence of acute prostatitis following prostate biopsy: fluoroquinolone resistance and exposure is a significant risk factor. , 2011, Urology.

[12]  Thomas Anil,et al.  Morbidity of prostate biopsy after simplified versus complex preparation protocols: assessment of risk factors. , 2011, Urology.

[13]  R. Paterson,et al.  Bacterial sepsis after prostate biopsy--a new perspective. , 2009, Urology.

[14]  A. Vicens Vicens,et al.  [Antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy]. , 2009, Actas urologicas espanolas.

[15]  Michael N. Ferrandino,et al.  The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy--are fluoroquinolones still effective prophylaxis? , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[16]  S. Jeon,et al.  Bisacodyl rectal preparation can decrease infectious complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. , 2003, Urology.

[17]  Mitchell M. Levy,et al.  2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference , 2003, Intensive Care Medicine.

[18]  H. Korman,et al.  Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. Do enemas decrease clinically significant complications? , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[19]  N. Chalasani,et al.  Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy , 2001, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[20]  E. Belgrano,et al.  [Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate]. , 2000, Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica.