Literature DB >> 22244150

Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial.

Stacy Loeb1, Suzanne van den Heuvel, Xiaoye Zhu, Chris H Bangma, Fritz H Schröder, Monique J Roobol.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The complications of prostate needle biopsy (PNB) are important when considering the benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening. Studies from the United States and Canada have recently reported increasing numbers of hospitalizations for infectious complications after PNB.
OBJECTIVE: Examine the risk of infectious complications and hospital admissions after PNB in a European screening trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 1993 to 2011, 10 474 PNBs were performed in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (Rotterdam section). Prophylaxis originally consisted of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Beginning in 2008, it was changed to ciprofloxacin. MEASUREMENTS: Febrile complications and hospital admissions were assessed by questionnaires 2 wk after PNB. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for biopsy-related fever and hospital admission. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fever and hospital admission were reported on 392 of 9241 questionnaires (4.2%) and 78 of 9198 questionnaires (0.8%), respectively. Although most fevers were managed on an outpatient basis, 81% of hospital admissions were for infection. Of the 56 available blood cultures, 34 were positive with Escherichia coli as the predominant organism. On multivariable analysis, prostate enlargement and diabetes were significantly associated with an increased risk of fever after PNB, whereas later year of biopsy was the only factor significantly associated with an increased risk of hospital admission.
CONCLUSIONS: In a European screening trial, <5% PNBs resulted in febrile complications. Significant risk factors included diabetes and prostatic enlargement. Although most fevers were managed on an outpatient basis, infection remained the leading cause of hospital admission after PNB. Consistent with prior international reports, the frequency of hospital admissions after PNB significantly increased over time. Nevertheless, the absolute frequency of hospital admissions related to PNB was low and should not dissuade healthy men who would benefit from early prostate cancer diagnosis from undergoing biopsy when clinically indicated.
Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22244150     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  84 in total

Review 1.  Prevention and treatment of biopsy-related complications.

Authors:  Ramgopal Satyanarayana; Dipen Parekh
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  [Infection and sepsis prevention in prostate biopsy].

Authors:  F M E Wagenlehner; A Pilatz; P Waliszewski; T Dansranjavin; W Weidner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  [Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy].

Authors:  L Schneidewind
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Performance Validation of Selective Screening Agars for Guiding Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Sofie C M Tops; Marlie Bruens; Sacha van Mook-Vermulst; Diane Lamers-Jansen; Tobias Engel; Ger van den Brink; Rob van Duuren; Heiman F L Wertheim; Eva Kolwijck
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Febrile infection in post-prostate biopsy: results of a ten-year single-institution study in South Taiwan.

Authors:  Yuh-Shyan Tsai; Chia-Hong Chen; Yeong-Chin Jou; Wen-Horng Yang; Chien-Chen Chang; Tzong-Shin Tzai
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 2.150

6.  Increase of prostate biopsy-related bacteremic complications in southern Finland, 2005-2013: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  K Lahdensuo; A Rannikko; V-J Anttila; A Erickson; A Pätäri-Sampo; M Rautio; H Santti; E Tarkka; M Vaara; K Huotari
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 7.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Personalized prostate specific antigen testing using genetic variants may reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Brian T Helfand; Stacy Loeb; Qiaoyan Hu; Phillip R Cooper; Kimberly A Roehl; Barry B McGuire; Nikola A Baumann; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Diagnostic performance of initial transperineal 14-core prostate biopsy to detect significant cancer.

Authors:  Hideki Takeshita; Noboru Numao; Toshiki Kijima; Minato Yokoyama; Junichiro Ishioka; Yoh Matsuoka; Fumitaka Koga; Kazutaka Saito; Hitoshi Masuda; Satoru Kawakami; Shinya Yamamoto; Junji Yonese; Yasuhisa Fujii; Kazunori Kihara
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 2.370

10.  Comparison of broth enhancement to direct plating for screening of rectal cultures for ciprofloxacin-resistant Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Michael A Liss; Kristen K Nakamura; Ellena M Peterson
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.