Jason E Cohen1, Patricia Landis1, Bruce J Trock1, Hiten D Patel1, Mark W Ball1, Paul G Auwaerter1, Edward Schaeffer1, H Ballentine Carter2. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: hcarter@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rectal swabs can identify men with fluoroquinolone resistant bacteria and decrease the infection rate after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy by targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis. We evaluated the rate of fluoroquinolone resistance in an active surveillance cohort with attention to factors associated with resistance and changes in resistance with time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 416 men with prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent rectal swabs to assess the rate of fluoroquinolone resistance compared to that in men undergoing diagnostic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. The chi-square test and Student t-test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Poisson regression analysis was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: On the initial swab fluoroquinolone resistance was found in 95 of 416 men (22.8%) on active surveillance compared to 54 of 221 (24.4%) in the diagnostic biopsy cohort (p = 0.675). Diabetes was found in 4.0% of the fluoroquinolone sensitive group vs 14.7% of the resistant group (p <0.001). Biopsy history was not associated with resistance. Of those with a resistant first swab 62.9% had a resistant second swab and 88.9% of those with 2 resistant swabs showed resistance on the third swab. Of men with a sensitive first swab 10.6% showed resistance on the second swab and 10.6% of those with 2 sensitive swabs had resistant third swabs. CONCLUSIONS: One of 4 men who present for surveillance and diagnostic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy have rectal flora resistant to fluoroquinolone. Resistance is significantly associated with diabetes but the number of prior biopsies is not. Men with fluoroquinolone resistant flora tend to remain resistant with time.
PURPOSE: Rectal swabs can identify men with fluoroquinolone resistant bacteria and decrease the infection rate after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy by targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis. We evaluated the rate of fluoroquinolone resistance in an active surveillance cohort with attention to factors associated with resistance and changes in resistance with time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 416 men with prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent rectal swabs to assess the rate of fluoroquinolone resistance compared to that in men undergoing diagnostic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. The chi-square test and Student t-test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Poisson regression analysis was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: On the initial swab fluoroquinolone resistance was found in 95 of 416 men (22.8%) on active surveillance compared to 54 of 221 (24.4%) in the diagnostic biopsy cohort (p = 0.675). Diabetes was found in 4.0% of the fluoroquinolone sensitive group vs 14.7% of the resistant group (p <0.001). Biopsy history was not associated with resistance. Of those with a resistant first swab 62.9% had a resistant second swab and 88.9% of those with 2 resistant swabs showed resistance on the third swab. Of men with a sensitive first swab 10.6% showed resistance on the second swab and 10.6% of those with 2 sensitive swabs had resistant third swabs. CONCLUSIONS: One of 4 men who present for surveillance and diagnostic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy have rectal flora resistant to fluoroquinolone. Resistance is significantly associated with diabetes but the number of prior biopsies is not. Men with fluoroquinolone resistant flora tend to remain resistant with time.
Authors: D Steensels; K Slabbaert; L De Wever; P Vermeersch; H Van Poppel; J Verhaegen Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Christopher A Duplessis; Mary Bavaro; Mark P Simons; Charles Marguet; Michael Santomauro; Brian Auge; Daniel A Collard; Joshua Fierer; James Lesperance Journal: Urology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Aisha K Taylor; Teresa R Zembower; Robert B Nadler; Marc H Scheetz; John P Cashy; Diana Bowen; Adam B Murphy; Elodi Dielubanza; Anthony J Schaeffer Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael A Liss; Alexandra Chang; Rosanne Santos; Amy Nakama-Peeples; Ellena M Peterson; Kathryn Osann; John Billimek; Richard J Szabo; Atreya Dash Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robert K Nam; Refik Saskin; Yuna Lee; Ying Liu; Calvin Law; Laurence H Klotz; D Andrew Loblaw; John Trachtenberg; Aleksandra Stanimirovic; Andrew E Simor; Arun Seth; David R Urbach; Steven A Narod Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Debasish Sundi; Ashley E Ross; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dirk Lange; Christopher Zappavigna; Reza Hamidizadeh; S Larry Goldenberg; Ryan F Paterson; Ben H Chew Journal: Urology Date: 2009-10-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ahmed M Elshal; Ahmed M Atwa; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Mohamed A El-Ghar; Asaad Gaber; Essam Elsawy; Abdelwahab Hashem; Yasser Farag; Hashim Farg; Ali Elsorougy; Mohamed Fouda; Hossam Nabeeh; Ahmed Mosbah Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Stephen J Summers; Darshan P Patel; Blake D Hamilton; Angela P Presson; Mark A Fisher; William T Lowrance; Andrew W Southwick Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-05-03 Impact factor: 4.226