Michael Seitz1, Christian Stief2, Raphaela Waidelich2, Markus Bader3, Derya Tilki4,5. 1. UroClinic Munich GbR, Campus Bogenhausen, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Richard-Strauss-Strasse 82, 81679, Munich, Germany. mseitz@me.com. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 3. UroClinic Munich GbR, Campus Giesing, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Giesinger Bahnhofplatz 2, 81539, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare single-dose ertapenem (ERT) with the 3-day regime of ciprofloxacin (CIP) for prophylaxis of possible infections following transrectal prostate biopsy. METHODS: Data from a consecutive group of 542 patients from January 2012 to January 2017 were retrospectively analysed. As preinterventional prophylaxis patient group A (179) received 500 mg CIP twice a day for three days, beginning on the day before the biopsy (until June 2013); group B (363) received a single dose of ERT 60 min prior to intervention. The first follow-up examination for all patients was between post-intervention days 2 and 3. The second follow-up examination was between day 15 and 30 following biopsy. Urine was cultured in all cases and any adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the antibiotic treatment were noted. We also recorded all clinically relevant morbidities requiring intervention (ischuria, macrohaematuria, symptomatic urinary tract infections and urosepsis), as well as those not requiring active intervention (macrohaematuria, decreased urinary stream, pain, haemospermia). The main study criterion was the symptomatic urinary tract infection rate and ADRs. RESULTS: All 542 biopsied patients could be included in the study and the drop-out rate was zero. There were no significant differences between groups A and B with regards to complications not requiring intervention. There was, however, a significant reduction from 14.5% (group A) to 0.8% (group B) in infectious complications. This showed a significant correlation in favour of ERT (p < 0.001). Furthermore, in the ERT group there was also a distinct and significant reduction (p > 0.001) in the number of patients with bacteriuria (>10e4 cfu per ml urine) without fever (0.5%) compared to the CIP group (12.3%). CONCLUSION: A single-dose of 1 g of intravenous ERT applied 1 h before a scheduled transrectal prostate biopsy is a safe option and provides effective protection against infection-related complications arising from surgery.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare single-dose ertapenem (ERT) with the 3-day regime of ciprofloxacin (CIP) for prophylaxis of possible infections following transrectal prostate biopsy. METHODS: Data from a consecutive group of 542 patients from January 2012 to January 2017 were retrospectively analysed. As preinterventional prophylaxis patient group A (179) received 500 mg CIP twice a day for three days, beginning on the day before the biopsy (until June 2013); group B (363) received a single dose of ERT 60 min prior to intervention. The first follow-up examination for all patients was between post-intervention days 2 and 3. The second follow-up examination was between day 15 and 30 following biopsy. Urine was cultured in all cases and any adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the antibiotic treatment were noted. We also recorded all clinically relevant morbidities requiring intervention (ischuria, macrohaematuria, symptomatic urinary tract infections and urosepsis), as well as those not requiring active intervention (macrohaematuria, decreased urinary stream, pain, haemospermia). The main study criterion was the symptomatic urinary tract infection rate and ADRs. RESULTS: All 542 biopsied patients could be included in the study and the drop-out rate was zero. There were no significant differences between groups A and B with regards to complications not requiring intervention. There was, however, a significant reduction from 14.5% (group A) to 0.8% (group B) in infectious complications. This showed a significant correlation in favour of ERT (p < 0.001). Furthermore, in the ERT group there was also a distinct and significant reduction (p > 0.001) in the number of patients with bacteriuria (>10e4 cfu per ml urine) without fever (0.5%) compared to the CIP group (12.3%). CONCLUSION: A single-dose of 1 g of intravenous ERT applied 1 h before a scheduled transrectal prostate biopsy is a safe option and provides effective protection against infection-related complications arising from surgery.
Authors: A Takenaka; R Hara; T Ishimura; T Fujii; Y Jo; A Nagai; M Fujisawa Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2007-05-29 Impact factor: 5.554
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: Paul R Womble; Susan M Linsell; Yuqing Gao; Zaojun Ye; James E Montie; Tejal N Gandhi; Brian R Lane; Frank N Burks; David C Miller Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-04-17 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: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jessica Dai; Andrew Leone; Leonard Mermel; Kathleen Hwang; Gyan Pareek; Stephen Schiff; Dragan Golijanin; Joseph F Renzulli Journal: Urology Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Donnacha Hogan; Abbie Kanagarajah; Henry H Yao; David Wetherell; Brendan Dias; Phil Dundee; Kevin Chu; Homayoun Zargar; Helen E O'Connell Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-09-10