Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: Compared efficacy of ciprofloxacin vs. the ciprofloxacin/fosfomycin tromethamine combination
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6248Keywords:
antibiotic prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin, fosfomycin, prostate biopsy, urosepsisAbstract
Introduction: Some authors advocate an increase in post-prostate needle biopsy (PNB) infections associated with emergent quinolone resistance in E. coli, urging re-evaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis (antibioprophylaxis). In this study, we compared rates of post-PNB urosepsis associated with two oral regimens of antibioprophylaxis: ciprofloxacin (CIP) vs. ciprofloxacin and fosfomycin tromethamine combination (CIP/FOS).
Methods: This retrospective pre-/post-intervention study included all patients who underwent PNB in two Canadian hospitals from January 2012 to December 2015. The primary outcome was urosepsis within one month of PNB. Urosepsis rates were analyzed according to antibioprophylaxis using log-binomial regression, considering the propensity score weights of collected risk factor data.
Results: We reviewed 2287 PNB patients. A total of 1090 received CIP and 1197 received CIP/FOS. Urosepsis incidence with CIP was 1.1% (12/1090) and fell to 0.2% (2/1197) with CIP/FOS. Our analysis indicates that CIP/FOS significantly decreased the risk of urosepsis compared to CIP alone (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0.16; p=0.021). The isolated pathogen was E. coli in 12/14 cases, including seven bacteremias. Among E. coli cases, seven strains were CIP-resistant. Eleven of 12 E. coli, including all CIP-resistant strains, were isolated in patients on CIP alone. One case of B. fragilis bacteremia occurred in the CIP/FOS group. No cases of C. difficile were identified in the three months post-PNB.
Conclusions: The adoption of CIP/FOS antibiotic prophylaxis significantly lowered the rate of post-PNB urosepsis. Conveniently, this regimen is oral, single-dose, and low-cost.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.
