Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy during active surveillance: Effect on hospitalization

Rectal Culture-Based Versus Empirical Antibiotic Prophylaxis to Prevent Infectious Complications in Men Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Randomized, Nonblinded Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

An increase in infections after transrectal prostate biopsy (PB), related to an increasing number of patients with ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora, necessitates the exploration of alternatives for the traditionally used empirical prophylaxis of ciprofloxacin. We compared infectious complication rates after transrectal PB using empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis versus culture-based prophylaxis.

METHODS

In this nonblinded, randomized trial, between 4 April 2018 and 30 July 2021, we enrolled 1538 patients from 11 Dutch hospitals undergoing transrectal PB. After rectal swab collection, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive empirical prophylaxis with oral ciprofloxacin (control group [CG]) or culture-based prophylaxis (intervention group [IG]). Primary outcome was any infectious complication within 7 days after biopsy. Secondary outcomes were infectious complications within 30 days, and bacteremia and bacteriuria within 7 and 30 days postbiopsy. For primary outcome analysis, the χ2 test stratified for hospitals was used. Trial registration number: NCT03228108.

RESULTS

Data from 1288 patients (83.7%) were available for analysis (CG, 652; IG, 636). Infection rates within 7 days postbiopsy were 4.3% (n = 28) (CG) and 2.5% (n = 16) (IG) (P value = .08; reduction: -1.8%; 95% confidence interval, -.004 to .040). Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria were detected in 15.2% (n = 1288). In the CG, the presence of ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora resulted in a 6.2-fold higher risk of early postbiopsy infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the use of culture-based prophylaxis to reduce infectious complications after transrectal PB. Despite adequate prophylaxis, postbiopsy infections can still occur. Therefore, culture-based prophylaxis must be weighed against other strategies that could reduce postbiopsy infections. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03228108.

Post-prostate biopsy acute bacterial prostatitis and screening cultures using selective media: An overview

The development of several culture media and the availability to isolate and treat pathogens prior to a surgical procedure give us the ability to minimize treatment-related complications, and ultimately results in better outcomes for patients and avoidance of unwanted post-procedure inpatient admissions. In the last decade, an increasing incidence of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli, especially extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing E. coli and fluoroquinolone-resistant pathogens, has been reported. These resistant species frequently colonize the rectal flora and gain access to the systemic circulation via the rectal plexus following a prostate biopsy. The bacteria can eventually lead to life-threatening complications, which is especially important in high-risk patients with multiple co-morbidities. Previously published studies have focused on the isolation of these pathogens with selective media before an invasive procedure and the potential benefits of incorporating the use of selective media as a mandatory pre-operative step. This preventive measure will allow us to offer a tailored prophylactic treatment that benefits patients and reduces the economic burden for the hospital.

Enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis and infection-related complications following prostate biopsy

PURPOSE

Sepsis after prostate biopsy is a costly and potentially lethal complication. We sought to assess whether enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis regimens combining oral and parenteral antibiotics may decrease the risk of post-biopsy urinary tract infection and sepsis compared to regimens with only oral antibiotics.

METHODS

We identified men with commercial insurance who underwent prostate biopsy (2009-2015) with prophylactic antibiotic coverage. Our primary exposure of interest was antibiotic regimen: enhanced, oral-only, and parenteral-only. Post-biopsy outcomes of interest included urinary tract infections and sepsis/bacteremia after prostate biopsy. We used bivariate testing to assess associations between outcomes, exposures, and other covariates of interest. Multivariable regression was used to estimate adjusted odds of infectious outcomes based on antibiotic regimen.

RESULTS

We identified 163,831 men who underwent prostate biopsy. The proportion of men with infectious complications (5.5% in 2009 to 6.9% in 2015, p < 0.001) and sepsis (0.24% in 2009 to 0.30% in 2015, p = 0.327) increased over the timeframe of our analysis. Use of fluoroquinolones was associated with a decreased risk of infectious outcomes (5.8 vs 7.3% without, OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88). Use of enhanced antibiotic regimens was associated with an increased risk of infectious outcomes (6.8 vs 5.7% oral, OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.31) and sepsis (0.34 vs 0.24% oral, OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08-1.82) among our cohort.

CONCLUSION

We did not observe a significant reduction in infectious complications among men who received enhanced antibiotics regimens before prostate biopsy. This may be due to increased antibiotic resistance or unmeasured risk factors among those receiving enhanced regimens.

Rationale and protocol for randomized study of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC study)

BACKGROUND

Rrisk of infection and hospitalization after transrectal prostate biopsy (TRBx) has been increasing worldwide. Several modified antibiotic regimens have met with variable success in preventing such infections. Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) is increasingly recommended as the preferred alternative due to a potentially lower risk of post-biopsy infections. Aim of this review is to define the magnitude of post-biopsy complications and the effectiveness of preventive strategies, including TPBx approach.

METHODS

We performed a focused review of literature on infectious complications after TRBx and detailed the use of various preventive measures. We summarized the effectiveness of several preventive measures, including TPBx, and outlined the inconsistencies in reported outcomes. We identified potential barriers to the uptake of TPBx, including the gap in knowledge such as lack of high-quality evidence.

RESULTS

Several antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, including targeted and augmented, have been utilized for TRBx without demonstrating a clearly superior regimen. Of the non-antibiotic preventive measure, povidone-iodine rectal prep appears to be most effective strategy. Several single-arm cohort studies have reported very low rates of infections after TPBx and demonstrated the feasibility of an office-based procedure. However, barriers to the adoption of TPBx exist including retrospective data, and conflicting results showing minimal reduction in complications with increased burden of resource utilization. Presently, there are no randomized studies comparing the infectious complications after TRBx and TPBx. We discuss the rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial to determine the comparative effectiveness of biopsy techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

TPBx approach has the potential to lower the rate of post-biopsy infections and hospitalizations. However, there are several barriers to widespread adoption of this approach including inconsistencies in reported outcomes and lack of Level-1 evidence. Randomized controlled studies are required to directly compare the infectious complications associated with each biopsy procedure.