Continued administration of antithrombotic agents during transperineal prostate biopsy

Role of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Transperineal prostate biopsy is associated with a significantly lower risk of infectious complications than the transrectal approach. In fact, the risk of infectious complications with transperineal prostate biopsy is so low that the utility of administering periprocedural antibiotics with this procedure has come under question.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess for differences in the rates of infectious complications (septic, nonseptic, and overall) after performing transperineal prostate biopsy with and without the administration of periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE) were searched, and studies were included if they included patients who underwent transperineal prostate biopsy, were published after January 2000, included information on periprocedural antibiotic administration, and reported postbiopsy complications. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines were utilized.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 106 unique studies describing 112 cohorts of patients were identified, of which 98 (37 805 men) received antibiotic prophylaxis and 14 (4772 men) did not receive it. All patients were included in the analysis of septic complications. In total, there were 19/37 805 (0.05%) episodes of sepsis in the group of men who received antibiotics, which was similar to the no antibiotic group with 4/4772 (0.08%) episodes (p = 0.2). For overall infections (septic plus nonseptic), there were 403/29 880 (1.35%) versus 58/4772 (1.22%) events among men with evaluable data who received and did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis, respectively (p = 0.8). Restricting our analysis to studies with a comparable low number of biopsy cores (<25 cores), there remained no difference in the rates of sepsis between groups, but there was a small, statistically significant lower risk of infectious complications with antibiotic administration-67/12 140 (0.55%) versus 58/4772 (1.22%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The likelihood of septic infections after transperineal prostate biopsy is low with and without antibiotic prophylaxis. The omission of periprocedural antibiotics with this procedure stands to benefit patients by avoiding potential drug reactions. Furthermore, this practice is in line with calls throughout the medical community for improved antibiotic stewardship.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In a large systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated infectious complications after transperineal prostate biopsy with or without the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. We conclude that prophylactic antibiotics do not decrease the rate of postbiopsy sepsis but may have a small benefit in terms of preventing less serious infections.

Safety of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients receiving aspirin: An update meta-analysis including 3373 patients

BACKGROUND

The management of aspirin before transrectal prostate puncture-guided biopsy continues to be controversial. The conclusions in newly published studies differ from the published guideline. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the safety of continuing to take aspirin when undergoing a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB).

METHODS

We searched the following databases for relevant literature from their inception to October 30, 2020: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Web of Science, Sinomed, Chinese National Knowledge Internet, and WANGFANG. Studies that compared the bleeding rates between aspirin that took aspirin and non-aspirin groups were included. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Revman Manger version 5.2 software was employed to complete the meta-analysis to assess the risk of hematuria, hematospermia, and rectal bleeding.

RESULTS

Six articles involving 3373 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our study revealed that compared with the non-aspirin group, those taking aspirin exhibited a higher risk of rectal bleeding after TRUS-PB (risk ratio [RR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.09-1.49], P = .002). Also, the meta-analysis results did not reveal any significant difference between the 2 groups for the risk of hematuria (RR = 1.02, 95%CI [0.91-1.16], P = .71) and hematospermia (RR = 0.93, 95%CI [0.82-1.06], P = .29).

CONCLUSION

Taking aspirin does not increase the risk of hematuria and hematospermia after TRUS-PB. However, the risk of rectal bleeding, which was slight and self-limiting, did increase. We concluded that it was not necessary to stop taking aspirin before undergoing TRUS-PB.

The management of rectal bleeding following transrectal prostate biopsy: A review of the current literature

INTRODUCTION

Since the advent of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based testing, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy has become a standard part of the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (PCa). Rectal bleeding is one of the common side effects of this transrectal route. While rectal bleeding is usually mild and self-limiting, it can be life-threatening. In this article, we examine rectal bleeding post-TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and explore the literature to evaluate techniques and strategies aimed at preventing and managing this common and important complication.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search was carried out using the keywords "transrectal-prostate-biopsy-bleed." A search of the bibliography of reviewed studies was also conducted. Additionally, papers in non-PubMed-listed journals of which the authors were aware were appraised.

RESULTS

Numerous modifiable risk factors for this bleeding complication exist, particularly anticoagulants/antiplatelets and the number of core biopsies taken. Successfully described corrective measures for such rectal bleeding include tamponade (digital/packs/catheter/tampon/condom), endoscopic sclerotherapy/banding/clipping, radiological embolization, and surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

We advocate early consultation with the colorectal/gastroenterology and interventional radiology services and a progressive, stepwise approach to the management of post-biopsy rectal bleeding, starting with resuscitation and conservative tamponade measures, moving to endoscopic hemostasis ± radiological embolization ± transanal surgical methods. Given the infrequent but serious nature of major rectal bleeding after TRUS biopsy, we recommend the establishment of centralized databases or registries forthwith to prospectively capture such data. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive look specifically at the management of post-TRUS biopsy rectal bleeding.

Transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is safe even when patients are on combination antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy

Background

To assess whether hemorrhagic complications associated with transperineal prostate biopsy increased in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy.

Methods

In total, 598 consecutive patients underwent transperineal prostate biopsy. The medication group comprised patients who took anti-thromboembolic agents, and the control group comprised those who did not take these agents. No anti-thromboembolic agent was stopped before, during, or after prostate biopsy in the medication group. Complications developing in both groups were compared and classified using the modified Clavien classification system. Subgroup analyses to compare complications in patients taking single antiplatelet, single anticoagulant, and dual antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant agents, and multivariate analyses to predict bleeding risk were also performed.

Results

Of the 598 eligible patients, 149 comprised the medication group and 449 comprised the control group. Hematuria (Grade I) developed in 88 (59.1%) and 236 (52.5%) patients in the medication and control group, respectively (p = 0.18). Clot retention (Grade I) was more frequently observed in the medication group than the controls (2.0% versus 0.2%, respectively, p < 0.05). Hospitalization was more frequently prolonged in the medication than the control group (4.0% versus 0.4% of patients, respectively). No complication of Grade III or higher developed in either group. Hematuria was more frequent in patients taking a single anticoagulant (p = 0.007) or two anti-thromboembolic agents (p = 0.04) compared with those taking a single antiplatelet agent. Other complications were generally similar among the groups. In the multivariate analysis, taking more than two anti-thromboembolic agents was the only significant risk factor for bleeding events.

Conclusion

No severe complication developed after the transperineal biopsies in either group, although minor bleeding was somewhat more frequent in the medication group. It may not be necessary to discontinue anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet agents when transperineal prostate biopsy is contemplated.