The comparison of the influence between two different bowel preparation methods on sepsis after prostate biopsies

Comparison of levofloxacin-based prophylaxis regimens for transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized single-center study

To develop an optimal prophylactic regimen among Chinese patients who accept transrectal prostate biopsy. We enrolled 420 patients who accepted transrectal prostate biopsy. They were randomly classified into three groups (n = 140 for each): Group A received a single 500-mg tablet of levofloxacin without enema; group B received a single 500-mg tablet of levofloxacin plus enema; group C received 3-day levofloxacin orally plus enema. Patients were assessed if they had a febrile urinary tract infection (FUTI). The incidence of FUTI was compared among groups. Subgroup analysis was performed between patients at high and low risk of infection in each group. There were 15 cases developed FUTI: 7 (5%), 6 (4.3%), and 2 (1.4%), respectively, in groups A, B, and C. Of the 15 patients who developed FUTI, Escherichia coli was detected in blood culture in two cases. Urine culture results were all negative. FUTI patients (73.3% (11/15)) had at least one high risk factor. Subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of FUTI in group A was significantly higher than that in group C among high-risk patients. There was no statistical difference between group A and group B among both high- and low-risk patients. A single 500-mg dose of levofloxacin without enema represents excellent prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy in Chinese patients at low risk of infection. For those at high risk, 3-day levofloxacin prophylaxis is the optimal regimen. Prebiopsy enema provides no clinically significant outcome advantage and is unnecessary.

A prospective randomized trial of povidone-iodine suppository before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate a way to reduce infectious complication after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx), we planned a randomized trial to determine whether the use of the povidone-iodine suppository is effective in preventing infectious complications.

METHODS

This study prospectively assessed 250 patients who underwent TRUS-Bx during December 2014 and May 2016. Clinical questionnaire responses and safety were evaluated. Povidone-iodine suppository after glycerin enema was performed 1 to 2 hours before TRUS-Bx. Both groups received the prophylactic antibiotics (ceftriaxone 2.0 g) 30 to 60 minutes before TRUS-Bx. No antibiotics were prescribed after TRUS-Bx.

RESULTS

The 120 were assigned in the treatment group using povidone-iodine suppository and 130 were assigned in the control group. There was no significant difference of clinicopathologic features including age, prostate-specific antigen and cancer detection rate in both groups (P > .05). No infectious and non-infectious complications were reported in both groups. Povidone-iodine suppository-related side effects were not reported. No significant differences in international prostate symptom score, sexual health inventory for men score, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire scores were found between the 2 groups (P > .05). No changes in each questionnaire scores between before and after TRUS-Bx were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite satisfying the predefined sample size, we could not prove the hypothesis that the use of povidone-iodine suppositories after TRUS-Bx would reduce infectious complications. A large-scale, multicenter, prospective study is needed to fully evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of povidone-iodine suppository prior to TRUS-Bx.

Adequate rectal preparation reduces hospital admission for urosepsis after transrectal ultrasound - guided prostate biopsy

Objectives:

Previous studies have compared infectious outcomes on the basis of whether rectal preparation was performed; however, they failed to evaluate the quality of each rectal preparation, which may have led to confounding results. This study aimed to compare hospitalizations for urosepsis within 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy between patients with adequate and traditional rectal preparations.

Materials and Methods:

Between January 2011 and December 2016, a total of 510 patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound - guided prostate biopsy at our institutions and were orally administered prophylactic antibiotics (levofloxacin) were included. Two rectal preparations were performed: (1) adequate rectal preparation confirmed by digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound (Group A, n = 310) and (2) traditional rectal preparation (Group B, n = 200). All patient characteristics were recorded. A logistic regression model was used to assess the effects of the two different rectal preparations on urosepsis, adjusted by patient characteristics.

Results:

There were a total of three and nine hospitalizations for urosepsis in Groups A and B, respectively. Differences in the demographic data between the two groups were insignificant. Logistic regression showed that adequate rectal preparation before biopsy significantly decreased the risk for urosepsis after biopsy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.2; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 – 0.78; P = 0.021).

Conclusions:

Adequate rectal preparation could significantly reduce hospitalizations for urosepsis within 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. The quality of rectal preparation should be evaluated before biopsy. If adequate rectal preparation is not achieved, postponing the biopsy and adjusting the rectal preparation regimen are suggested.