Buscar en
Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition) Rectal culture-directed antibiotic prophylaxis before transrectal prostate biops...
Journal Information
Vol. 42. Issue 7.
Pages 465-472 (September 2018)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
ePub
Visits
0
Vol. 42. Issue 7.
Pages 465-472 (September 2018)
Original article
Rectal culture-directed antibiotic prophylaxis before transrectal prostate biopsy: Reduced infectious complications and healthcare costs
Profilaxis antibiótica «dirigida» por cultivos rectales antes de la biopsia prostática transrectal: reducción de complicaciones infecciosas y costes de atención sanitaria
Visits
...
J.V. Baldissera-Aradasa,
Corresponding author
baldissera758@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, L. Rodríguez-Villamila, R. Blanco-Fernándeza, C. Pérez-Garcíaa, G. Viejo de la Guerrab, I. González-Rodrígueza, J. Mosquera-Maderaa
a Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Cabueñes, Gijón, Spain
b Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario de Cabueñes, Gijón, Spain
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (4)
Table 1. Group of directed antibiotic prophylaxis. Ciprofloxacin-resistant germs isolated in rectal cultures and antibiotics used as prophylaxis.
Table 2. Number of patients, patients with positive rectal cultures, and distribution of infectious complications by group.
Table 3. Average age and Charlson comorbidity index adjusted for age.
Table 4. Binary logistic regression model.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Background

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TUPB) is associated with infectious complications (ICs), which are related to a greater prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria (CRB) in rectal flora. We examined the ICs that occurred in 2 groups: A guided antibiotic prophylaxis (GP) group and an empiric prophylaxis (EP) group. We assessed the financial impact of GP.

Material and methods

The GP group was studied prospectively (June 2013 to July 2014). We collected rectal cultures (RCs) before the TUPB, which were seeded on selective media with ciprofloxacin to determine the presence of CRB. The patients with sensitive bacteria were administered ciprofloxacin. Patients with resistant bacteria were administered GP according to the RC antibiogram.

The EP group was studied retrospectively (January 2011 to June 2009). RCs were not performed, and all patients were treated with ciprofloxacin as prophylaxis.

The ICs in both groups were recorded during a period no longer than 30 days following TUPB (electronic medical history).

Results

Three hundred patients underwent TUPB, 145 underwent GP, and 155 underwent EP. In the GP group, 23 patients (15.86%) presented CRB in the RCs. Only one patient (0.7%) experienced a UTI. In the EP group, 26 patients (16.8%) experienced multiple ICs (including 2 cases of sepsis) (p<.005). The estimated total cost, including the management of the ICs, was €57,076 with EP versus €4802.33 with GP. The average cost per patient with EP was €368.23 versus €33.11 with GP. GP achieved an estimated total savings of €52,273.67. Six patients had to undergo GP to prevent an IC.

Conclusions

GP is associated with a marked decrease in the incidence of ICs caused by CRB and reduced healthcare costs.

Keywords:
Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
Infectious complications
Guided prophylaxis
Empiric prophylaxis
Rectal cultures
Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria
Resumen
Introducción

La biopsia prostática transrectal ecográficamente dirigida (BPTE) se asocia a complicaciones infecciosas (CI). Las CI están relacionadas con un incremento de la prevalencia de bacterias ciprofloxacino-resistentes (BCR) en la flora rectal. Estudiamos las CI ocurridas en 2 grupos. Grupo de profilaxis antibiótica «dirigida» (GPD) vs. grupo de profilaxis empírica (GPE). Evaluamos el impacto económico que supone la profilaxis antibiótica «dirigida» (PD).

Material y métodos

El GPD se estudió prospectivamente (junio 2013-julio 2014). Se recogieron cultivos rectales (CR) antes de BPTE y se sembraron en medios selectivos con ciprofloxacino para determinar la presencia de BCR. Los pacientes con bacterias sensibles recibieron ciprofloxacino. Pacientes con bacterias resistentes recibieron PD según antibiograma del CR.

El GPE se estudió retrospectivamente (enero 2011-junio 2009). El CR no se realizó y todos los pacientes recibieron ciprofloxacino como profilaxis.

Las CI ocurridas en ambos grupos se registraron en un periodo no superior a 30 días después de BPTE (historia clínica electrónica).

Resultados

Trescientos pacientes fueron sometidos a BPTE, 145 recibieron PD y 155 PE. En el GPD, 23 pacientes (15,86%) presentaron BCR en CR. Solo un paciente (0,7%) experimentó ITU. En el GPE, 26 pacientes (16,8%) experimentaron múltiples CI (incluidas 2 sepsis) (p<0,005). El coste total estimado, incluido el manejo de las CI, fue de 57.076€ con PE vs. 4.802,33€ con PD. El coste promedio/paciente con PE fue de 368,23€ vs. 33,11€ con PD. La PD logró un ahorro total estimado de 52.273,67€. Es necesario que 6 pacientes se sometan a PD para prevenir una CI.

Conclusiones

La PD se asoció a un notable descenso de la incidencia de CI causadas por BCR y redujo los costos de atención sanitaria.

Palabras clave:
Biopsia prostática transrectal ecográficamente dirigida
Complicaciones infecciosas
Profilaxis dirigida
Profilaxis empírica
Cultivos rectales
Bacterias ciprofloxacino-resistentes

Article

These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)
Subscriber
Subscriber

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option “I have forgotten my password”
Subscribe
Subscribe to

Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)

Purchase
Purchase article

Purchasing article the PDF version will be downloaded

Price 19.34 €

Purchase now
Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
Article options
Tools
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos