Investig Clin Urol.  2016 Mar;57(2):94-99. 10.4111/icu.2016.57.2.94.

Prevention of sepsis prior to prostate biopsy

• Toner L
• Bolton DM
• Lawrentschuk N

• KMID: 2363130
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.2.94

Abstract

PURPOSE
Urosepsis is the most feared complication of transrectal prostate biopsy. The incidence may be increasing from <1% to 2%-3% in contemporary series. Historically, fluoroquinolones have been effective antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective complications but antibiotic resistance is increasing. The increase in antibiotic resistance may contribute to reported increases in urosepsis and hospitalization after transrectal biopsy. This article will review other methods clinicians may employ to reduce the incidence of infective complications after prostate biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted using literature databases PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE in August 2015 in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) criteria.
RESULTS
Effective strategies to reduce infective complications after transrectal prostate biopsy include augmented prophylaxis with other antibiotics, rectal swab culture directed antibiotic prophylaxis or a transperineal biopsy approach. Needle disinfection, minimizing the number of biopsy needles and rectal disinfectants may also be of use. These methods may be of particular utility in patients with risk factors for developing urosepsis such as recent antibiotic use and overseas travel.
CONCLUSIONS
The scientific literature describes various techniques designed to reduce infective complications caused by prostate biopsy. Clinicians should consider incorporating these novel techniques into their contemporary practice.

Keyword

Biopsy; Complications; Infection; Prostatic neoplasms; Sepsis

MeSH Terms

Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods
Biopsy, Needle/*adverse effects/instrumentation
Cross Infection/*prevention & control/transmission
Disinfection/methods
Humans
Male
Needles
Prostate/*pathology
Prostatic Neoplasms/*pathology
Sepsis/*prevention & control/transmission

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flowchart of study selection as per the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement.

Reference

1. Bruyere F, Malavaud S, Bertrand P, Decock A, Cariou G, Doublet JD, et al. Prosbiotate: a multicenter, prospective analysis of infectious complications after prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2015; 193:145–150. PMID: 25063492.

2. Carignan A, Roussy JF, Lapointe V, Valiquette L, Sabbagh R, Pepin J. Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol. 2012; 62:453–459. PMID: 22575912.

3. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013; 189(1 Suppl):S12–S17. PMID: 23234616.

4. Ahmed HU, Emberton M. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in targeting prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. BJU Int. 2009; 104:269–270. PMID: 19594515.

5. Batura D, Gopal Rao G. The national burden of infections after prostate biopsy in England and Wales: a wake-up call for better prevention. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013; 68:247–249. PMID: 23047808.

6. Zani EL, Clark OA, Rodrigues Netto. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (5):CD006576. PMID: 21563156.

7. Cohen JE, Landis P, Trock BJ, Patel HD, Ball MW, Auwaerter PG, et al. Fluoroquinolone resistance in the rectal carriage of men in an active surveillance cohort: longitudinal analysis. J Urol. 2015; 193:552–556. PMID: 25111911.

8. Dai J, Leone A, Mermel L, Hwang K, Pareek G, Schiff S, et al. Rectal swab culture-directed antimicrobial prophylaxis for prostate biopsy and risk of postprocedure infection: a cohort study. Urology. 2015; 85:8–14. PMID: 25458193.

9. Laupland KB, Gregson DB, Church DL, Ross T, Pitout JD. Incidence, risk factors and outcomes of Escherichia coli bloodstream infections in a large Canadian region. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008; 14:1041–1047. PMID: 19040476.

10. Patel U, Dasgupta P, Amoroso P, Challacombe B, Pilcher J, Kirby R. Infection after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: increased relative risks after recent international travel or antibiotic use. BJU Int. 2012; 109:1781–1785. PMID: 22040349.

11. Abughosh Z, Margolick J, Goldenberg SL, Taylor SA, Afshar K, Bell R, et al. A prospective randomized trial of povidoneiodine prophylactic cleansing of the rectum before transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013; 189:1326–1331. PMID: 23041343.

12. Therapeutic Guidelines Limited. Prophylaxis: urological surgery. eTG complete [Internet]. West Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited;2014. 2015 Aug 23. Available from: http://www.tg.org.au/.

13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6:e1000100. PMID: 19621070.

14. Toner L, Papa N, Aliyu SH, Dev H, Lawrentschuk N, Al-Hayek S. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in hospital urinary tract infections: incidence and antibiotic susceptibility profile over 9 years. World J Urol. 2015; 10. 28. [Epub]. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1718-x.

15. Womble PR, Linsell SM, Gao Y, Ye Z, Montie JE, Gandhi TN, et al. A Statewide Intervention to Reduce Hospitalizations after Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2015; 194:403–409. PMID: 25896556.

16. Batura D, Rao GG, Bo Nielsen P, Charlett A. Adding amikacin to fluoroquinolone-based antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces prostate biopsy infection rates. BJU Int. 2011; 107:760–764. PMID: 21029317.

17. Taylor AK, Zembower TR, Nadler RB, Scheetz MH, Cashy JP, Bowen D, et al. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. J Urol. 2012; 187:1275–1279. PMID: 22341272.

18. Qi C, Malczynski M, Schaeffer AJ, Barajas G, Nadler RB, Scheetz MH, et al. Characterization of ciprofloxacin resistant Escherichia coli isolates among men undergoing evaluation for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013; 190:2026–2032. PMID: 23727416.

19. Park DS, Hwang JH, Choi DK, Gong IH, Hong YK, Park S, et al. Control of infective complications of transrectal prostate biopsy. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2014; 15:431–436. PMID: 24840927.

20. Issa MM, Al-Qassab UA, Hall J, Ritenour CW, Petros JA, Sullivan JW. Formalin disinfection of biopsy needle minimizes the risk of sepsis following prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013; 190:1769–1775. PMID: 23714433.

21. Koc G, Un S, Filiz DN, Akbay K, Yilmaz Y. Does washing the biopsy needle with povidone-iodine have an effect on infection rates after transrectal prostate needle biopsy? Urol Int. 2010; 85:147–151. PMID: 20453481.

22. Satasivam P, Thomas R, Rao K, Jack GS, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Fragmentation of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy cores is influenced by the method of specimen retrieval. Urology. 2014; 83:622–625. PMID: 24581525.

23. Tuncel A, Aslan Y, Sezgin T, Aydin O, Tekdogan U, Atan A. Does disposable needle guide minimize infectious complications after transrectal prostate needle biopsy? Urology. 2008; 71:1024–1027. PMID: 18400273.

24. Gurbuz C, Canat L, Atis G, Caskurlu T. Reducing infectious complications after transrectal prostate needle biopsy using a disposable needle guide: is it possible? Int Braz J Urol. 2011; 37:79–84. PMID: 21385483.

25. Ghafoori M, Velayati M, Aliyari Ghasabeh M, Shakiba M, Alavi M. Prostate biopsy using transrectal ultrasonography; the optimal number of cores regarding cancer detection rate and complications. Iran J Radiol. 2015; 12:e13257. PMID: 26060552.

26. McCormack M, Duclos A, Latour M, McCormack MH, Liberman D, Djahangirian O, et al. Effect of needle size on cancer detection, pain, bleeding and infection in TRUS-guided prostate biopsies: A prospective trial. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012; 6:97–101. PMID: 22511415.

27. Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N. Transperineal biopsy of the prostate: is this the future? Nat Rev Urol. 2013; 10:690–702. PMID: 24061531.

28. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Moon DA, et al. Sepsis and 'superbugs': should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014; 114:384–388. PMID: 24612341.

29. Vyas L, Acher P, Kinsella J, Challacombe B, Chang RT, Sturch P, et al. Indications, results and safety profile of transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate: a single centre experience of 634 cases. BJU Int. 2014; 114:32–37. PMID: 24053629.

30. Toner L, Weerakoon M, Bolton DM, Ryan A, Katelaris N, Lawrentschuk N. Magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: Comparative studies including radical prostatectomy specimens and template transperineal biopsy. Prostate Int. 2015; 3:107–114. PMID: 26779455.