4.6 Article

Prosbiotate: A Multicenter, Prospective Analysis of Infectious Complications after Prostate Biopsy

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 193, 期 1, 页码 145-150

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.086

关键词

prostate; biopsy; prostatitis; sepsis; risk

资金

  1. French Association of Urology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Prostate biopsy side effects have a role in the controversy over screening for prostate cancer. We measured the precise incidence of infection after prostate biopsy and determined risk factors. Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter study in France from April to June 2013. All prostate biopsies done during this period were included in study. A web based questionnaire was used to identify patient characteristics, biopsy methods and postoperative infectious episodes. External audit helped ensure data completeness. The primary outcome was the post-biopsy infection rate. We determined risk factors for infectious complications using univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: The study included 2,718 patients, of whom 6% reported receiving antibiotics in the previous 6 months and 7.4% had a history of prostatitis. Recommended antibiotic prophylaxis consisting of 2 fluoroquinolone tablets 2 hours before examination for prostate biopsy was noted in 78.3% of cases. Post-biopsy sepsis was found in 76 subjects (2.8%). On multivariate analysis predictors of post-biopsy sepsis were noncompliance with antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.9, p = 0.001), antibiotic treatment in the previous 6 months (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.9, p = 0.015) and a history of prostatitis (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, p = 0.002). Conclusions: In this study the incidence of post-prostate biopsy sepsis was 2.8% and no deaths were reported. Risk factors identified on multivariate analysis were noncompliance with antibiotic prophylaxis according to guidelines, antibiotic treatment in the previous 6 months and a history of prostatitis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据