Does intravenous cefuroxime improve the efficacy of ciprofloxacin for preventing infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy? A prospective comparative study

Figures & data

Table 1 The baseline characteristics of both groups, and complications after TRUSBP.

Variable	Group A	Group B	P
No. of patients	205	250
Characteristic
Mean (SD):
Age (years)	63.3 (7.9)	63.2 (8.5)	0.83
Serum PSA level (ng/mL)	10.2 (10.3)	10.8 (9.8)	0.48
Diabetes mellitus, n (%)	33 (16.1)	29 (11.6)	0.1
Mean (SD):
Prostate volume (mL)	57.5 (33.1)	60.1 (33.2)	0.39
Number of cores	12.1 (0.6)	12.3 (1.2)	0.21
Repeat biopsy, n (%)	17 (8.3)	25 (10)	0.32
Indications for TRUSBP^*, n (%)
Abnormal DRE	48 (23.4)	80 (32.0)	0.12
High PSA level	175 (85.4)	220 (88.0)	0.24
Complications, n (%)
Sepsis	18 (8.8)	9 (3.6)	0.018
Haematuria	2 (1)	1 (0.4)	0.43
Haematospermia	1 (0.5)	2 (0.8)	0.21
Significant rectal bleeding	3 (1.5)	4 (1.6)	0.59

∗ Few patients in both groups had an abnormal DRE and a high PSA level.

Table 2 The characteristics of the patients who developed sepsis after TRUSBP in groups A and B.

Variable	Group A (18)	Group B (9)
Mean (SD) age (years)	61 (8.20)	58 (9.17)
Diabetes mellitus, n/N (%)	4/18 (22)	2/9
Mean (SD) prostate volume (mL)	52.4 (19.7)	53.8 (32.2)
Repeat biopsy, n (%)	16/18 (89)	7/9
Patients with + ve urine cultures, n (%)	13/18 (72)	5/9
Organisms isolated in urine culture, n:
E. coli	4	2
ESBL E. coli	7	3
Pseudomonas	1	0
E. cloacae	1	0
No growth	5	4
Patients with + ve blood cultures (n)	7	3
Organisms isolated in blood culture
E. coli	1	0
ESBL E. coli	6	3
No growth	11	6
Antibiotic sensitivity of
Urine culture	Tazocin, Meropenam	Tazocin, Meropenam
Blood culture	Tazocin, Meropenam	Tazocin, Meropenam

Table 3 Comparison of different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens.

Reference	Antibiotic regimens	Rate of infection, n/N (%)
[1]	Ciprofloxacin	12/374 (3.2)
	vs Ciprofloxacin + gentamicin	5/367 (1.3)
[5]	Placebo	19/75 (25.3)
	vs. (Single-dose) ciprofloxacin + tinizadole	6/79 (7.5)
	vs. (3-day course) ciprofloxacin + tinizadole	8/77 (10.3)
[4]	Ciprofloxacin + coamoxiclav + metronidazole	11/281 (3.9)
	vs. Ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + amikacin	6/590 (1.01)
[21]	No antibiotic	9/145 (6.2)
	vs. ciprofloxacin + metronidazole	5/289 (1.7)
[20]	Ciprofloxacin	11/454 (2.4)
	vs. Co-amoxiclav + gentamicin	33/255 (12.9)
[22]	Co-amoxiclav	9/204 (4.4)
	vs. Ciprofloxacin + cefoxitin	2/207 (0.9)
[23]	Ciprofloxacin	2/119 (1.6)
	vs. Co-amoxiclav	8/110 (7.2)
Present	Ciprofloxacin	18/205 (8.7)
	vs. Ciprofloxacin + cefuroxime	9/250 (3.6)

H.S.HoL.G.NgY.H.TanM.YeoC.W.ChengIntramuscular gentamicin improves the efficacy of ciprofloxacin as an antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsyAnn Acad Med Singapore382009212216

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

M.AronT.P.RajeevN.P.GuptaAntibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled studyBJU Int852000682685

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

D.BaturaG.G.RaoBo Nielsen P, Charlett A. Adding amikacin to fluoroquinolone-based antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces prostate biopsy infection ratesBJU Int1072011760764

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

P.LarssonU.NormingM.TornblomO.GustafssonAntibiotic prophylaxis for prostate biopsy. benefits and costsProstate Cancer Prostatic Dis219998890

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

T.MaddenA.DobleS.H.AliyuD.E.NealInfective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy following a new protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis aimed at reducing hospital-acquired infectionsBJU Int108201115971602

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

J.P.HorcajadaM.BustoS.GrauL.SorlíR.TerradasM.SalvadóetalHigh prevalence of extended spectrum beta lactamase-producing enterobacteriaceae in bacteremia after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a need for changing preventive protocolUrology74200911951199

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

S.HoriA.SenguptaA.JoannidesB.Balogun-OjuriR.TilleyJ.McLoughlinChanging antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies of the prostate: are we putting our patients at risk?BJU Int106201012981302

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar