Research ExplorerPublicationsComparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis...

Comparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefpodoxime Versus Fluoroquinolones After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy

Standard

Comparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefpodoxime Versus Fluoroquinolones After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy. / Wenzel, Mike; Welte, Maria N; Theissen, Lena H; Wittler, Clarissa; Hoeh, Benedikt; Humke, Clara; Preisser, Felix; Würnschimmel, Christoph; Tilki, Derya; Graefen, Markus; Roos, Frederik C; Becker, Andreas; Karakiewicz, Pierre I; Chun, Felix K H; Kluth, Luis A; Mandel, Philipp.

In: EUR UROL FOCUS, Vol. 7, No. 5, 09.2021, p. 980-986.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Wenzel, M, Welte, MN, Theissen, LH, Wittler, C, Hoeh, B, Humke, C, Preisser, F, Würnschimmel, C, Tilki, D, Graefen, M, Roos, FC, Becker, A, Karakiewicz, PI, Chun, FKH, Kluth, LA & Mandel, P 2021, 'Comparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefpodoxime Versus Fluoroquinolones After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy', EUR UROL FOCUS, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 980-986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.11.006

APA

Wenzel, M., Welte, M. N., Theissen, L. H., Wittler, C., Hoeh, B., Humke, C., Preisser, F., Würnschimmel, C., Tilki, D., Graefen, M., Roos, F. C., Becker, A., Karakiewicz, P. I., Chun, F. K. H., Kluth, L. A., & Mandel, P. (2021). Comparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefpodoxime Versus Fluoroquinolones After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy. EUR UROL FOCUS, 7(5), 980-986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.11.006

Vancouver

Wenzel M, Welte MN, Theissen LH, Wittler C, Hoeh B, Humke C et al. Comparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefpodoxime Versus Fluoroquinolones After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy. EUR UROL FOCUS. 2021 Sep;7(5):980-986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.11.006

Bibtex

@article{fcd258f6f8e04d9aac3e9657046cd613,
title = "Comparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefpodoxime Versus Fluoroquinolones After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: After recommended restriction of the use of fluoroquinolones, the optimal antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy is still under debate.OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of cefpodoxime as oral antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies and the complication rates relative to fluoroquinolones.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies at the Department of Urology at University Hospital Frankfurt was fluoroquinolones for 342 consecutive patients in January 2018 and December 2019 and cefpodoxime for 100 patients from January 2020 to July 2020. Data were prospectively evaluated and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were followed up according to clinical routine at 6 wk after biopsy at the earliest. Patients without follow-up (n = 98) and those receiving antibiotic prophylaxis other than cefpodoxime or fluoroquinolones (n = 15) were excluded.INTERVENTION: Use of cefpodoxime or fluoroquinolones as antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression models were used to predict biopsy-related complications according to antibiotic prophylaxis.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 442 patients, 100 (22.6%) received cefpodoxime as antibiotic prophylaxis. Patient baseline and biopsy characteristics were comparable between the cefpodoxime and fluoroquinolone groups. Moreover, there were no differences in the number of prior prostate biopsies or the proportions of systematic vs. fusion biopsies (p > 0.05). There were no differences between the groups in infectious complications such as epididymitis and prostatitis after biopsy. Infectious complication rates were very low, at 2.0% in the cefpodoxime and0.9%fluoroquinolone group. Moreover, there were no differences between the groups in patient-reported complications, such as gross hematuria occurring at more than 5 d after biopsy, hematospermia, or rectal bleeding. In multivariable analyses, after adjustment for patient and prostate biopsy characteristics, cefpodoxime was not associated with higher complication rates than fluoroquinolones (p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Complications after transrectal prostate biopsies are rare and cefpodoxime might be a sufficient choice as oral antibiotic prophylaxis and noninferior compared to fluoroquinolones.PATIENT SUMMARY: Cefpodoxime might be a sufficient choice as an easily applicable oral antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. The safety profile of cefpodoxime is comparable to the safety profile of fluoroquinolones.",
author = "Mike Wenzel and Welte, {Maria N} and Theissen, {Lena H} and Clarissa Wittler and Benedikt Hoeh and Clara Humke and Felix Preisser and Christoph W{\"u}rnschimmel and Derya Tilki and Markus Graefen and Roos, {Frederik C} and Andreas Becker and Karakiewicz, {Pierre I} and Chun, {Felix K H} and Kluth, {Luis A} and Philipp Mandel",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1016/j.euf.2020.11.006",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "980--986",
journal = "EUR UROL FOCUS",
issn = "2405-4569",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefpodoxime Versus Fluoroquinolones After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy

AU - Wenzel, Mike

AU - Welte, Maria N

AU - Theissen, Lena H

AU - Wittler, Clarissa

AU - Hoeh, Benedikt

AU - Humke, Clara

AU - Preisser, Felix

AU - Würnschimmel, Christoph

AU - Tilki, Derya

AU - Graefen, Markus

AU - Roos, Frederik C

AU - Becker, Andreas

AU - Karakiewicz, Pierre I

AU - Chun, Felix K H

AU - Kluth, Luis A

AU - Mandel, Philipp

N1 - Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/9

Y1 - 2021/9

N2 - BACKGROUND: After recommended restriction of the use of fluoroquinolones, the optimal antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy is still under debate.OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of cefpodoxime as oral antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies and the complication rates relative to fluoroquinolones.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies at the Department of Urology at University Hospital Frankfurt was fluoroquinolones for 342 consecutive patients in January 2018 and December 2019 and cefpodoxime for 100 patients from January 2020 to July 2020. Data were prospectively evaluated and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were followed up according to clinical routine at 6 wk after biopsy at the earliest. Patients without follow-up (n = 98) and those receiving antibiotic prophylaxis other than cefpodoxime or fluoroquinolones (n = 15) were excluded.INTERVENTION: Use of cefpodoxime or fluoroquinolones as antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression models were used to predict biopsy-related complications according to antibiotic prophylaxis.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 442 patients, 100 (22.6%) received cefpodoxime as antibiotic prophylaxis. Patient baseline and biopsy characteristics were comparable between the cefpodoxime and fluoroquinolone groups. Moreover, there were no differences in the number of prior prostate biopsies or the proportions of systematic vs. fusion biopsies (p > 0.05). There were no differences between the groups in infectious complications such as epididymitis and prostatitis after biopsy. Infectious complication rates were very low, at 2.0% in the cefpodoxime and0.9%fluoroquinolone group. Moreover, there were no differences between the groups in patient-reported complications, such as gross hematuria occurring at more than 5 d after biopsy, hematospermia, or rectal bleeding. In multivariable analyses, after adjustment for patient and prostate biopsy characteristics, cefpodoxime was not associated with higher complication rates than fluoroquinolones (p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Complications after transrectal prostate biopsies are rare and cefpodoxime might be a sufficient choice as oral antibiotic prophylaxis and noninferior compared to fluoroquinolones.PATIENT SUMMARY: Cefpodoxime might be a sufficient choice as an easily applicable oral antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. The safety profile of cefpodoxime is comparable to the safety profile of fluoroquinolones.

AB - BACKGROUND: After recommended restriction of the use of fluoroquinolones, the optimal antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy is still under debate.OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of cefpodoxime as oral antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies and the complication rates relative to fluoroquinolones.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies at the Department of Urology at University Hospital Frankfurt was fluoroquinolones for 342 consecutive patients in January 2018 and December 2019 and cefpodoxime for 100 patients from January 2020 to July 2020. Data were prospectively evaluated and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were followed up according to clinical routine at 6 wk after biopsy at the earliest. Patients without follow-up (n = 98) and those receiving antibiotic prophylaxis other than cefpodoxime or fluoroquinolones (n = 15) were excluded.INTERVENTION: Use of cefpodoxime or fluoroquinolones as antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression models were used to predict biopsy-related complications according to antibiotic prophylaxis.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 442 patients, 100 (22.6%) received cefpodoxime as antibiotic prophylaxis. Patient baseline and biopsy characteristics were comparable between the cefpodoxime and fluoroquinolone groups. Moreover, there were no differences in the number of prior prostate biopsies or the proportions of systematic vs. fusion biopsies (p > 0.05). There were no differences between the groups in infectious complications such as epididymitis and prostatitis after biopsy. Infectious complication rates were very low, at 2.0% in the cefpodoxime and0.9%fluoroquinolone group. Moreover, there were no differences between the groups in patient-reported complications, such as gross hematuria occurring at more than 5 d after biopsy, hematospermia, or rectal bleeding. In multivariable analyses, after adjustment for patient and prostate biopsy characteristics, cefpodoxime was not associated with higher complication rates than fluoroquinolones (p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Complications after transrectal prostate biopsies are rare and cefpodoxime might be a sufficient choice as oral antibiotic prophylaxis and noninferior compared to fluoroquinolones.PATIENT SUMMARY: Cefpodoxime might be a sufficient choice as an easily applicable oral antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. The safety profile of cefpodoxime is comparable to the safety profile of fluoroquinolones.

U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2020.11.006

DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2020.11.006

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 33358884

VL - 7

SP - 980

EP - 986

JO - EUR UROL FOCUS

JF - EUR UROL FOCUS

SN - 2405-4569

IS - 5

ER -