Prostate biopsy techniques and pre-biopsy prophylactic measures: variation in current practice patterns in the Netherlands.
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ administration & dosage
Antibiotic Prophylaxis
/ methods
Drug Resistance, Bacterial
/ drug effects
Female
Fluoroquinolones
/ administration & dosage
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
/ methods
Male
Netherlands
/ epidemiology
Practice Guidelines as Topic
/ standards
Prostate
/ pathology
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ standards
Urologists
/ standards
Antibiotic prophylaxis
Antibiotic resistance
Healthcare research
Prostate biopsy
Transrectal biopsy
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Mar 2020
12 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
26
06
2019
accepted:
24
02
2020
entrez:
14
3
2020
pubmed:
14
3
2020
medline:
18
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The clinical landscape of prostate biopsy (PB) is evolving with changes in procedures and techniques. Moreover, antibiotic resistance is increasing and influences the efficacy of pre-biopsy prophylactic regimens. Therefore, increasing antibiotic resistance may impact on clinical care, which probably results in differences between hospitals. The objective of our study is to determine the (variability in) current practices of PB in the Netherlands and to gain insight into Dutch urologists' perceptions of fluoroquinolone resistance and biopsy related infections. An online questionnaire was prepared using SurveyMonkey® platform and distributed to all 420 members of the Dutch Association of Urology, who work in 81 Dutch hospitals. Information about PB techniques and periprocedural antimicrobial prophylaxis was collected. Urologists' perceptions regarding pre-biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis in an era of antibiotic resistance was assessed. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. One hundred sixty-one responses (38.3%) were analyzed representing 65 (80.3%) of all Dutch hospitals performing PB. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) was performed in 64 (98.5%) hospitals. 43.1% of the hospitals (also) used other image-guided biopsy techniques. Twenty-three different empirical prophylactic regimens were reported among the hospitals. Ciprofloxacin was most commonly prescribed (84.4%). The duration ranged from one pre-biopsy dose (59.4%) to 5 days extended prophylaxis. 25.2% of the urologists experienced ciprofloxacin resistance as a current problem in the prevention of biopsy related infections and 73.6% as a future problem. There is a wide variation in practice patterns among Dutch urologists. TRUSPB is the most commonly used biopsy technique, but other image-guided biopsy techniques are increasingly used. Antimicrobial prophylaxis is not standardized and prolonged prophylaxis is common. The wide variation in practice patterns and lack of standardization underlines the need for evidence-based recommendations to guide urologists in choosing appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis for PB in the context of increasing antibiotic resistance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The clinical landscape of prostate biopsy (PB) is evolving with changes in procedures and techniques. Moreover, antibiotic resistance is increasing and influences the efficacy of pre-biopsy prophylactic regimens. Therefore, increasing antibiotic resistance may impact on clinical care, which probably results in differences between hospitals. The objective of our study is to determine the (variability in) current practices of PB in the Netherlands and to gain insight into Dutch urologists' perceptions of fluoroquinolone resistance and biopsy related infections.
METHODS
METHODS
An online questionnaire was prepared using SurveyMonkey® platform and distributed to all 420 members of the Dutch Association of Urology, who work in 81 Dutch hospitals. Information about PB techniques and periprocedural antimicrobial prophylaxis was collected. Urologists' perceptions regarding pre-biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis in an era of antibiotic resistance was assessed. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One hundred sixty-one responses (38.3%) were analyzed representing 65 (80.3%) of all Dutch hospitals performing PB. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) was performed in 64 (98.5%) hospitals. 43.1% of the hospitals (also) used other image-guided biopsy techniques. Twenty-three different empirical prophylactic regimens were reported among the hospitals. Ciprofloxacin was most commonly prescribed (84.4%). The duration ranged from one pre-biopsy dose (59.4%) to 5 days extended prophylaxis. 25.2% of the urologists experienced ciprofloxacin resistance as a current problem in the prevention of biopsy related infections and 73.6% as a future problem.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is a wide variation in practice patterns among Dutch urologists. TRUSPB is the most commonly used biopsy technique, but other image-guided biopsy techniques are increasingly used. Antimicrobial prophylaxis is not standardized and prolonged prophylaxis is common. The wide variation in practice patterns and lack of standardization underlines the need for evidence-based recommendations to guide urologists in choosing appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis for PB in the context of increasing antibiotic resistance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32164686
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00592-8
pii: 10.1186/s12894-020-00592-8
pmc: PMC7066741
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Fluoroquinolones
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
24Subventions
Organisme : The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw)
ID : 541001009
Références
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 4;8(14):23322-23336
pubmed: 28177897
Hong Kong Med J. 2019 Jun;25(3):209-215
pubmed: 31178436
Iran J Radiol. 2012 Jun;9(2):67-70
pubmed: 23329966
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):100-109
pubmed: 30470502
Front Surg. 2018 Jan 24;5:2
pubmed: 29417048
BMC Urol. 2019 Oct 28;19(1):101
pubmed: 31660936
World J Urol. 2018 Jul;36(7):1007-1017
pubmed: 29453690
J Urol. 1982 Feb;127(2):255-6
pubmed: 7062377
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2012 Dec;46(6):405-10
pubmed: 22647198
Urol Clin North Am. 2017 Nov;44(4):525-534
pubmed: 29107269
J Urol. 2008 Apr;179(4):1379-90
pubmed: 18280509
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2015 Jan 27;2(1):ofv002
pubmed: 26034753
Urol Ann. 2015 Jul-Sep;7(3):315-9
pubmed: 26229317
BJU Int. 2019 Nov;124(5):775-784
pubmed: 31237388
Urology. 1981 Aug;18(2):145-8
pubmed: 7269016
Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):582-590
pubmed: 30522912
Int Urol Nephrol. 1990;22(3):257-62
pubmed: 2210982
Ir J Med Sci. 2012 Mar;181(1):33-5
pubmed: 22057660
Adv Urol. 2016;2016:5392107
pubmed: 27034660
J Med Assoc Thai. 2009 Dec;92(12):1621-6
pubmed: 20043564
Can J Urol. 2012 Dec;19(6):6573-7
pubmed: 23228295
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
J Urol. 2013 Apr;189(4):1326-31
pubmed: 23041343
JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 1;154(7):590-598
pubmed: 31017647