Quality improvement initiative to reduce variability and improve stewardship of antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal prostate needle biopsy
To assess the impact of implementing the recommendations included in the 2014 American Urological Association (AUA) white paper on complications of transrectal prostate needle biopsy (PNB).
In the outpatient setting of a single tertiary-care institution, prophylactic antibiotic use and rate of infectious complications were compared before and after implementation by nursing of a standardized algorithm to select antibiotic prophylaxis (derived from the recommendations of the AUA white paper). The 584 patients in cohort A (January 2011–January 2012) received antimicrobial prophylaxis at the discretion of the treating physician; 654 patients in cohort B (January 2014–January 2015) received standardized risk-adapted antibiotic prophylaxis. Data on antibiotics administered and infectious complications were analyzed.
Fluoroquinolone was the most common prophylactic regimen in both cohorts. In cohort A, 73% of men received a single-drug regimen, although 19 different regimens were utilized with duration of 72 h. In cohort B, 97% received 1 of 4 standardized single-drug antibiotic regimens for duration of 24 h. Infectious complications occurred in 19 men (3.3%) in cohort A, and in 18 men (2.8%) in cohort B (difference − 0.5%; one-sided 95% CI 1.1%). No clinically relevant increase in infectious complication rates was found after implementing this quality improvement initiative.
Use of a standardized risk-adapted approach to select antibiotic prophylaxis for PNB by nursing staff reduced the duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis and number of antibiotic regimens used, without increasing the rate of infectious complications. Our findings validate the current AUA recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis.
KeywordsProstatic neoplasm Biopsy Infection Prophylaxis Treatment outcome Stewardship
PR: Protocol/Project Development, Data Collection or Management, Manuscript Writing/Editing; TL: Data Collection or Management, Data Analysis, Manuscript Writing/Editing; EV: Data Collection or Management, Data Analysis, Manuscript Writing/Editing; MM: Data Collection or Management; JE: Protocol/Project Development; KT: Protocol/Project Development; SKS: Protocol/Project Development; MS: Protocol/Project Development; BE: Protocol/Project Development, Manuscript Writing/Editing.
This research was supported by funds from the Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Diseases and NIH Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM (2011) Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 186(5):1830–1834Google Scholar
- 2.Zani EL, Clark OAC, Rodrigues Netto N Jr (2011) Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11(5):CD006576Google Scholar
- 3.Yang L, Gao L, Chen Y et al (2015) Prophylactic antibiotics in prostate biopsy: a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 16(6):733–747Google Scholar
- 4.Kapoor DA, Klimberg IW, Malek GH et al (1998) Single-dose oral ciprofloxacin versus placebo for prophylaxis during transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology 52(4):552–558Google Scholar
- 5.Feliciano J, Teper E, Ferrandino M et al (2008) The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy—are fluoroquinolones still effective prophylaxis? J Urol 179(3):952–955Google Scholar
- 6.Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke P et al (2013) Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol 63(3):521–527Google Scholar
- 7.Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183(3):963–968Google Scholar
- 8.Liss MA, Chang A, Santos R et al (2011) Prevalence and significance of fluoroquinolone resistant Escherichia coli in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy. J Urol 185(4):1283–1288Google Scholar
- 9.Marino K, Parlee A, Orlando R, Lerner L, Strymish J, Gupta K (2015) Comparative effectiveness of single versus combination antibiotic prophylaxis for infections after transrectal prostate biopsy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59(12):7273–7275Google Scholar
- 10.Averch T, Tessier C, Clemens JQ et al (2015) AUA Quality Improvement Summit 2014: conference proceedings on infectious complications of transrectal prostate needle biopsy. Urol Pract 2(4):172–180Google Scholar
- 11.Ehdaie B, Vertosick E, Spaliviero M et al (2014) The impact of repeat biopsies on infectious complications in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 191(3):660–664Google Scholar
- 12.Aron M, Rajeev TP, Gupta NP (2000) Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled study. BJU Int 85(6):682–685Google Scholar
- 13.Petteffi L, Toniazzo GP, Sander GB, Stein AC, Koff WJ (2002) Efficiency of short and long term antimicrobial therapy in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies. Int Braz J Urol 28(6):526–532Google Scholar
- 14.Schaeffer AJ, Montorsi F, Scattoni V et al (2007) Comparison of a 3-day with a 1-day regimen of an extended-release formulation of ciprofloxacin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for patients undergoing transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int 100(1):51–57Google Scholar
- 15.Cam K, Kayikci A, Akman Y, Erol A (2008) Prospective assessment of the efficacy of single dose versus traditional 3-day antimicrobial prophylaxis in 12-core transrectal prostate biopsy. Int J Urol 15(11):997–1001Google Scholar
- 16.Williamson DA, Barrett LK, Rogers BA, Freeman JT, Hadway P, Paterson DL (2013) Infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: new challenges in the era of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Clin Infect Dis 57(2):267–274Google Scholar
- 17.Toner L, Bolton DM, Lawrentschuk N (2016) Prevention of sepsis prior to prostate biopsy. Investig Clin Urol 57(2):94–99Google Scholar
- 18.Iwamoto H, Shigehara K, Miyagi T, Nakashima T, Shimamura M, Namiki M (2015) Efficacy of two-time prophylactic intravenous administration of tazobactam/piperacillin for transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the prostate. Prostate Int 3(3):103–106Google Scholar
- 19.Cussans A, Somani BK, Basarab A, Dudderidge TJ (2016) The role of targeted prophylactic antimicrobial therapy before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy in reducing infection rates: a systematic review. BJU Int 117(5):725–731Google Scholar
- 20.Liss MA, Kim W, Moskowitz D, Szabo RJ (2015) Comparative effectiveness of targeted vs empirical antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent sepsis from transrectal prostate biopsy: a retrospective analysis. J Urol 194(2):397–402Google Scholar
- 21.Li CK, Tong BC, You JH (2016) Cost-effectiveness of culture-guided antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of infections after prostate biopsy. Int J Infect Dis 43:7–12Google Scholar