Comparison of levofloxacin-based prophylaxis regimens for transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized single-center study
- 26 Downloads
To develop an optimal prophylactic regimen among Chinese patients who accept transrectal prostate biopsy. We enrolled 420 patients who accepted transrectal prostate biopsy. They were randomly classified into three groups (n = 140 for each): Group A received a single 500-mg tablet of levofloxacin without enema; group B received a single 500-mg tablet of levofloxacin plus enema; group C received 3-day levofloxacin orally plus enema. Patients were assessed if they had a febrile urinary tract infection (FUTI). The incidence of FUTI was compared among groups. Subgroup analysis was performed between patients at high and low risk of infection in each group. There were 15 cases developed FUTI: 7 (5%), 6 (4.3%), and 2 (1.4%), respectively, in groups A, B, and C. Of the 15 patients who developed FUTI, Escherichia coli was detected in blood culture in two cases. Urine culture results were all negative. FUTI patients (73.3% (11/15)) had at least one high risk factor. Subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of FUTI in group A was significantly higher than that in group C among high-risk patients. There was no statistical difference between group A and group B among both high- and low-risk patients. A single 500-mg dose of levofloxacin without enema represents excellent prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy in Chinese patients at low risk of infection. For those at high risk, 3-day levofloxacin prophylaxis is the optimal regimen. Prebiopsy enema provides no clinically significant outcome advantage and is unnecessary.
KeywordsFluoroquinolone Prophylaxis Enema Prostate biopsy
This work was supported in part by Grant 2018A610297 from Ningbo Natural Science Fund and Grants LY18H050003 and LY17H050001 from the Zhejiang Natural Science Fund.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ningbo First Hospital Research Ethics Committee.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 4.Puig J, Darnell A, Bermúdez P et al (2006) Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: is antibiotic prophylaxis necessary? Eur Radiol 16(4):939–943Google Scholar
- 7.Jeon SS, Woo SH, Hyun JH et al (2003) Bisacodyl rectal preparation can decrease infectious complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Urology. 62(3):461–466Google Scholar
- 9.Carey JM, Korman HJ (2001) Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. Do enemas decrease clinically significant complications? J Urol 166(1):82–85Google Scholar
- 10.Griffith BC, Morey AF, Ali-Khan MM et al (2002) Single dose levofloxacin prophylaxis for prostate biopsy in patients at low risk. J Urol 168(3):1021–1023Google Scholar
- 13.Sabbagh R, McCormack M, Péloquin F et al (2004) A prospective randomized trial of 1-day versus 3-day antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Can J Urol 11(2):2216–2219Google Scholar
- 15.Qiao LD, Chen S, Wang XF et al (2016) A multi-center, controlled, randomized, open-label clinical study of levofloxacin for preventing infection during the perioperative period of ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 35(11):1877–1881Google Scholar
- 20.Drusano GL, Preston SL, Van Guilder M et al (2000) A population pharmacokinetic analysis of the penetration of the prostate by levofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 44(8):2046–2051Google Scholar
- 22.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):521–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.003. Google Scholar
- 24.Lindert KA, Kabalin JN, Terris MK (2000) Bacteremia and bacteriuria after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 164(1):76–80Google Scholar