Biópsia Prostática Transretal Após Preparação Profilática do Recto com Iodo-Povidona: Estudo Prospectivo Randomizado

  • José Pedro Cadilhe Serviço de Urologia, Unidade Local de Saúde do Alto Minho, EPE Viana do Castelo, Portugal
Keywords: Antibiotic Prophylaxis, Biopsy, Endoscopic Ultrasound- Guided Fine Needle Aspiration, Iodo-Povidona, Povidone- Iodine, Prostate

Abstract

Introduction: Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx), according to the literature, can lead to urinary tract infections in up to 11% and sepsis in up to 2% of patients. We evaluate whether an original way to apply povidone-iodine rectal preparation just prior to TRUS-Bx can reduce infectious complications.

Material and Methods: Between January 2014 and September 2016, 94 men in private office were prospectively randomized to two groups, before TRUS-Bx: • Rectal cleansing (an original transrectal “prostate massage” for about half a minute with 2.5 mL of betadine dermic solution 100 mg/mL) (n=47) or • No cleansing (n=47). All of the patients received prophylactic antibiotics: levofloxacin 500 mg PO for 7 days, beginning the day before procedure. Patients completed a telephone interview 4 days after undergoing the biopsy and went to the office 2 weeks after biopsy. The primary end point was the rate of infectious complications. An infectious complication when one or more of the following events occurred: 1) fever greater than 38.0Cº, 2) urinary tract infection or 3) sepsis (standardized definition). Student t test and multivariate regression analysis were used for data analysis.

Results: Infectious complications developed in 6 cases (12.7%) in the non-rectal preparation group: five patients had fever without sepsis (11%) and one had sepsis (2%). In the povidone-iodine rectal preparation group there were no infectious complications (0.0%). Multivariate analysis did not identify any patient subgroups at significantly higher risk of infection after prostate biopsy. Of the 94 men who underwent TRUS-Bx 45 (47.9%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 3 (3.2%) had ASAP in the result. The hospital admission rate for urological complications within 30 days of the procedure was 1%, and only for infection related reasons (sepsis).

Conclusion: The administration of quinolone-based prophylactic antibiotics and the simple use of 2.5 mL of povidone-iodine dermic solution in a transrectal prostate massage for Introduction: Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx), according to the literature, can lead to urinary tract infections in up to 11% and sepsis in up to 2% of patients. We evaluate whether an original way to apply povidone-iodine rectal preparation just prior to TRUS-Bx can reduce infectious complications. Material and Methods: Between January 2014 and September 2016, 94 men in private office were prospectively randomized to two groups, before TRUS-Bx: • Rectal cleansing (an original transrectal “prostate massage” for about half a minute with 2.5 mL of betadine dermic solution 100 mg/mL) (n=47) or • No cleansing (n=47). All of the patients received prophylactic antibiotics: levofloxacin 500 mg PO for 7 days, beginning the day before procedure. Patients completed a telephone interview 4 days after undergoing the biopsy and went to the office 2 weeks after biopsy. The primary end point was the rate of infectious complications. An infectious complication when one or more of the following events occurred: 1) fever greater than 38.0Cº, 2) urinary tract infection or 3) sepsis (standardized definition). Student t test and multivariate regression analysis were used for data analysis. Results: Infectious complications developed in 6 cases (12.7%) in the non-rectal preparation group: five patients had fever without sepsis (11%) and one had sepsis (2%). In the povidone-iodine rectal preparation group there were no infectious complications (0.0%). Multivariate analysis did not identify any patient subgroups at significantly higher risk of infection after prostate biopsy. Of the 94 men who underwent TRUS-Bx 45 (47.9%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 3 (3.2%) had ASAP in the result. The hospital admission rate for urological complications within 30 days of the procedure was 1%, and only for infection related reasons (sepsis). Conclusion: The administration of quinolone-based prophylactic antibiotics and the simple use of 2.5 mL of povidone-iodine dermic solution in a transrectal prostate massage for

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Issa MM, Bux S, Chunt T, Petros JA, Labadia AJ, Anastasia K, et al. A randomized prospective trial of intrarectal lidocaine for pain control during transrectal prostate biopsy. The Emeroy University experience. J Urol. 2000;164:397-9.

2. Machado MT, Verotti MJ, Aragao AJ, Rodrigues AO, Borrelli M, Wroclawski E. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in TRUS guided Prostate Biopsy. Int Braz J Urol. 2006;32:172-80.

3. Nash PA, Shinohara K. TRUS guided prostatic nerve blockade eases systematic needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol. 1996;155: 607-9.

4. Soloway MS, Obek C. Periprostatic local anesthesia before ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy. J Urol. 2000;163:172-3.

5. Cadilhe JP. TRUS prostatic Biopsy: the role of the Urologist step by step. J Endourology. 2006;20:170.

6. Autorino R, De Sio M, Di Lorenzo, Damiano R, Damiano R, Perdonà S, Cindolo L, et al. How to decrease pain during TRUS guided biopsy: a look at the literature. J Urol. 2005;174:2091-97.

7. Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Nava L, Rosigno M, Montorsi F. TRUS guided biopsy schemes and TRUS prostatic lesion guided biopsies. Eur Urol. 2002:Supl;28-34.

8. Rocco B, de Cobelli O, Leon ME, Ferruti M, Mastropasqua MG, Matei DV, et al. Sensitivity and detection rate of a 12-core trans-perineal prostate biopsy: preliminary report. Eur Urol. 2006;49:827-33.

9. Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akball C, Sofikerim M, Günay M, Ekici S, et al. An extended 10-core TRUS prostate guided biopsy protocol improves detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2004;45 444-9.

10. Emiliozzi P, Scarpone P, DePaula F, Pizzo M, Federico G, Pansadoro A, et al. The incidence of prostate cancer in men with PSA greater than 4,0 ng/ml: a randomized study of 6 versus 12 core transperineal prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2004;171:197-9.

11. Ravery V, Goldblatt L, Royer B, Blanc E, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L. Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2000;164:393-6.

12. Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, Kadmon D, Jiang N, Wheeler TM, et al. Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol.2001;165:1554-9.

13. Chang JJ, Shinohara k, Bhargava V, Presti JC. Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the peripheral zone for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 1998;160:2111-4.

14. Terris MK, Wallen EM, Stamey TA. Comparison of mid-lobe versus lateral systemic sextant biopsies in detection of prostate cancer. Urol Int. 1997;59:239-42.

15. Cadilhe JP, Veiga da Silva. Esquemas de biopsias prostaticas transrectais ecoguiadas e BPTR dirigidas a lesões. Acta Urol Port. 2007, 24;2:66.

16. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:71-4.

17. Kuligowska E., Barish MA, Fenlon HM, Blake M. Predictors of prostate carcinoma: accuracy of gray scale and color doppler US and serum markers. Radiology. 2001;220:757-64.

18. Iczkowski KA, Casella G, Seppala RJ, Jones GL, Mishler BA, Qian J, et al. Needle core length in sextant biopsies influences prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2002;59:698-703.

19. Cadilhe JP. Transrectal prostate biopsy after prophylatic preparation of the rectum with povidone-iodine – A prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2017;197:e143.

20. Carey JM, Korman HJ. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. Do enemas decrease clinically significant complications? J Urol. 2001; 166:82-5.

21. Zaytoun OM, Anil T, Moussa AS, Jianbo L, Fareed K, Jones JS. Morbidity of prostate biopsy after simplified versus complex preparation protocols: assessment of risk factors. Urology. 2011; 77:910-4.

22. Grabe M, Bjerklund-Johansen T, Botto H, et al. Guidelines on urological infections. European Association of Urology website [accessed April 2016] Available from: http://uroweb.org/wp-content/ uploads/18_Urological-infections_LR.pdf.

23. Hwang EC, Jung SI, Seo YH, Jeong SH, Kwon DD, Park K, et al. Risk factors for and prophylactic effect of povidone-iodine rectal cleansing on infectious complications after prostate biopsy: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015; 47:595-601.

24. Murphy DG, Weerakoon M, Grummet J. Is zero sepsis alone enough to justify transperineal prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014; 114:3-4.

25. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Moon DA, et al. Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014; 114:384-8.

26. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830-4.

27. Akduman B, Akduman D, Tokgöz H, Erol B, Türker T, Ayoglu F, et al. Long-term fluoroquinolone use before the prostate biopsy may increase the risk of sepsis caused by resistant microorganisms. Urology. 2011; 78:250-5.

28. Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke PG, GPIU investigators. 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. 2013;63:521–7.

29. Walker JT, Singla N, Roehrborn CG. Reducing infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review. Rev Urol. 2016;18:73–89.

30. Womble PR, Linsell SM, Gao Y, Ye Z, Montie JE, Gandhi TN, et al. A statewide intervention to reduce hospitalizations after prostate biopsy. Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. J Urol. 2015; 194:403-9.

31. Lorber G, Benenson S, Rosenberg S, Gofrit ON, Pode D. A single dose of 240 mg gentamicin during transrectal prostate biopsy significantly reduces septic complications. Urology. 2013; 82:998-1002.

32. Losco G, Studd R, Blackmore T. Ertapenem prophylaxis reduces sepsis after transrectal biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int. 2014; 113 (Suppl 2):69-72.

33. Issa MM, Al-Qassab UA, Hall J, Ritenour CW, Petros JA, Sullivan JW. Formalin disinfection of biopsy needle minimizes the risk of sepsis following prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;190:1769–75.

34. Park DS, Hwang JH, Choi DK, Gong IH, Hong YK, Park S, et al. Control of infective complications of transrectal prostate biopsy. Surg Infect. 2014; 15:431-6.
Published
2018-07-24