Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | International Braz J Urol (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000601068 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT Purpose: To determine the risk factors and the efficiency of rectal swab samples to prevent infectious complications in prostate biopsy, and compare fosfomycin with ciprofloxacin use in prophylaxis. Materials and Methods: Between May and October 2014, pre-biopsy risk factors and their effect in ciprofloxacin and fosfomycin prophylaxis were determined. Pre-biopsy urinalysis, urine culture and rectal swab samples were obtained from all of the patients. Rectal swabs were obtained upon admission, and biopsy was performed in the following 3-7 days. The place of rectal swab samples and efficiency of fosfomycin use was evaluated. Results: Pre-biopsy rectal swabs were obtained from 110 patients who revealed 60.9% fluoroquinolone resistance (FQR), and 32.7% fluoroquinolone sensitivity (FQS). Fosfomycin resistance was present in 3 patients. Ciprofloxacin use in last 6 months was the only risk factor for FQR. Antibiotic prophylaxis was given to both groups with and without risk factors, according to swab results, and no infective complications were observed. Among the group where fosfomycin was used empirically, one patient had an infection needing hospitalization, however this constitutes no statistical difference between the Group that fosfomycin used empirically or according to swab results (p=0.164). Conclusions: In prostate biopsy prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin may be used liberally in patients without risk factors, but it should be given according to the rectal swab results in the patients with risk, and fosfomycin may be used independently of risk factors and rectal swab results. |
id |
SBU-1_b2d11806bf07be713064526c4f3393ba |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1677-55382017000601068 |
network_acronym_str |
SBU-1 |
network_name_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factorsFosfomycinProstateBiopsyABSTRACT Purpose: To determine the risk factors and the efficiency of rectal swab samples to prevent infectious complications in prostate biopsy, and compare fosfomycin with ciprofloxacin use in prophylaxis. Materials and Methods: Between May and October 2014, pre-biopsy risk factors and their effect in ciprofloxacin and fosfomycin prophylaxis were determined. Pre-biopsy urinalysis, urine culture and rectal swab samples were obtained from all of the patients. Rectal swabs were obtained upon admission, and biopsy was performed in the following 3-7 days. The place of rectal swab samples and efficiency of fosfomycin use was evaluated. Results: Pre-biopsy rectal swabs were obtained from 110 patients who revealed 60.9% fluoroquinolone resistance (FQR), and 32.7% fluoroquinolone sensitivity (FQS). Fosfomycin resistance was present in 3 patients. Ciprofloxacin use in last 6 months was the only risk factor for FQR. Antibiotic prophylaxis was given to both groups with and without risk factors, according to swab results, and no infective complications were observed. Among the group where fosfomycin was used empirically, one patient had an infection needing hospitalization, however this constitutes no statistical difference between the Group that fosfomycin used empirically or according to swab results (p=0.164). Conclusions: In prostate biopsy prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin may be used liberally in patients without risk factors, but it should be given according to the rectal swab results in the patients with risk, and fosfomycin may be used independently of risk factors and rectal swab results.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2017-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000601068International braz j urol v.43 n.6 2017reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0619info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKisa,ErdemAltug,Mustafa UgurGurbuz,Oguz AlpOzdemir,Haruneng2017-12-19T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382017000601068Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2017-12-19T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors |
title |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors |
spellingShingle |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors Kisa,Erdem Fosfomycin Prostate Biopsy |
title_short |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors |
title_full |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors |
title_fullStr |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors |
title_full_unstemmed |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors |
title_sort |
Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors |
author |
Kisa,Erdem |
author_facet |
Kisa,Erdem Altug,Mustafa Ugur Gurbuz,Oguz Alp Ozdemir,Harun |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Altug,Mustafa Ugur Gurbuz,Oguz Alp Ozdemir,Harun |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Kisa,Erdem Altug,Mustafa Ugur Gurbuz,Oguz Alp Ozdemir,Harun |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Fosfomycin Prostate Biopsy |
topic |
Fosfomycin Prostate Biopsy |
description |
ABSTRACT Purpose: To determine the risk factors and the efficiency of rectal swab samples to prevent infectious complications in prostate biopsy, and compare fosfomycin with ciprofloxacin use in prophylaxis. Materials and Methods: Between May and October 2014, pre-biopsy risk factors and their effect in ciprofloxacin and fosfomycin prophylaxis were determined. Pre-biopsy urinalysis, urine culture and rectal swab samples were obtained from all of the patients. Rectal swabs were obtained upon admission, and biopsy was performed in the following 3-7 days. The place of rectal swab samples and efficiency of fosfomycin use was evaluated. Results: Pre-biopsy rectal swabs were obtained from 110 patients who revealed 60.9% fluoroquinolone resistance (FQR), and 32.7% fluoroquinolone sensitivity (FQS). Fosfomycin resistance was present in 3 patients. Ciprofloxacin use in last 6 months was the only risk factor for FQR. Antibiotic prophylaxis was given to both groups with and without risk factors, according to swab results, and no infective complications were observed. Among the group where fosfomycin was used empirically, one patient had an infection needing hospitalization, however this constitutes no statistical difference between the Group that fosfomycin used empirically or according to swab results (p=0.164). Conclusions: In prostate biopsy prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin may be used liberally in patients without risk factors, but it should be given according to the rectal swab results in the patients with risk, and fosfomycin may be used independently of risk factors and rectal swab results. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-12-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000601068 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000601068 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0619 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
International braz j urol v.43 n.6 2017 reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) instacron:SBU |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
instacron_str |
SBU |
institution |
SBU |
reponame_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
collection |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br |
_version_ |
1750318075842920448 |