Peri-procedural povidone-iodine rectal preparation reduces microorganism counts and infectious complications following ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the prostate

Nonantibiotic strategies to decrease the postbiopsy hospitalization rates because of infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of biopsy needle disinfection with 10% formalin solution alone and with povidone-iodine rectal cleaning on preventing infectious complications requiring hospitalization.

METHODS

The data of 902 patients who underwent prostate biopsy by transrectal route were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were prophylactic antibiotic use and negative urine culture before the biopsy. Three groups occurred according to the methods used during the biopsy procedure. In Group 1, 501 patients, biopsy needle disinfection was made using 10% formalin solution during the biopsy procedure. Group 2, 164 patients, applied only prophylactic antibiotics. Group 3, 237 patients, applied both 10% formalin disinfection of the biopsy needle and prebiopsy povidone-iodine rectal cleansing. Hospitalized patients because of infectious complications a month after the biopsy were our outcome measures.

RESULTS

Hospitalization rates because of biopsy-related infectious complications, according to Groups 1, 2, and 3, were 2.7%, 8.5%, and 0%, respectively. The best results were observed in Group 3 and the worst in Group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The two nonantibiotic strategies, biopsy needle disinfection with formalin solution and rectal cleaning with povidone-iodine, look more effective when applied together. However, further prospective studies are required to confirm our analysis.

The effect of povidone-iodine rectal cleansing on post-biopsy infectious complications

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of pre-biopsy povidone-iodine rectal cleansing on post-biopsy hospitalization rates due to prostate biopsy-related infectious complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we reviewed 552 patients who underwent ultrasonography-guided transrectal prostate biopsy between 2014 and 2022. Group 1, 361 patients (January 2014-October 2020) were not applied povidone-iodine rectal cleansing, and group 2, 191 patients (November 2020-January 2022) were applied povidone-iodine rectal cleansing since we changed our biopsy protocol. All patients were given the same antibiotic prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin 500 mg, and ornidazole 500 mg twice daily starting 24 h before the biopsy and lasting a total of 5 days. Sodium phosphate enema was applied to all patients in the biopsy morning. The outcome was the hospitalization rates of patients because of infectious complications a month after the biopsy.

RESULTS

No patients were hospitalized in the povidone-iodine rectal cleansing group because of biopsy related complications. The hospitalization rate of group 1 was 3% and there was a statistical difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

The povidone-iodine solution is cheap, safe and easy to apply. The povidone-iodine rectal cleansing method seems to decrease infectious complications related to prostate biopsy procedure, but we need a randomized controlled trial to confirm our study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We got permission for this retrospective study from the Karabuk university ethics council with the number 2021/649 on 1 October 2021.

Topical antiseptic at time of transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy is associated with fewer severe clinical infections and improves antibiotic stewardship

Background

The 2017 AUA White Paper on prevention of prostate needle biopsy (PNB) complications highlights an algorithm for reducing procedural related infections. The incorporation of topical rectal antiseptic (TRS) at time of transrectal PNB is listed as one such modality. We present data on over 1000 transrectal PNB procedures to determine the impact of TRS on 1) infectious complications and 2) use of augmented procedural antibiotics.

Methods

The records of 1181 transrectal PNB procedures performed over a 10-year period were reviewed. In 2013, TRS with either 10% povidone iodine or 4% chlorhexidine was more regularly incorporated into PNB procedures. Clinical and procedural factors were analyzed for association with post-procedure infections. Infectious complications outcomes were compared in patients receiving TRS (n = 566) versus those who had not (n = 615).

Results

A total of 990 men underwent 1181 transrectal PNB procedures. Median age of the cohort was 63 years with a median PSA of 7 ng/dL. Of them, 86% of the men were Caucasian, 28% had undergone at least one prior biopsy, 14% were diabetic, and 6% had prior hospitalization within 6 months of the procedure. Five hundred sixty-six patients (48%) received TRS at time of biopsy. Perioperative IV adjunctive antibiotics were used less frequently in patients receiving TRS (13.4% vs. 28.6%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients receiving TRS experienced lower rates of clinical infections (1.2% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.14), as well as lower likelihood of severe infections evidenced by decreased rates of hospital admission (0.5% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.013). Rectal vault bacteriology obtained before and after TRS was available in 180 men noting a 98.1% decrease in colony counts after local treatment.

Conclusions

TRS at time of transrectal PNB was associated with decreased use of IV procedural antibiotics as well as decreased severity of infections post-biopsy. This simple technique enhances antibiotic stewardship while simultaneously improving quality outcomes of the procedure.

Transrectal povidone-iodine efficiency in reducing infections occurring after transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to compare infectious complications in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) with and without povidone-iodine transrectal injection using a gavage syringe.The records of 112 patients, who underwent TRUS-Bx between January 2016 and December 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. The biopsy indication was considered high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and/or suspicious digital rectal prostate examination findings. Patients' ages, underlying diseases, PSA levels, prostate volumes, pathologic results, and infectious complications after the biopsy were investigated. All the patients received 1500 mg of ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice a day) for 5 days, starting from the day before the procedure. Forty-seven (41.96%) patients received ciprofloxacin prophylaxis with povidone-iodine transrectal injection, while 65 (58.03%) only received ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. All the patients, who were readmitted to the hospital after the procedure, especially with a temperature of higher than 37.8°C, were detected. For the purposes of the study, the priority was placed on the emergence of the rate of febrile infectious complications. Differences in febrile infectious complications in patients, who received ciprofloxacin prophylaxis with transrectal povidone-iodine, and those, who received ciprofloxacin prophylaxis alone before TRUS-Bx, were studied.Febrile infectious complications developed in 10 cases (15.38%) in patients, who received ciprofloxacin antibiotics prophylaxis alone. In the povidone-iodine rectal disinfection group, there was only 1 case of febrile infectious complication (2%). There was no significant difference by clinicopathologic features, age, PSA level, and cancer detection rate between both groups (P > .05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis did not identify any patient subgroups at a significantly higher risk of infection after prostate biopsy. There was no significant side effect associated with povidone iodine.In addition to the use of prophylactic antibiotics, transrectal povidone-iodine was useful in reducing the febrile infection complications following TRUS-Bx.

Update on techniques to prevent infections associated with prostate needle biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postbiopsy infections (PBIs) are among the most common complications associated with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB). This article discusses the pathogenesis of TRUSPB-associated infectious complications and reviews the most recent findings on techniques to prevent PBIs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk stratification is a powerful tool for identifying TRUSPB candidates whom warrant additional preventive measures. Bowel preparation with povidone-iodine-based enemas and needle disinfection with formalin solution are simple and attractive strategies, but their effectiveness needs to be thoroughly assessed. Antibiotic prophylaxis represents the mainstay for the prevention of PBIs: the prophylactic regimen must respect the principles of antimicrobial stewardship, and local antibiotic resistance patterns among uropathogens should always be considered. Augmented and targeted antibiotic prophylaxes are powerful options, but their role in current clinical practice has yet to be clarified. The transperineal approach has shown a near-zero rate of PBIs, and should therefore be considered for the highest-risk patients.

SUMMARY

Several procedures have been introduced to prevent TRUSPB-related infectious complication, but their utility and applicability in the clinical practice has yet to be elucidated. More robust evidence based on randomized control trials is needed to establish the efficacy of these tools in improving patient outcomes.

A significant percentage of patients with transrectal biopsy-related infections have positive blood cultures but negative urine cultures. A literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy are rare. Nevertheless, since these are frequent procedures, the burden of infectious complications is high. Considering the increasing antimicrobial resistance, microbiological confirmation is important to guide antimicrobial therapy.

METHODS

We reviewed PubMed for original studies providing concurrent urine and blood culture data in symptomatic patients with transrectal biopsy-related infectious complications. We performed a proportions meta-analysis (with MedCalc) and calculated the pooled yield of urine and blood cultures and the pooled discordance rate between urine and blood cultures.

RESULTS

Our review identified 41 studies, involving 852 patients with infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy and sufficient data to calculate discordance. The pooled yield of urine cultures was 64.6% (95% CI: 56.2-72.3%, I² 83%), the pooled yield of blood cultures was 43% (95% CI: 36.5-49.7%, I² 74%) and the pooled discordance rate was 14% (95% CI: 10.6-17.8%, I² 53%). In subgroup analyses the pooled discordance was; 19.6% (95% CI: 11.8-28.9%, I² 31%) in 113 patients presenting within 2 calendar days after the biopsy and 11.2% (95% CI: 4.5-20%, I² 47%) in 143 patients presenting with fever and symptoms of lower urinary tract symptoms. The statistical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies was high.

CONCLUSION

Obtaining blood cultures is reasonable in all patients presenting with systemic symptoms suggestive of infection after a transrectal prostate biopsy. Blood cultures can provide additional microbiological data in about 1 of 7 patients with post-biopsy infectious complications. Prospective studies are needed to validate these results.

Topical rectal antiseptic at time of prostate biopsy: how a resident patient safety project has evolved into institutional practice

PURPOSE

To report outcomes 5 years after a resident quality initiative incorporated topical rectal antiseptic into our ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (TRUS PNB) protocol.

METHODS

A chart review was conducted on 1007 men who underwent TRUS PNB between 2010 and 2017. Comparison groups include those who received a topical rectal antiseptic (N = 437) compared to those who did not (N = 570). Povidone-iodine (N = 303) or 4% chlorhexidine solution without alcohol (N = 134) were topical agents. Outcomes of interest included post-biopsy infection (urinary tract infection and/or sepsis), hospital admission, and need for ICU monitoring.

RESULTS

Median age and PSA of men included in this study were 64 years and 12 ng/mL. Almost 90% of patients were Caucasian, 13% had diabetes, 3% were on immunosuppression, 32% had at least one prior biopsy, 14% received antibiotics, and 7% were hospitalized in the past 6 months. 22 patients (2.2%) developed a post-biopsy infection with a significant reduction in the group receiving topical rectal antiseptic (0.8 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.01). Post-biopsy UTI rates (p = 0.04) and hospital admission (p = 0.03) were also lower in the topical antiseptic group with trends to reduction in sepsis and need for ICU monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

What started as a resident quality safety project 5 years ago has demonstrated a reduction in infections and hospital admissions following TRUS PNB. Our institutional practice now routinely uses povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine as an adjunct to oral quinolones for TRUS PNB perioperative prophylaxis.

Antimicrobial lubricant reduces rectal bacteria at transrectal prostate biopsy: results from a prospective randomized trial

PURPOSE

Antibiotic resistance may lead to increasing infection rates at transrectal prostate biopsy. Local antimicrobial agents might help to reduce bacterial load. The aim of this study was to test the potency of antimicrobial lubricants to reduce local bacterial loads and specifically fluoroquinolone-resistant strains.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 384 prostate biopsy (PBx) patients of a larger prospective randomized trial (n = 1000) were included. Patients were randomized for biopsy with pre-interventional instillation of an antimicrobial lubricant (intervention group n = 256) or with the standard lubricant (control group n = 128). Bacteria were recovered on pre- and post-biopsy rectal swab cultures from both patient groups. Bacterial colonization was semi-quantitatively recorded and analyzed for the presence of ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates.

RESULTS

Within the intervention group, where antimicrobial lubricant was instilled for PBx, the post-biopsy bacterial count was statistically significantly lower compared to prior biopsy bacterial count (p < 0.001), while in the control group, no statistically significant difference was shown. Moreover, our results demonstrated the tendency for reduction in ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria growth when instillation of antimicrobial lubricant was used (9.4% versus 5.9%, p = 0.5 prior- and post-biopsy). No reduction in ciprofloxacin-resistant bacterial growth was demonstrated for the control group. Ciprofloxacin-resistance was shown in overall 30 (7.8%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrated that the antimicrobial lubricant prior biopsy leads to reduced bacterial load. Moreover, our data show the tendency for reduced ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria growth when antimicrobial lubricant was instilled prior biopsy. However, the incidence of ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria is low in our patient population. Rectal swabs should assess fluoroquinolone-resistance rates at prostate biopsy.

Dutasteride is associated with reduced risk of transrectal prostate biopsy-associated urinary tract infection and related hospitalizations

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the use of dutasteride is associated with a lower risk of transrectal prostate biopsy-associated urinary tract infection (TPBA-UTI) among men in the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) study.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 6045 men undergoing 2-year repeat prostate biopsy in REDUCE. Participants were randomized to receive dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo daily. TPBA-UTI was defined as the presence of urinary symptoms and the prescription of antibiotics by the treating physician within 30 days after biopsy. Severe TPBA-UTI was defined as TPBA-UTI requiring hospitalization. Comparison of TPBA-UTI between treatment arms was done using Chi-square test and logistic regression adjusting for participant characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the subjects included in the study, 3067 (50.7%) were randomized to the placebo arm and 2978 (49.3%) to the dutasteride arm. A total 51 (0.8%) men had TPBA-UTI, including 38 (1.2%) in the placebo arm and 13 (0.4%) in the dutasteride arm (univariable relative risk [RR] = 0.35, P = 0.001; multivariable odds ratio [OR] = 0.34, P = 0.003). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one TPBA-UTI was 125 subjects. Of these, 14 (28%) had severe TPBA-UTI, including 12 (0.4%) in the placebo arm and only 2 (0.07%) in the dutasteride arm (univariable RR = 0.17, P = 0.021; multivariable OR = 0.17, P = 0.031). The NNT to prevent one severe TPBA-UTI was 309 subjects.

CONCLUSION

Among men undergoing a 2-year repeat prostate biopsy, the use of dutasteride for 2 years was associated with a reduced the risk of overall and severe TBPA-UTI. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT00056407.

Prostate Biopsy-related Infection: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors, Prevention Strategies, and Management Approaches

A systematic review to identify risk factors for prostate biopsy-related infection, preventative strategies, and optimal management of infectious complications was conducted. Significant risk factors for postbiopsy infection include urogenital infection, antibiotic use, international travel, hospital exposure, bacteriuria, previous transrectal biopsy, and resistance of fecal flora to antibiotic prophylaxis (especially fluoroquinolones). Patients at risk may benefit from an adjusted biopsy protocol comprising transrectal biopsy under targeted prophylaxis, and/or the use of rectal disinfection techniques or using a transperineal approach. Management of biopsy-related infection should be based on individual risk and local resistance profiles with input from multiple specialties.

Strategies for prevention of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy infections

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in male patients and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in males. To confirm the diagnosis of prostate cancer, an ultrasound-guided needle biopsy is necessary to obtain prostate tissue sufficient for histologic analysis by pathologists. Ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy can be accomplished via a transperineal or transrectal approach. The latter biopsy technique involves placing an ultrasound probe into the rectum, visualizing the prostate located just anterior to it, and then obtaining 12-14 biopsies. Each biopsy core requires piercing of the rectal mucosa which can inherently contribute to infection. The increasing infectious risk of prostate needle biopsy requires refinement and re-evaluation of the process in which the technique is performed. Such processes include (but are not limited to) prebiopsy risk stratification, antibiotic prophylaxis, use of rectal preparations, and equipment processing. In the subsequent review, we highlight the current available information on different strategies to reduce the risk of infection following prostate needle biopsy.

Does Leaving the Biopsy Needle in Povidone-Iodine Solution Reduce Infective Complications after Biopsy?

Aim. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether leaving the biopsy needle used during prostate needle biopsy in 10% povidone-iodine (betadine) solution affects the infectious complications forming after biopsy. Material and Method. This study retrospectively evaluated the data of 176 patients with prostate biopsy performed between December 2012 and April 2014. Patients in Group 1 (n = 89) were given ofloxacin as a prophylactic antibiotic before biopsy. Patients in Group 2 (n = 87) had the biopsy needle left in povidone-iodine solution for 1 minute before each use, in addition to antibiotic prophylaxis. The two groups were compared in terms of infective complications developing after biopsy. Results were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. Results. The distribution of infective complications after biopsy according to group was as follows. Group 1, not using betadine, had 15.7% fever, 13.5% hospital stay, 12.4% urinary retention, 10.1% prostatitis, and 5.6% sepsis. The distribution of the same complications in Group 2 using betadine was identified as 5.7% fever, 4.6% hospital stay, 3.4% urinary retention, 2.3% prostatitis, and 0% sepsis. The use of betadine was found to significantly reduce the infectious complications after biopsy compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Conclusion. At the end of this study leaving the prostate needle in povidone-iodine solution before each use during prostate biopsy was found to reduce the infective complications and hospital stay after biopsy.

Povidone Iodine Rectal Preparation at Time of Prostate Needle Biopsy is a Simple and Reproducible Means to Reduce Risk of Procedural Infection

Single institution and population-based studies highlight that infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy (TRUS PNB) are increasing. Such infections are largely attributable to quinolone resistant microorganisms which colonize the rectal vault and are translocated into the bloodstream during the biopsy procedure. A povidone iodine rectal preparation (PIRP) at time of biopsy is a simple, reproducible method to reduce rectal microorganism colony counts and therefore resultant infections following TRUS PNB. All patients are administered three days of oral antibiotic therapy prior to biopsy. The PIRP technique involves initially positioning the patient in the standard manner for a TRUS PNB. Following digital rectal examination, 15 ml of a 10% solution of commercially available povidone iodine is mixed with 5 ml of 1% lidocaine jelly to create slurry. A 4 cmx4 cm sterile gauze is soaked in this slurry and then inserted into the rectal vault for 2 min after which it is removed. Thereafter, a disposable cotton gynecologic swab is used to paint both the perianal area and the rectal vault to a distance of 3 cm from the anus. The povidone iodine solution is then allowed to dry for 2-3 min prior to proceeding with standard transrectal ultrasonography and subsequent biopsy. This PIRP technique has been in practice at our institution since March of 2012 with an associated reduction of post-biopsy infections from 4.3% to 0.6% (p=0.02). The principal advantage of this prophylaxis regimen is its simplicity and reproducibility with use of an easily available, inexpensive agent to reduce infections. Furthermore, the technique avoids exposing patients to additional systemic antibiotics with potential further propagation of multi-drug resistant organisms. Usage of PIRP at TRUS PNB, however, is not applicable for patients with iodine or shellfish allergies.