4.5 Article

Fluoroquinolone-based antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-015-2417-7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of resistance to fluoroquinolones in Escherichia coli strains isolated from patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) and to evaluate the incidence of possible infectious complications associated with this procedure. One hundred and four patients undergoing a TRUS-Bx in a single medical centre were prospectively enrolled in this study. In all patients, pre-biopsy rectal swabs were obtained. The analysis determined the antimicrobial susceptibility of E. coli strains to levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin and a panel of other antibiotics. Before biopsy, each of the men received a levofloxacin-based prophylaxis. Telephone follow-up was used to identify patients who had complications after TRUS-Bx. Fluoroquinolone-resistant strains were isolated from 9.62 % of the patients. In all cases, there were related to E. coli and all those strains were resistant to both levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. Fluoroquinolones showed greater antimicrobial activity against E. coli (p < 0.05) than ampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate and cephalothin. Minor infectious complications occurred in three patients (2.91 %). The relation between the resistance of E. coli to fluoroquinolones and the risk of readmission, as well as infectious complications, was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Despite recent reports of increasing prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli and the associated increase of severe infectious complications, the presented results have not confirmed this phenomenon. Resistance to fluoroquinolones of E. coli strains isolated from rectal swab cultures prior to TRUS-Bx is the risk factor for readmission and infectious complications after this procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available