Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of ciprofloxacin versus fosfomycin versus fosfomycin plus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for preventing infections after transrectal prostate biopsy.
Bovo, Alberto; Kwiatkowski, Maciej; Manka, Lukas; Wetterauer, Christian; Fux, Christoph Andreas; Cattaneo, Marco; Wyler, Stephen F; Prause, Lukas.
Afiliación
  • Bovo A; Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland. alberto.bovo@ksa.ch.
  • Kwiatkowski M; Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland.
  • Manka L; Medical Faculty, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
  • Wetterauer C; Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany.
  • Fux CA; Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany.
  • Cattaneo M; Department of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Potsdam, Germany.
  • Wyler SF; Medical Faculty, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
  • Prause L; Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
World J Urol ; 42(1): 356, 2024 May 28.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38806739
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

To evaluate antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsies due to the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) We describe our single center experience switching from ciprofloxacin to fosfomycin trometamol (FMT) alone and to an augmented prophylaxis combining fosfomycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX).

METHODS:

Between 01/2019 and 12/2020 we compared three different regimes. The primary endpoint was the clinical diagnosis of an infection within 4 weeks after biopsy. We enrolled 822 men, 398 (48%) of whom received ciprofloxacin (group-C), 136 (16.5%) received FMT (group-F) and 288 (35%) received the combination of TMP/SMX and FMT (group-BF).

RESULTS:

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. In total 37/398 (5%) postinterventional infections were detected, of which 13/398 (3%) vs 18/136 (13.2%) vs 6/288 (2.1%) were detected in group-C, group-F and group-BF respectively. The relative risk of infectious complication was 1.3 (CI 0.7-2.6) for group-C vs. group-BF and 2.8 (CI 1.4-5.7) for group-F vs. group-BF respectively.

CONCLUSION:

The replacement of ciprofloxacin by fosfomycin alone resulted in a significant increase of postinterventional infections, while the combination of FMT and TMP/SMX had a comparable infection rate to FQ without apparent adverse events. Therefore, this combined regimen of FMT and TMP/SMX is recommended.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Próstata / Ciprofloxacina / Combinación Trimetoprim y Sulfametoxazol / Profilaxis Antibiótica / Quimioterapia Combinada / Fosfomicina / Antibacterianos Límite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: World J Urol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Suiza Pais de publicación: Alemania
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Próstata / Ciprofloxacina / Combinación Trimetoprim y Sulfametoxazol / Profilaxis Antibiótica / Quimioterapia Combinada / Fosfomicina / Antibacterianos Límite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: World J Urol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Suiza Pais de publicación: Alemania