The molecular mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance found in rectal swab isolates of Enterobacterales from men undergoing a transrectal prostate biopsy: the rationale for targeted prophylaxis

Background Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) is considered an essential urological procedure for the histological diagnosis of prostate cancer. It is, however, considered a “contaminated” procedure which may lead to infectious complications. Recent studies suggest a significant share of fluoroquinolone-resistant rectal flora in post-biopsy infections. Methods The molecular mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance, including PMQR (plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance) as well as mutation in the QRDRs (quinolone-resistance determining regions) of gyrA, gyrB, parC and parE, among Enterobacterales isolated from 32 of 48 men undergoing a prostate biopsy between November 2015 and April 2016 were investigated. Before the TRUS-Bx procedure, all the patients received an oral antibiotic containing fluoroquinolones. Results In total, 41 Enterobacterales isolates were obtained from rectal swabs. The MIC of ciprofloxacin and the presence of common PMQR determinants were investigated in all the isolates. Nine (21.9%) isolates carried PMQR with qnrS as the only PMQR agent detected. DNA sequencing of the QRDRs in 18 Enterobacterales (E. coli n = 17 and E. cloacae n = 1) isolates with ciprofloxacin MIC ≥ 0.25 mg/l were performed. Substitutions in the following codons were found: GyrA—83 [Ser → Leu, Phe] and 87 [Asp → Asn]; GyrB codon—605 [Met → Leu], ParC codons—80 [Ser → Ile, Arg] and 84 [Glu → Gly, Met, Val, Lys], ParE codons—458 [Ser → Ala], 461 [Glu → Ala] and 512 [Ala → Thr]. Six isolates with ciprofloxacin MIC ≥ 2 mg/l had at least one mutation in GyrA together with qnrS. Conclusions This study provides information on the common presence of PMQRs among Enterobacterales isolates with ciprofloxacin MIC ≥ 0.25 mg/l, obtained from men undergoing TRUS-Bx. This fact may partially explain why some men develop post-TRUS-Bx infections despite ciprofloxacin prophylaxis.

Saddle Block for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Comparison of the Analgesic Efficacy of 0.25% Bupivacaine and 0.375% Ropivacaine

Background: Prostate biopsy is a painful procedure, and the degree of pain is related to the number of core biopsies taken. Objective: To compare the analgesic properties of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.25% with 0.375% ropivacaine for saddle block in transrectal prostate biopsy. Methods: This was a randomised double-blinded study. Eighty patients with indications for prostate biopsy presenting at the Day-Case Theatre in a Nigerian tertiary facility were randomised into two equal groups: B (Bupivacaine) and R (Ropivacaine). Group B received 1ml of 0.25% bupivacaine, while Group R received 1ml of 0.375% ropivacaine for saddle block, respectively. Pain assessment, home readiness, patients' satisfaction, and time to first analgesic request were assessed and compared between the two groups. Results: The Bupivacaine group had an earlier onset of sensory block (11.90±4.10 minutes vs 23.70±8.65 minutes, p = 0.000), slower sensory block regression (48.73±9.32 minutes vs 24.88±4.21 minutes, p = 0.000), but delayed home readiness (47.23±15.93 minutes vs 29.88±8.58 minutes, p = 0.000), than patients in the Ropivacaine group. The pain scores during, immediately after and 30 minutes post-biopsy were lower in the Bupivacaine group: p = 0.010, p = 0.028 and p = 0.023 respectively. The time to first analgesic request was also longer in the Bupivacaine group (48.73±9.33 minutes) than for those in the Ropivacaine group (24.88±4.21 minutes) with statistical significance (p = 0.000). Conclusion: Intraoperative analgesic properties were better in the Bupivacaine group than in the Ropivacaine group. However, home readiness was earlier in the Ropivacaine group.

Options for antibacterial prophylaxis of infectious complications of prostate biopsy

Introduction. Amount of prostate biopsy procedures rises every year and up to 95% of cases of prostate biopsy is performed via transrectal approach. The incidence of infectious complications of transrectal prostate biopsy reaches up to 17%, while incidence of such complications of transperineal biopsy is about 1%. The majority of international clinical guidelines recommends for obligatory antibiotic prophylaxis prior to prostate biopsy of any approach, but the choice of antibiotic is still debatable. The aim of this review is to sum up the approaches of international urological guidelines to the antibiotic prophylaxis prior to prostate biopsy. Materials and methods. We analyzed the search results in the scientific databases PubMed, Google Scolar, elibrary.ru for the queries «prostate biopsy», «antibacterial prophylaxis» and «guidelines». Results. According to the recommendations of most professional communities, antibacterial prophylaxis of infectious complications of prostate biopsy can be carried out in various ways - once or for a long time, one- or two-component, empirically or on the basis of urine culture on microflora. Conclusion. Despite the differences in the levels of sensitivity and resistance of coliform flora around the world, the clinical guidelines in most countries are uniform in terms of the choice of drugs to reduce the risk of developing infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Approaches to antibacterial prophylaxis after prostate biopsy differ only depending on the type of biopsy access.

Combined antibiotic prophylaxis of infectious complications of prostate biopsy

Introduction. Biopsy of prostate is a routine urologic procedure. Nevertheless the frequency of infectious-inflammatory complications remain high, despite the recommended antibiotic prophylaxis schemes.Purpose. The evaluation of effectiveness and safety of combined antimicrobial prophylaxis: fosfomycin trometamol and fluoroquinolones of 3rd generation.Materials and methods. Our clinical study included 80 patients who underwent prostate biopsy were divided into 2 groups. The first group of 40 patients received routine prophylaxis: levofloxacin 500 mg 6 h before the biopsy and 500 mg per day during 4 days after biopsy. The second group of 40 patients, along with standard prophylaxis as in the first group, additionally after biopsy received fosfomycin trometamol 3 gr single-shot.Results. In the first group, infectious and inflammatory complications occurred in 8 (20 %) patients, 12.5 % of patients from the first group were hospitalized for parenteral antibiotic therapy. The average length of stay in hospital was 3.4 ± 1.45 days. In all cases, in the first group of patients, Escherichia coli was detected, in 70 % of cases fluoroquinolone-resistant strain of the bacterium was received. In the second group of patients no hospitalization was required. One (2.5 %) patient out of forty from this group showed signs of urinary tract infection, which was not accompanied by an increase of body temperature, as well as changes in blood and urine tests.Conclusions. Our results show good effectiveness and safety of combined antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Since fluoroquinolone resistance grows, it is necessary to introduce alternative schemes, as well as monitoring of nosocomial infection and controlling of antimicrobial therapy.

Monoprophylaxis With Cephalosporins for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy After the Fluoroquinolone-Era: A Multi-Institutional Comparison of Severe Infectious Complications

BackgroundTo compare severe infectious complication rates after transrectal prostate biopsies between cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones for antibiotic monoprophylaxis.Material and MethodsIn the multi-institutional cohort, between November 2014 and July 2020 patients received either cefotaxime (single dose intravenously), cefpodoxime (multiple doses orally) or fluoroquinolones (multiple-doses orally or single dose intravenously) for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis. Data were prospectively acquired and retrospectively analyzed. Severe infectious complications were evaluated within 30 days after biopsy. Logistic regression models predicted biopsy-related infectious complications according to antibiotic prophylaxis, application type and patient- and procedure-related risk factors.ResultsOf 793 patients, 132 (16.6%) received a single dose of intravenous cefotaxime and were compared to 119 (15%) who received multiple doses of oral cefpodoxime and 542 (68.3%) who received fluoroquinolones as monoprophylaxis. The overall incidence of severe infectious complications was 1.0% (n=8). No significant differences were observed between the three compared groups (0.8% vs. 0.8% vs. 1.1%, p=0.9). The overall rate of urosepsis was 0.3% and did not significantly differ between the three compared groups as well.ConclusionMonoprophylaxis with third generation cephalosporins was efficient in preventing severe infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Single intravenous dose of cefotaxime and multiday regimen of oral cefpodoxime showed a low incidence of infectious complications <1%. No differences were observed in comparison to fluoroquinolones.