V14-09 INFECTIOUS OUTCOMES BETWEEN IN-OFFICE TRANSPERINEAL PROSTATE BIOPSIES WITHOUT ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS AND TRANSRECTAL PROSTATE BIOPSIES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Oncology II & Testis Oncology & Misc. Oncology (V14)1 Sep 2021V14-09 INFECTIOUS OUTCOMES BETWEEN IN-OFFICE TRANSPERINEAL PROSTATE BIOPSIES WITHOUT ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS AND TRANSRECTAL PROSTATE BIOPSIES Majdee Islam, Alan Quach, Fernando Kim, and Rodrigo Donalisio Da Silva Majdee IslamMajdee Islam More articles by this author , Alan QuachAlan Quach More articles by this author , Fernando KimFernando Kim More articles by this author , and Rodrigo Donalisio Da SilvaRodrigo Donalisio Da Silva More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002111.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience and demonstrate our technique with office-based transperineal biopsy (TPB) without antibiotics compared to transrectal biopsy (TRB) with antibiotics and bowel preparation. The literature elicits comparable cancer detection, time, and cost between the two. As antibiotic resistance increases, antimicrobial stewardship is imperative. METHODS: In our retrospective review, we compared the TPB to TRB in our institution for in-office prostate biopsies with local anesthesia from 2017-2019. Patients had negative urinalysis on day of procedure. A UTI was defined as a positive urine culture within one month of biopsy. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two patients met inclusion criteria. Age, race, BMI, pre-procedure PSA, history of UTI, BPH or other GU history were similar between both groups. Two TPB patients (1.8%) had post-procedure UTI; one received oral antibiotics and one received a dose of intravenous and subsequent oral antibiotics. There were no sepsis events or admissions. Six TRB patients (5.4%) had post-procedure UTI; five received oral antibiotics, and one received intravenous antibiotics and required admission for sepsis. One TPB patient (0.9%) had post-procedure retention and required catheterization, while four TRB patients (3.6%) had retention requiring catheterization. No significant difference noted in cancer detection between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In-office TPB without antibiotic prophylaxis/bowel prep is comparable to TRB in regard to safety and cancer detection. TPB without antibiotics had a lower infection and retention rate than TRB with antibiotics. Efforts to reduce antibiotic resistance should be implemented into daily practice. Future multi-institutional studies can provide further evidence for guideline changes. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e1168-e1168 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Majdee Islam More articles by this author Alan Quach More articles by this author Fernando Kim More articles by this author Rodrigo Donalisio Da Silva More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...