经会阴前列腺活检伴或不伴围手术期抗生素预防后的感染并发症——包括所有比较研究的荟萃分析的系统综述

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Ingmar Wolff, Markus Büchner, Katharina Hauner, Florian Wagenlehner, Martin Burchardt, Marianne Abele-Horn, Bernd Wullich, Christian Gilfrich, Adrian Pilatz, Matthias May
{"title":"经会阴前列腺活检伴或不伴围手术期抗生素预防后的感染并发症——包括所有比较研究的荟萃分析的系统综述","authors":"Ingmar Wolff, Markus Büchner, Katharina Hauner, Florian Wagenlehner, Martin Burchardt, Marianne Abele-Horn, Bernd Wullich, Christian Gilfrich, Adrian Pilatz, Matthias May","doi":"10.1038/s41391-024-00934-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the relatively low infection rate following transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB), it remains unresolved whether periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) can be omitted. Our aim was to compare infectious complications (genitourinary infections/GUI, fever, sepsis, readmission rate, 30-day-mortality) following TPB, considering all studies of varying levels of evidence that enable a direct comparison between patients with and without PAP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, as well as grey literature sources, to identify reports published until January 2024. All studies comparing the incidence of infectious endpoints following TPB with vs. without PAP were included in the analyses. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence for each comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria involving 6520 and 5804 patients who underwent TPB with vs. without PAP, respectively. Two of the 23 studies were randomized-controlled trials, not all studies investigated all endpoints. Pooled incidences between patients with vs. without PAP for the endpoints GUI (0.50% vs. 0.37%), fever (0.44% vs. 0.26%), sepsis (0.16% vs. 0.13%), and readmission rate (0.35% vs. 0.29%) showed no significant differences (all p > 0.250). The corresponding odds ratios (including 95% confidence interval) also revealed no statistically significant differences: 1.37 (0.74-2.54) [GUI], 0.87 (0.28-2.66) [fever], 1.30 (0.46-3.67) [sepsis], and 1.45 (0.70-3.03) [readmission rate]. No study reported events regarding 30-day-mortality. In subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses, TPB without PAP showed no significantly higher complication rates regarding all analyzed endpoints.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Infectious complications after TPB occur very rarely and cannot be further reduced by PAP. Considering the results of this systematic review and adhering to the principles of effective antibiotic stewardship, omitting PAP in the context of TPB is advisable.</p>","PeriodicalId":20727,"journal":{"name":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Infectious complications following transperineal prostate biopsy with or without periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis-a systematic review including meta-analysis of all comparative studies.\",\"authors\":\"Ingmar Wolff, Markus Büchner, Katharina Hauner, Florian Wagenlehner, Martin Burchardt, Marianne Abele-Horn, Bernd Wullich, Christian Gilfrich, Adrian Pilatz, Matthias May\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41391-024-00934-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the relatively low infection rate following transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB), it remains unresolved whether periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) can be omitted. Our aim was to compare infectious complications (genitourinary infections/GUI, fever, sepsis, readmission rate, 30-day-mortality) following TPB, considering all studies of varying levels of evidence that enable a direct comparison between patients with and without PAP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, as well as grey literature sources, to identify reports published until January 2024. All studies comparing the incidence of infectious endpoints following TPB with vs. without PAP were included in the analyses. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence for each comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria involving 6520 and 5804 patients who underwent TPB with vs. without PAP, respectively. Two of the 23 studies were randomized-controlled trials, not all studies investigated all endpoints. Pooled incidences between patients with vs. without PAP for the endpoints GUI (0.50% vs. 0.37%), fever (0.44% vs. 0.26%), sepsis (0.16% vs. 0.13%), and readmission rate (0.35% vs. 0.29%) showed no significant differences (all p > 0.250). The corresponding odds ratios (including 95% confidence interval) also revealed no statistically significant differences: 1.37 (0.74-2.54) [GUI], 0.87 (0.28-2.66) [fever], 1.30 (0.46-3.67) [sepsis], and 1.45 (0.70-3.03) [readmission rate]. No study reported events regarding 30-day-mortality. In subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses, TPB without PAP showed no significantly higher complication rates regarding all analyzed endpoints.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Infectious complications after TPB occur very rarely and cannot be further reduced by PAP. Considering the results of this systematic review and adhering to the principles of effective antibiotic stewardship, omitting PAP in the context of TPB is advisable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00934-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00934-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管经会阴前列腺活检(TPB)后的感染率相对较低,但是否可以省略围手术期抗生素预防(PAP)仍未解决。我们的目的是比较TPB后的感染并发症(泌尿生殖系统感染/GUI、发热、败血症、再入院率、30天死亡率),考虑到所有研究都有不同程度的证据,可以直接比较PAP患者和不PAP患者之间的差异。方法:我们在PubMed/Medline、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库以及灰色文献来源中进行了全面搜索,以确定在2024年1月之前发表的报告。所有比较有PAP和没有PAP的TPB后感染终点发生率的研究都被纳入分析。采用GRADE方法评估每个比较证据的确定性。结果:23项研究符合纳入标准,分别有6520例和5804例患者接受了有PAP和没有PAP的TPB。23项研究中有2项是随机对照试验,并非所有研究都调查了所有终点。在GUI (0.50% vs. 0.37%)、发热(0.44% vs. 0.26%)、败血症(0.16% vs. 0.13%)和再入院率(0.35% vs. 0.29%)的终点上,PAP患者与未PAP患者的合并发生率无显著差异(均p < 0.05)。相应的比值比(含95%可信区间)也无统计学差异:1.37 (0.74-2.54)[GUI]、0.87(0.28-2.66)[发烧]、1.30(0.46-3.67)[脓毒症]、1.45(0.70-3.03)[再入院率]。没有研究报告有关30天死亡率的事件。在亚组分析和敏感性分析中,没有PAP的TPB在所有分析终点上都没有显示出明显更高的并发症发生率。结论:TPB术后感染并发症极少发生,PAP不能进一步减少感染并发症。考虑到这一系统评价的结果,并坚持有效的抗生素管理原则,在TPB的背景下省略PAP是可取的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Infectious complications following transperineal prostate biopsy with or without periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis-a systematic review including meta-analysis of all comparative studies.

Background: Despite the relatively low infection rate following transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB), it remains unresolved whether periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) can be omitted. Our aim was to compare infectious complications (genitourinary infections/GUI, fever, sepsis, readmission rate, 30-day-mortality) following TPB, considering all studies of varying levels of evidence that enable a direct comparison between patients with and without PAP.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, as well as grey literature sources, to identify reports published until January 2024. All studies comparing the incidence of infectious endpoints following TPB with vs. without PAP were included in the analyses. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence for each comparison.

Results: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria involving 6520 and 5804 patients who underwent TPB with vs. without PAP, respectively. Two of the 23 studies were randomized-controlled trials, not all studies investigated all endpoints. Pooled incidences between patients with vs. without PAP for the endpoints GUI (0.50% vs. 0.37%), fever (0.44% vs. 0.26%), sepsis (0.16% vs. 0.13%), and readmission rate (0.35% vs. 0.29%) showed no significant differences (all p > 0.250). The corresponding odds ratios (including 95% confidence interval) also revealed no statistically significant differences: 1.37 (0.74-2.54) [GUI], 0.87 (0.28-2.66) [fever], 1.30 (0.46-3.67) [sepsis], and 1.45 (0.70-3.03) [readmission rate]. No study reported events regarding 30-day-mortality. In subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses, TPB without PAP showed no significantly higher complication rates regarding all analyzed endpoints.

Conclusions: Infectious complications after TPB occur very rarely and cannot be further reduced by PAP. Considering the results of this systematic review and adhering to the principles of effective antibiotic stewardship, omitting PAP in the context of TPB is advisable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases covers all aspects of prostatic diseases, in particular prostate cancer, the subject of intensive basic and clinical research world-wide. The journal also reports on exciting new developments being made in diagnosis, surgery, radiotherapy, drug discovery and medical management. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases is of interest to surgeons, oncologists and clinicians treating patients and to those involved in research into diseases of the prostate. The journal covers the three main areas - prostate cancer, male LUTS and prostatitis. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases publishes original research articles, reviews, topical comment and critical appraisals of scientific meetings and the latest books. The journal also contains a calendar of forthcoming scientific meetings. The Editors and a distinguished Editorial Board ensure that submitted articles receive fast and efficient attention and are refereed to the highest possible scientific standard. A fast track system is available for topical articles of particular significance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信