Reducing the risk of infection for transrectal prostate biopsy with povidone–iodine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Chunxiao Pu ; Yunjin Bai ; Haichao Yuan ; Jinhong Li…
• 关键词：Biopsy ; Infectious complications ; Meta ; analysis ; Povidone–iodine ; Prostatic neoplasms
• 刊名：International Urology and Nephrology
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：September 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：46
• 期：9
• 页码：1691-1698
• 全文大小：839 KB
• 参考文献：1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2013) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 63(1):11-0 CrossRef
  2. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49(6):1374-403 CrossRef
  3. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61-1 CrossRef
  4. Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X et al (2012) Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol 61(6):1110-114 CrossRef
  5. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2013) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 189(1 Suppl):S12–S18 CrossRef
  6. Zani EL, Clark OA, Rodrigues NNJ (2011) Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:D6576
  7. Steensels D, Slabbaert K, De Wever L et al (2012) Fluoroquinolone-resistant / E. coli in intestinal flora of patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy—should we reassess our practices for antibiotic prophylaxis? Clin Microbiol Infect 18(6):575-81 CrossRef
  8. Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke P et al (2013) Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol 63(3):521-27 CrossRef
  9. Pattana-arun J, Wolff BG (2008) Benefits of povidone–iodine solution in colorectal operations: science or legend. Dis Colon Rectum 51(6):966-71 CrossRef
  10. Lachapelle JM, Castel O, Casado AF et al (2013) Antiseptics in the era of bacterial resistance: a focus on povidone iodine. Clin Pract 10(5):579-92 CrossRef
  11. Park DS, Oh JJ, Lee JH et al (2009) Simple use of the suppository type povidone–iodine can prevent infectious complications in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Adv Urol 2009:750598 CrossRef
  12. Kanjanawongdeengam P, Viseshsindh W, Santanirand P et al (2009) Reduction in bacteremia rates after rectum sterilization before transrectal, ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai 92(12):1621-626
  13. Abughosh Z, Margolick J, Goldenberg SL et al (2013) A prospective randomized trial of povidone–iodine prophylactic cleansing of the rectum before transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 189(4):1326-331 CrossRef
  14. Higgins J, Green S (eds) (2005) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]. In the Cochrane Library, Issue 3, Wiley, Chichester
  15. Brown RW, Warner JJ, Turner BI et al (1981) Bacteremia and bacteriuria after transrectal prostatic biopsy. Urology 18(2):145-48 CrossRef
  16. Melekos MD (1990) Efficacy of prophylactic antimicrobial regimens in preventing infectious complications after transrectal biopsy of the prostate. Int Urol Nephrol 22(3):257-62 CrossRef
  17. Huang YC, Ho DR, Wu CF et al (2006) Modified bowel preparation to reduce infection after prostate biopsy. Chang Gung Med J 29(4):395-00
  18. Ghafoori M, Shakiba M, Seifmanesh H et al (2012) Decrease in infection rate following use of povidone–iodine during transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a double blind randomized clinical trial. Iran J Radiol 9(2):67-0 CrossRef
  19. Akay AF, Akay H, Aflay U et al (2006) Prevention of pain and infective complications after transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective study. Int Urol Nephrol 38(1):45-8 CrossRef
  20. Taylor S, Margolick J, Abughosh Z et al (2013) Ciprofloxacin resistance in the faecal carriage of patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 111(6):946-53 CrossRef
  21. Shigemura K, Arakawa S, Nakano Y et al (2006) Larger prostate causes higher frequency of infectious complications in prostate biopsy. Urol Int 76(4):321-26 CrossRef
  22. Obek C, Onal B, Ozkan B et al (2002) Is periprostatic local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy associated with increased infectious or hemorrhagic complications? A prospective randomized trial. J Urol 168(2):558-61 CrossRef
  23. Rees A, Sherrod Q, Young L (2011) Chemical burn from povidone–iodine: case and review. J Drugs Dermatol 10(4):414-17
  24. Ono T, Kushikata T, Tsubo T et al (2011) A case of asystole following povidone iodine administration. Masui 60(4):499-01
  
• 作者单位：Chunxiao Pu (1)
  Yunjin Bai (1)
  Haichao Yuan (1)
  Jinhong Li (1)
  Yin Tang (1)
  Jia Wang (1)
  Qiang Wei (1)
  Ping Han (1)
  
  1. Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
  
• ISSN：1573-2584

文摘

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of povidone–iodine (PI) in reducing the risk of infectious complications following transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB). Methods Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from electronic databases (Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE). The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcome for the efficacy of PI was the incidence of infectious complications after TRPB. Results Seven trials, including 2,049 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Data from the seven included RCTs favored the use of PI before TRPB to prevent infectious complications. PI for “PI versus blank control-significantly reduced fever, bacteriuria, and bacteremia compared with that for control [relative risk (RR) 0.31; 95?% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-.45, P?P?=?0.03). In “PI plus ATB versus ATB-trials, the risk of fever (RR 0.11; 95?% CI 0.02-.85, P?=?0.03) and bacteremia (RR 0.25; 95?% CI 0.08-.75, P?=?0.01) was diminished in the “PI plus ATB-group. Conclusions Rectal disinfection with PI provides a safe and effective method to reduce the risk of infectious complications following TRPB, regardless of mono-prophylaxis and combined prophylaxis with PI and ATB. Large, multicenter, and prospective RCTs of good quality trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of PI.