Role of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review
Overview
abstract
Context: Transperineal prostate biopsy is associated with a significantly lower risk of infectious complications than the transrectal approach. In fact, the risk of infectious complications with transperineal prostate biopsy is so low that the utility of administering periprocedural antibiotics with this procedure has come under question. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess for differences in the rates of infectious complications (septic, nonseptic, and overall) after performing transperineal prostate biopsy with and without the administration of periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis. Evidence acquisition: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE) were searched, and studies were included if they included patients who underwent transperineal prostate biopsy, were published after January 2000, included information on periprocedural antibiotic administration, and reported postbiopsy complications. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines were utilized. Evidence synthesis: A total of 106 unique studies describing 112 cohorts of patients were identified, of which 98 (37 805 men) received antibiotic prophylaxis and 14 (4772 men) did not receive it. All patients were included in the analysis of septic complications. In total, there were 19/37 805 (0.05%) episodes of sepsis in the group of men who received antibiotics, which was similar to the no antibiotic group with 4/4772 (0.08%) episodes (p = 0.2). For overall infections (septic plus nonseptic), there were 403/29 880 (1.35%) versus 58/4772 (1.22%) events among men with evaluable data who received and did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis, respectively (p = 0.8). Restricting our analysis to studies with a comparable low number of biopsy cores (<25 cores), there remained no difference in the rates of sepsis between groups, but there was a small, statistically significant lower risk of infectious complications with antibiotic administration-67/12 140 (0.55%) versus 58/4772 (1.22%; p < 0.01). Conclusions: The likelihood of septic infections after transperineal prostate biopsy is low with and without antibiotic prophylaxis. The omission of periprocedural antibiotics with this procedure stands to benefit patients by avoiding potential drug reactions. Furthermore, this practice is in line with calls throughout the medical community for improved antibiotic stewardship. Patient summary: In a large systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated infectious complications after transperineal prostate biopsy with or without the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. We conclude that prophylactic antibiotics do not decrease the rate of postbiopsy sepsis but may have a small benefit in terms of preventing less serious infections.
