Infection is a serious adverse effect of prostate biopsy (P-Bx), and recent reports suggest an increasing incidence.
The aim of this multinational multicentre study was to evaluate prospectively the incidence of infective complications after P-Bx and identify risk factors.
Design, setting, and participants
The study was performed as an adjunct to the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) during 2010 and 2011. Men undergoing P-Bx in participating centres during the 2-wk period commencing on the GPIU study census day were eligible.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
Baseline data were collected and men were questioned regarding infective complications at 2 wk following their biopsy. The Fisher exact test, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariate regression analysis were used for data analysis.
Results and limitations
A total of 702 men from 84 GPIU participating centres worldwide were included. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered prior to biopsy in 98.2% of men predominantly using a fluoroquinolone (92.5%). Outcome data were available for 521 men (74%). Symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) was seen in 27 men (5.2%), which was febrile in 18 (3.5%) and required hospitalisation in 16 (3.1%). Multivariate analysis did not identify any patient subgroups at a significantly higher risk of infection after P-Bx. Causative organisms were isolated in 10 cases (37%) with 6 resistant to fluoroquinolones. The small sample size per participating site and in compared with other studies may have limited the conclusions from our study.
Infective complications after transrectal P-Bx are important because of the associated patient morbidity. Despite antibiotic prophylaxis, 5% of men will experience an infective complication, but none of the possible factors we examined appeared to increase this risk. Our study confirms a high incidence of fluoroquinolone resistance in causative bacteria.
Keywords: Prostate biopsy, Infective complications, Urinary tract infection, Antibiotic resistance.
Prostate biopsy (P-Bx) is currently an essential procedure for prostate cancer diagnosis  and a frequently performed procedure in urology with an estimated 1 million cases each year in Europe. Following the introduction of transrectal ultrasound-guided P-Bx  , this procedure has been widely accepted and optimised in recent years, continuously following the transrectal route  . A systematic review on randomised controlled studies (RCTs) on antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal P-Bx showed a significant reduction in the risk of bacteriuria compared with placebo  . Reductions in symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTIs) and bacteremia were also seen but did not reach statistical significance  . Clinical guidelines therefore recommend antibiotic prophylaxis, typically with a oral fluoroquinolone, prior to transrectal P-Bx  and . Several reports have recently suggested an increased rate of infective complications following transrectal P-Bx in both North America  and  and Europe  . The reasons for this increase and the factors associated with a higher susceptibility to infection remain largely unknown.
The aim of this international study was to evaluate the worldwide prevalence of infective complications after P-Bx and determine whether putative risk factors are associated with a higher rate of infection.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study design
This prospective observational multinational multicentre epidemiologic study was performed as a part of the annual worldwide Global Prevalence Study on Infections in Urology (GPIU) in 2010 and 2011. The GPIU study has been performed annually since 2003 and consists of a 1-d prevalence census of infections experienced by patients hospitalised in urology units. It is organised by the board of the European Section for Infections in Urology (ESIU)  and . The study was endorsed and sponsored by the European Association of Urology (EAU) and carried out in collaboration with several other medical societies (see acknowledgements). The GPIU study was approved by the ethics committee of Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany (ethical vote: AZ: 116/07). Obtaining regulatory approval was the responsibility of each study centre.
The aims of the GPIU prostate biopsy study were (1) to audit the prevalence of infective complications after P-Bx across centres and countries participating in the GPIU study and (2) to evaluate factors associated with a higher risk of infective complications.
All patients undergoing P-Bx during the 2-wk period commencing on the GPIU study census day in November 2010 and 2011 onwards were eligible to be included. Each included participant was required to be observed for 2 wk after biopsy either by onsite investigation or telephone interview.
2.2. Internet portal
The study was performed using the Internet-based platform Uroweb, the Internet portal of the EAU that provides all protocol details and uploading of results to a patient database. The software was developed (v.0.9) in PHP (a recursive acronym for PHP Hypertext Preprocessor). For the P-Bx study, investigators at participating sites completed online case report forms on a password-protected Web site with a site-specific login ( http://www.uroweb.org/ ). These anonymised data were stored securely in a specially designed MySQL database  and .
2.3. Patient information
The case report form consisted of two parts. The first part included questions on patient characteristics (age, use of antibiotics in preceding 6 mo, history of urogenital infection in preceding 6 mo, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] value, previous biopsy) and the biopsy process (route, result of preoperative urine culture, performance and type of preoperative bowel preparation, performance and type of antibiotic prophylaxis, number of cores taken, performance of local anaesthesia). The second part comprised questions on the outcome of biopsy (presence of histopathologic inflammation, presence and severity of symptoms of UTI at any time up to 2 wk after biopsy, physician visit for UTI and type of visit, readmission to the hospital, results of urine culture and inflammatory markers, type of treatment antibiotic used, and final clinical outcome at follow-up date).
To assess factors for increased infective complications after P-Bx, patients with infective complications were compared with patients without infective complications with regard to possible adverse risk factors of increasing age, higher prostate volume, higher preoperative PSA level, past history of UTI, and prebiopsy bacteriuria in patients investigated with urine culture, preoperative bowel preparation, history of antibiotic pretreatment, performance of antibiotic prophylaxis, type of antibiotic prophylaxis, duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, repeated P-Bx, use of local anaesthesia at P-Bx, number of biopsy cores, and histopathologic presence of inflammation in the biopsies.
Dichotomous variables were compared with the two-sided Fisher exact test and continuous variables with the two-sided unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, where appropriate. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between possible predictive factors for the occurrence of a UTI after P-Bx. Missing values were not imputed in the model. We did not include the variables prostate volume or presence of preoperative bacteriuria in the multivariate analytical model because they were recorded for less than half of the cohort. An α value of 0.05 was determined to be statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using PASW Statistics 20 for Windows (SPSS GmbH Software, Munich, Germany).
A total of 84 centres in Africa (n = 2), Asia (n = 11), Europe (n = 67), and South-America (n = 4) participated in the GPIU prostate biopsy study (see appendix). The centres included a median of 4 evaluable patients for each year of participation (range: 1–25; standard deviation [SD]: ±6.7). A total of 702 men were included across the two study years (2010, n = 385; 2011, n = 317). Median patient age was 66 yr (range: 40–90; SD: ±8.0). Table 1 shows the biopsy performance parameters.
|Parameter||Patients, no. (%)|
|Urine examination prior to biopsy||418/702 (59.5)|
|- Reagent strip urinalysis||254/702 (36.2)|
|- Urine culture *||164/702 (23.4)|
|Antibiotic treatment for bacteriuria prior to biopsy||2/702 (0.3)|
|Lower bowel cleansing||297/702 (42.3)|
|- Enema||246/702 (35.0)|
|- Antiseptic lavage||25/702 (3.6)|
|- Other||26/702 (3.7)|
|Repeat set of biopsies †||151/702 (21.5)|
|Antibiotic prophylaxis ‡||689/702 (98.2)|
|- Fluoroquinolone-based antibiotic prophylaxis||637/702 (90.8)|
|Transrectal prostate biopsy §||684/702 (97.4)|
|Transperineal prostate biopsy §||18/702 (2.6)|
* Bacteriuria was found in 8 of 164 patients (4.9%): Escherichia coli, n = 2; Klebsiella species, n = 2; Pseudomonas species, n = 1; Staphylococcus epidermidis, n = 1; Enterococcus species, n = 1; Candida parapsilosis, n = 1.
† Second set, n = 106; third set, n = 31; fourth set, n = 7; fifth set, n = 3; seventh set, n = 2; unknown sequence, n = 2.
‡ Duration of antibiotic prophylaxis was a median of 3 d (range: 1–21; standard deviation [SD]: ±2.5).
§ A median of 12 biopsy cores (range: 1–40; SD: ±3.9) were obtained per patient.
Outcome at 2 wk was available for 521 of 702 men (74.2%) (2010, n = 290; 2011, n = 231) ( Table 2 ). Symptomatic UTIs were recorded in 27 of 521 patients (5.2%), with dysuria (n = 19), frequency (n = 18), urgency (n = 10), and prostate pain (n = 9) the most frequent symptoms. Urine culture was positive in 10 of 27 cases (Escherichia coli, n = 8; Pseudomonas species, n = 1; Klebsiella species, n = 1). Fluoroquinolone resistance was observed in 6 of 10 isolates. Febrile UTIs were present in 18 of 521 patients (3.5%), and 16 of 521 patients (3.1%) required hospitalisation due to infection. This included one patient admitted to the intensive care unit with uroseptic shock 1 d after P-Bx. In two men the infection had not resolved by the end of the 2-wk follow-up period. A total of 494 of 521 men (94.8%) showed no evidence of infective complications at up to 2 wk after biopsy. Symptomatic UTI was reported in 1 of the 2 patients submitted by centres in Africa, 3 of 57 submissions (5.3%) from centres in Asia, 21 of 441 submissions (4.8%) from European centres, and 2 of 21 submission (9.5%) from centres in South America. There was no statistical significant difference (p = 0.282) comparing infectious complications from Europe versus Africa, Asia, and South America.
|Parameter||n||Symptomatic UTI (%)||No symptomatic UTI (%)||p value|
|Total||521||27/521 (5.2)||494/521 (94.8)||NA|
|Age, yr, median||521||66||67||0.411|
|Prostate size, ml, median||236||52||46||0.733|
|PSA, ng/ml, median||501||8||8||0.921|
|History of UTI||485||0/24 (0)||34/461 (7.4)||0.399|
|Preoperative bacteriuria *||130||0/9 (0)||5/121 (4.1)||1.000|
|Preoperative bowel preparation||521||12/27 (44.4)||186/494 (37.7)||0.543|
|History of antibiotic pretreatment||462||1/21 (4.8)||56/441 (12.7)||0.495|
|Antibiotic prophylaxis||518||27/27 (100)||484/491 (98.6)||1.000|
|Fluoroquinolone-based antibiotic prophylaxis||511||23/27 (85.2)||447/484 (92.4)||0.260|
|Antibiotic prophylaxis >1 d||511||18/27 (66.7)||327/484 (67.6)||1.000|
|Repeated P-Bx||516||8/25 (32.0)||100/491 (20.4)||0.204|
|Local anesthesia used||521||15/27 (55.6)||254/494 (51.4)||0.698|
|No. of biopsy cores, median||521||10||12||0.007|
|Histopathologic inflammation||448||5/21 (23.8)||140/427 (32.8)||0.479|
* In patients where urine culture was performed prior to prostate biopsy.
UTI = urinary tract infection; NA = not applicable; PSA = prostate-specific antigen; P-Bx = prostate biopsy.
To assess factors for increased infectious complications after P-Bx, patients with infectious complications (n = 27) were compared with patients without infectious complications (n = 494) ( Table 2 ). In multivariate analysis no significant association between UTI and any investigated variable was found (for all variables p > 0.05).
Millions of men undergo P-Bx throughout the world each year as part of the accepted diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer  . Recently retrospective studies from Canada  and the United States  and one prospectively performed study from Europe  reported an apparent increase in the incidence of infective complications after transrectal P-Bx. In this study we found that just over 5% of men experienced symptomatic UTI after P-Bx, which resulted in serious morbidity in about 70% of cases with systemic symptoms and admission to hospitals. The rate of systemic infection found in our study is higher than earlier reports in the literature where a rate of 1% was quoted in one large study  . This finding is important because the low specificity of PSA testing means that cancer detection rates for initial P-Bx range between 22.8% and 42.0%  . A diagnostic procedure with a generally <50% positive detection rate should be as safe as possible.
EAU guidelines classify transrectal P-Bx as a contaminated procedure and, if a urinary catheter or bacteriuria is present, as a dirty procedure  warranting antibiotic prophylaxis in all patients. Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs confirm that prophylaxis reduces the rate of bacteriuria following P-Bx, although the results for more clinically oriented outcomes such as symptomatic UTI are less certain  . These studies have so far focused on the use of fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole as suitable antibiotics for prophylaxis  . This is in line with pharmacokinetic studies in prostate tissue and prostatic secretions that confirm most orally administered fluoroquinolones achieve concentrations in the prostate that should be sufficient for the treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis caused by susceptible pathogens  . High prostatic antibiotic concentrations are equally important in the prophylaxis of P-Bx. The superiority of fluoroquinolones was suggested by the results of a clinical pharmacokinetic study comparing ciprofloxacin (moderate prostatic tissue penetration) versus gentamicin (low prostatic tissue penetration) in prophylaxis against bacteremia following transrectal P-Bx. The study found that use of ciprofloxacin was associated with a lower incidence of bacteremia and clinical bloodstream infection, and this response correlated with higher prostate tissue levels of the drug  . There is as yet no consensus on the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for P-Bx. Our multinational study showed a median duration of 3 d, but there was no association between durations >1 d and the incidence of symptomatic UTI. EAU guidelines recommend single-dose prophylaxis for low-risk patients and prolonged courses of prophylaxis only in high-risk patients  ; American Urological Association guidelines generally recommend prophylaxis for <24 h  . Because most men undergoing P-Bx are likely to have low levels of comorbidity, reducing the prophylaxis regimens to a single appropriately administered dose as recommended by the EAU guidelines would seem reasonable. This is important as part of the worldwide drive to reduce antibiotic selection pressure and thus decrease the emergence of antibiotic resistance.
Procedure-specific factors for a higher risk of infective complications after P-Bx are still not well defined, and our study was unable to add any further clarity on this issue  . It would seem appropriate to check a midstream urine culture prior to the procedure to rule out asymptomatic bacteriuria, which is recommended in the EAU guideline  . It is also recommended that in the presence of asymptomatic bacteriuria the prophylactic antibiotic regimen should include an agent tested susceptible to cover the urinary bacteria  . In our study, recommended preoperative patient evaluation by urine culture prior to biopsy  was performed in only 164 of 702 patients (23.4%) ( Table 1 ). Adherence to guidelines could certainly be improved in this respect.
All other evaluated possible factors for increased infective complications were not significantly different between patients having symptomatic UTI and those who did not; however, diabetes as a risk factor was not investigated in this study. In a previous study it was found that a larger prostate and diabetes were significantly associated with infective complications after P-Bx  .
The observational epidemiologic design of our study collecting data at two time points in 2 yr prevented us from looking at changing patterns of infective complications and bacterial resistance over time. Further data collections at annual intervals over the coming years will allow us to achieve this goal. Our study also had insufficient power to be certain of identifying whether or not some of the risk factors examined were associated with the incidence of symptomatic UTI. The small sample size per participating site and in comparison with other studies therefore may have limited the conclusions from our study. Possible risk factors evaluating comorbidities such as diabetes, steroid use, or heart disease have not been evaluated, which is a limitation and will be taken up in subsequent study years. Our data on bacterial isolates do provide provisional support for the faecal carriage of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria as a risk factor for infective complications. A previous prospective study in consecutive patients undergoing P-Bx found that 22.0% of patients harboured ciprofloxacin-resistant E coli strains  . The study also found that faecal carriage of fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli strains was a significant risk factor for infective complications after P-Bx  . Specific fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli strains (eg, E coli ST131) could be detected as an important cause of sepsis after P-Bx  . It has also been shown that faecal fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli can even be selected by a single oral dose of 500 mg ciprofloxacin given for the prophylaxis of transrectal P-Bx  . The use of fluoroquinolones in the 6 mo before biopsy was also shown to be associated with an increased risk of faecal carriage of fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli strains  . Our study adds further credence to the emerging possibility that faecal carriage of fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli strains represents a significant risk factor classifying patients into a high-risk group for infective complications after P-Bx, particularly if, as seems likely, fluoroquinolones remain the most frequently used agents for prophylaxis. The rate of fluoroquinolone resistance amongst isolates from men with symptomatic UTI after P-Bx in the present study was particularly high (60%) compared with rates seen in other hospital settings that ranged from 22.7% to 30.8%  . Faecal fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria as a risk factor could certainly explain the increase of infective complications after P-Bx, paralleling the worldwide increase of fluoroquinolone resistance in enterobacteria , , and .
Strategies capable of decreasing infective complications after P-Bx must therefore be developed and evaluated so as not to dissuade healthy men who would benefit from early prostate cancer management from undergoing P-Bx when clinically indicated. Several strategies are currently debated, such as risk assessment to select patients at higher risk for infective complications, such as microbiological sampling of the faecal flora prior to biopsy to identify susceptibility to specific agents  , change of biopsy route (eg, perineal P-Bx), and the evaluation of alternative antibiotics with improved susceptibility to be used for prophylaxis  . Antibiotic susceptibility is only one of the criteria for recommending an alternative antibiotic. The pharmacokinetic distribution of the antibiotic within the prostate is equally important, as well as the suitability for this indication demonstrated in a clinical trial.
In this prospective multinational study on infective complications after P-Bx, a significant rate of infective complications after P-Bx was observed to be present worldwide. Our study supports the findings of others in suggesting that the presence of faecal fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria is the most important risk factor. If this is the case, strategies to identify fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria should be sought so as to decrease infective complications after P-Bx. This important and yearly performed ongoing study will deliver more data in the future and thus be able to address some of these important issues using a global perspective.
Author contributions: Florian M.E. Wagenlehner had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Wagenlehner, van Oostrum, Çek, Naber, Bjerklund-Johansen.
Acquisition of data: Wagenlehner, van Oostrum, Çek, Grabe, Tandogdu, Tenke, Naber, Bjerklund-Johansen.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Wagenlehner, van Oostrum, Çek, Grabe, Tandogdu, Tenke, Pickard, Wullt, Pilatz, Weidner, Naber, Bjerklund-Johansen.
Drafting of the manuscript: Wagenlehner.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wagenlehner, van Oostrum, Çek, Grabe, Tandogdu, Tenke, Pickard, Wullt, Weidner, Naber, Bjerklund-Johansen.
Statistical analysis: Wagenlehner, van Oostrum, Pilatz.
Obtaining funding: Wagenlehner, van Oostrum, Çek, Grabe, Tenke, Naber, Bjerklund-Johansen.
Administrative, technical, or material support: van Oostrum.
Supervision: Wagenlehner, Naber, Bjerklund-Johansen.
Other (specify): None.
Financial disclosures: Florian M.E. Wagenlehner certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: This study was organised by the board of the ESIU and endorsed and sponsored by the EAU and performed in collaboration with the Asian Association of UTI and STD, the International Society of Chemotherapy for Infection and Cancer, and the Interregional Association of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Acknowledgement statement: The GPIU study group is most grateful to the altruistic contributions of the GPIU investigators (see appendix).
Appendix. Participants in the 2010 and/or 2011 prostate biopsy Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology
|Patients, n||Geographic region||Country||City||Center||Investigators|
|1||Africa||Egypt||Alzahraa||Alzahraa University Hospital||Khaled Abdul Moneim|
|4||Africa||Egypt||Cairo||Ahmed Maher Teaching Hospital||Alaa Ahmed Hussein|
|2||Asia||China||Changchun||The First Bethune Hospital, Jilin University||Yaowen Fu|
|12||Asia||Iran||Tehran||Hasheminejad Kidney Center||Reza Aghelnezhad|
|2||Asia||Japan||Kitakyushu||University Hospital of Occupational and Environmental Health||Ryoichi Hamasuna|
|1||Asia||Japan||Okayama||Okayama University Hospital||Koichiro Wada|
|18||11||Asia||Singapore||Singapore||National University Hospital||Fiona Mei Wen Wu|
|10||5||Asia||South Korea||Daejeon||Chungnam National University Hospital||Yong Gil Na|
|1||Asia||South Korea||Gwang-Ju||Chosun University Hospital||Seung Baik|
|2||Asia||South Korea||Seoul||St. Mary||Kim Sukju|
|5||1||Asia||South Korea||Suwon||St. Vincent Hospital||Seung-Ju Lee|
|2||Asia||South Korea||Uijeongbu||Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital||Chang Hee Han|
|3||Asia||United Arab Emirates||Abu Dhabi||PMC||Medhat Ahmad Mohammad Elsayed|
|1||Europe||Bosnia-Herzegovina||Mostar||Regional Medical Center Mostar||Mustafa Bazardzanovic|
|3||Europe||Bosnia-Herzegovina||Sarajevo||Clinical Center University of Sarajevo||Senad Bajramović|
|5||Europe||Czech Republic||Liberec||Regional Hospital Liberec||Jan Mecl|
|3||Europe||Czech Republic||Nachod||County Hospital||Petr Prosvic|
|9||Europe||Czech Republic||Opava||Slezska Nemocnice||Roman Stanek|
|21||Europe||Denmark||Aarhus||Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby||Pernille Skjold Kingo|
|16||Europe||Denmark||Fredericia||Fredericia Hospital, part of Hospital Littlebelt||Kim Hovgaard Andreassen|
|18||Europe||Estonia||Tallinn||East-Tallinn Central Hospital||Aleksei Nelovkov|
|17||Europe||France||Suresnes||Hospital Foch||Cécile Bach and Henry Botto|
|1||Europe||Germany||Brandenburg||Städtisches Klinikum Brandenburg GmbH||Jacqueline Wicht|
|1||Europe||Germany||Burgwedel||Großburgwedel (Klinikum Region Hannover)||Juliane Fiebich|
|7||Europe||Germany||Frankfurt||St. Katharinen Krankenhaus||Saskia Carmen Morgenstern|
|2||Europe||Germany||Gelsenkirchen||Bergmannsheil Buer||Stephan Miller|
|5||Europe||Germany||Marburg||Urological Office||Martin Ludwig|
|1||Europe||Germany||Sigmaringen||General Hospital Sigmaringen||Zoltan Varga|
|1||Europe||Germany||Ulm||Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Ulm||Christian Löhmann|
|1||Europe||Germany||Weiden||Klinikum Weiden||Bernhard Schwindl|
|1||Europe||Greece||Aeghion||Aeghion General Hospital||Theodore Voudoukis|
|18||4||Europe||Hungary||Budapest||Jahn Ferenc South-Pest||Peter Tenke|
|15||Europe||Hungary||Budapest||Uzsoki Hospital||András Paczelt|
|18||22||Europe||Hungary||Pecz||University of Pecz||Szántó Árpád|
|3||Europe||Hungary||Szeged||Albert Szent-Györgyi Clinical Center Faculty of Medicine||Ágnes Rosecker|
|9||Europe||Hungary||Veszprém||Veszprém Megyei Csolnoky Ferenc Kórház Nonprofit Zrt||Sándor Gécs|
|2||Europe||Italy||Andria||Bonomo Memorial Hospital||Angelo Guarriello|
|13||Europe||Italy||Bolzano||General Hospital of Bolzano||Michele Lodde|
|10||16||Europe||Italy||Lecco||A. Manzoni||Alberto Trinchieri|
|2||Europe||Italy||Magenta||G. Fornaroli - Magenta||Sandro Danilo Sandri|
|4||Europe||Italy||Perugia||University of Perugia||Elisabetta Costantini|
|3||Europe||Italy||Rome||Gemelli Hospital - Catholic University Medical School||Emilio Sacco|
|2||1||Europe||Italy||Trento||Santa Chiara Hospital||Tommaso Cai|
|4||1||Europe||Macedonia||Skopje||University Clinic of Surgery St. Naum Ohridski||Slobodan Petar Ristovski and Maja Sofronievska Glavinov|
|23||Europe||Netherlands||Nieuwegein||St. Antonius Hospital|
|1||Europe||Poland||Torun||Nicolaus Copernicus City Hospital||Przemyslaw Adamczyk|
|8||11||Europe||Portugal||Coimbra||Centro Hospitalar de Coimbra||Bruno Alexandre Guerra and Jorge Pereira|
|22||Europe||Portugal||Lisbon||Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa - Zona Central, Hospital de São José||Catarina Diogo Gameiro|
|4||Europe||Portugal||Matosinhos||Hospital Pedro Hispano||Tiago Pinto Correia|
|1||Europe||Romania||Arad||Arad County Hospital||Dana Gabriela Negru|
|5||Europe||Romania||Cluj Napoca||EndoPlus||Christian Nicolae Manea|
|1||Europe||Russia||Moscow||Botkin Hospital||Lyubov Alexandrovna Sinyakova|
|1||6||Europe||Russia||Moscow||Moscow City Hospital 50||Andrey Vladimirovich Zaytsev|
|3||Europe||Russia||Togliatti||Municipal Health Care City Hospital #1||Rinat Khammatov|
|1||Europe||Russia||Moscow||S.R. Urology Institute||Perepanova Sergeevna Tamara|
|2||2||Europe||Russia||Ulyanovsk||Ulyanovsk State World War Veterans Hospital||Anton Maliavin|
|5||Europe||Slovakia||Kosice||L. Pasteur University Hospital||Jaroslav Beck|
|5||Europe||Slovakia||Poprad||Nemocnica Poprad a.s.||Lukas Kocis|
|1||Europe||Spain||Langreo||Hospital Valle del Nalón||Miguel Alvarez Mugica|
|10||Europe||Spain||Murcia||Virgen de la Arrixaca||Pedro López Cubillana|
|18||5||Europe||Spain||Pamplona||Hospital Virgen del Camino||Manuel Montesino-Semper|
|5||Europe||Spain||Pamplona||Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra||Josep Campa|
|12||Europe||Spain||Santa Cruz de Tenerife||Hospital Universitario de Canarias||David Hernández Hernández|
|2||Europe||Spain||Tudela||Hospital Reina Sofia (Tudela)||Jose Angel Cuesta-Alcala|
|16||Europe||Sweden||Malmö||Malmö University Hospital||Magnus Grabe|
|4||1||Europe||Switzerland||Geneva||University Hospital of Geneva||Gregory Johann Wirth and Jacques Klein|
|7||12||Europe||Turkey||Edirne||Trakya University Hospital||Ersan Arda|
|14||Europe||Turkey||Erciyes||Erciyes University Department of Urology||Mustafa Sofikerim|
|6||Europe||Turkey||Kocaeli||Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine|
|1||Europe||Turkey||Kocaeli||Kocaeli Universitesi Hastanesi||Nazim Mutlu|
|1||Europe||Turkey||Konya||Selcuk University Meram Medical Faculty||Mehmet Kilinc|
|6||8||Europe||Turkey||Isparta||Suleyman Demirel University School of Medicine||Taylan Oksay|
|1||Europe||Turkey||Istanbul||Istanbul University Cerrahpasa School of Medicine||Sinharib Citgez|
|4||Europe||Turkey||Istanbul||Istanbul Egitim Ve Araştirma Hastanesi||Soner Ulusoy|
|7||Europe||Turkey||Istanbul||Istanbul Hospital||Suleyman Erdinc Unluer|
|25||25||Europe||United Kingdom||Edinburgh||Western General Hospital||Roland Donat|
|6||Europe||United Kingdom||Salford||Salford Royal Foundation Trust||Laura Derbyshire|
|3||20||Europe||United Kingdom||Stoke on Trent||University Hospital of North Staffordshire||Mark Fraser Saxby|
|1||Europe||Ukraine||Donetsk||University Clinic||Коlesnikov Vladimir Stanislavovich|
|17||South America||Argentina||Buenos Aires||Hospital Italiano||Maria Ines Staneloni|
|6||South America||Argentina||Buenos Aires||Instituto Quirurgico del Callao-Sanatorio Anchorena||Javier David Altclas|
|2||South America||Argentina||Salta||El Carmen||Jose Ignacio Militello|
|10||South America||Brazil||Florianópolis||Centro de pesquisas oncologicas de Santa Catarina||Flavio Heldwein|
-  F.K. Chun, J.I. Epstein, V. Ficarra, et al. Optimizing performance and interpretation of prostate biopsy: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2010;58:851-864 Crossref
-  K.K. Hodge, J.E. McNeal, M.K. Terris, T.A. Stamey. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:71-74 discussion 74–5
-  A.M. Bootsma, M.P. Laguna Pes, S.E. Geerlings, A. Goossens. Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic procedures: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2008;54:1270-1286 Crossref
-  Wolf JS J, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, et al. Urologic Surgery Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Best Practice Policy Panel. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. American Urological Association Web site. www.auanet.org/content/clinical-practice-guidelines/clinical-guidelines.cfm#2 . Updated 2012.
-  Grabe M, Bjerklund-Johansen TE, Botto H, et al. Guidelines on urological infections. European Association of Urology Web site. www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/17_Urological%20infections_LR%20II.pdf . Updated 2012.
-  S. Loeb, H.B. Carter, S.I. Berndt, et al. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830-1834 Crossref
-  R.K. Nam, R. Saskin, Y. Lee, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2010;183:963-968
-  S. Loeb, S. van den Heuvel, X. Zhu, et al. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1110-1114 Crossref
-  T.E. Bjerklund Johansen, M. Çek, K. Naber, et al. Prevalence of hospital-acquired urinary tract infections in urology departments. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1100-1112 Crossref
-  T.E. Johansen, M. Çek, K.G. Naber, et al. Hospital acquired urinary tract infections in urology departments: pathogens, susceptibility and use of antibiotics. Data from the PEP and PEAP-studies. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006;28(Suppl 1):S91-S107
-  S. Lindstedt, U. Lindstrom, E. Ljunggren, et al. Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in core prostate biopsy: impact of timing and identification of risk factors. Eur Urol. 2006;50:832-837 Crossref
-  M. Grabe, H. Botto, M. Çek, et al. Preoperative assessment of the patient and risk factors for infectious complications and tentative classification of surgical field contamination of urological procedures. World J Urol. 2012;30:39-50 Crossref
-  F.M. Wagenlehner, W. Weidner, F. Sorgel, K.G. Naber. The role of antibiotics in chronic bacterial prostatitis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005;26:1-7 Crossref
-  M.B. Roach, T.E. Figueroa, D. McBride, et al. Ciprofloxacin versus gentamicin in prophylaxis against bacteremia in transrectal prostate needle biopsy. Urology. 1991;38:84-87 Crossref
-  D. Steensels, K. Slabbaert, L. De Wever, et al. 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. 2010;18:575-581
-  D.A. Williamson, S.A. Roberts, D.L. Paterson, et al. Escherichia coli bloodstream infection after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: implications of fluoroquinolone-resistant sequence type 131 as a major causative pathogen. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:1406-1412 Crossref
-  F. Wagenlehner, J. Stower-Hoffmann, W. Schneider-Brachert, et al. Influence of a prophylactic single dose of ciprofloxacin on the level of resistance of Escherichia coli to fluoroquinolones in urology. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;15:207-211 Crossref
-  A.I. Hidron, J.R. Edwards, J. Patel, et al. NHSN annual update: antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: annual summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006–2007. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29:996-1011 Crossref
-  M.N. Al-Hasan, B.D. Lahr, J.E. Eckel-Passow, L.M. Baddour. Antimicrobial resistance trends of Escherichia coli bloodstream isolates: a population-based study, 1998-2007. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64:169-174 Crossref
-  K.B. Laupland, D.B. Gregson, D.L. Church, et al. Incidence, risk factors and outcomes of Escherichia coli bloodstream infections in a large Canadian region. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008;14:1041-1047 Crossref
-  M.A. Liss, A. Chang, R. Santos, et al. Prevalence and significance of fluoroquinolone resistant Escherichia coli in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy. J Urol. 2011;185:1283-1288 Crossref
-  M.E. Falagas, A.C. Kastoris, A.M. Kapaskelis, D.E. Karageorgopoulos. Fosfomycin for the treatment of multidrug-resistant, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing, Enterobacteriaceae infections: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:43-50 Crossref
a Department of Urology, Paediatric Urology and Andrology of the Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany
b EAU Department, Arnhem, The Netherlands
c Department of Urology, Jahn Ferenc South-Pest Hospital, Budapest, Hungary
d Department of Urology, Taksim Teaching Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
e Department of Urology, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
f Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
g Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Glycobiology, Lund, Sweden
h Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
i Technical University, Munich, Germany
j Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Paediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Str. 7, 35385 Giessen, Germany. Tel. +49 641 98544516; Fax: +49 641 98544509.
☆ Please visit www.eu-acme.org/europeanurology to read and answer questions on-line. The EU-ACME credits will then be attributed automatically.
© 2012 European Association of Urology, Published by Elsevier B.V.