Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Eur Urol ; 63(3): 521-7, 2013 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22704727

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Infection is a serious adverse effect of prostate biopsy (P-Bx), and recent reports suggest an increasing incidence. OBJECTIVE: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.


Assuntos
Biópsia/efeitos adversos , Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Infecções Urinárias/epidemiologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Biópsia/estatística & dados numéricos , Resistência a Medicamentos , Fluoroquinolonas/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Incidência , Internacionalidade , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prevalência , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Infecções Urinárias/tratamento farmacológico
3.
Eur Urol ; 63(2): 386-94, 2013 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23031676

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is an important measure in preventing health care-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTIs). Despite regional variations in the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility patterns, guideline recommendations are usually given on an international level. OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of AP in urology departments and relate this to relevant parameters such as country, type of hospital, and European Association of Urology guideline recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from the Global Prevalence Study on Infections in Urology for the period 2005-2010 were analysed to evaluate the use of antibiotics in general and AP for urologic procedures. Of the 13 723 patients enrolled, 8178 received antibiotics on the study days. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Study data were imported from the Web-based survey into Microsoft Access and exported into SPSS v.17.0. The data were then coded and analysed. The Pearson chi-Square test was used to compare categorical data and a probability level of 5% was considered significant. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to define significantly different variables in multiple set categories. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Questions on AP were answered on 8370 forms and 6306 (75.3%) investigators reported their routine application of AP. Routine AP was highest in Latin America (n=337; 84%), followed by Asia (n=1338; 86%), Africa (n=234; 85%), and Europe (n=4116; 67%). The antibiotics most frequently used for AP were second-generation cephalosporins, ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime, and amoxicillin plus beta-lactamase inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between countries/regions and types of hospitals, both in using AP for clean procedures and in the types of antibiotics used. AP was not always consistent with recommended guidelines.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antibioticoprofilaxia/estatística & dados numéricos , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Infecções Urinárias/prevenção & controle , Unidade Hospitalar de Urologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , África/epidemiologia , Ásia/epidemiologia , Infecção Hospitalar/tratamento farmacológico , Infecção Hospitalar/epidemiologia , Infecção Hospitalar/prevenção & controle , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , Feminino , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , América Latina/epidemiologia , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Inquéritos e Questionários , Infecções Urinárias/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Urinárias/epidemiologia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA