Cost Effectiveness of Rectal Culture-based Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: The Results from a Randomized, Nonblinded, Multicenter Trial.

Background: Culture-based antibiotic prophylaxis is a plausible strategy to reduce infections after transrectal prostate biopsy (PB) related to fluoroquinolone-resistant pathogens. Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of rectal culture-based prophylaxis compared with empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. Design setting and participants: The study was performed alongside a trial in 11 Dutch hospitals investigating the effectiveness of culture-based prophylaxis in transrectal PB between April 2018 and July 2021 (trial registration number: NCT03228108). Intervention: Patients were 1:1 randomized for empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (oral) or culture-based prophylaxis. Costs for both prophylactic strategies were determined for two scenarios: (1) all infectious complications within 7 d after biopsy and (2) culture-proven Gram-negative infections within 30 d after biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Differences in costs and effects (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were analyzed from a healthcare and societal perspective (including productivity losses, and travel and parking costs) using a bootstrap procedure presenting uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in a cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curve. Results and limitations: For the 7-d follow-up period, culture-based prophylaxis (n = 636) was €51.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.52-96.63) more expensive from a healthcare perspective and €16.95 (95% CI -54.29 to 88.18) from a societal perspective than empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (n = 652). Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria were detected in 15.4%. Extrapolating our data, from a healthcare perspective, 40% ciprofloxacin resistance would lead to equal cost for both strategies. Results were similar for the 30-d follow-up period. No significant differences in QALYs were observed. Conclusions: Our results should be interpreted in the context of local ciprofloxacin resistance rates. In our setting, from a healthcare perspective, culture-based prophylaxis was significantly more expensive than empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. From a societal perspective, culture-based prophylaxis was somewhat more cost effective against the threshold value customary for the Netherlands (€80.000). Patient summary: Culture-based prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy was not associated with reduced costs compared with empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis.

Rectal Culture-Based Versus Empirical Antibiotic Prophylaxis to Prevent Infectious Complications in Men Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Randomized, Nonblinded Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: An increase in infections after transrectal prostate biopsy (PB), related to an increasing number of patients with ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora, necessitates the exploration of alternatives for the traditionally used empirical prophylaxis of ciprofloxacin. We compared infectious complication rates after transrectal PB using empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis versus culture-based prophylaxis. METHODS: In this nonblinded, randomized trial, between 4 April 2018 and 30 July 2021, we enrolled 1538 patients from 11 Dutch hospitals undergoing transrectal PB. After rectal swab collection, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive empirical prophylaxis with oral ciprofloxacin (control group [CG]) or culture-based prophylaxis (intervention group [IG]). Primary outcome was any infectious complication within 7 days after biopsy. Secondary outcomes were infectious complications within 30 days, and bacteremia and bacteriuria within 7 and 30 days postbiopsy. For primary outcome analysis, the χ2 test stratified for hospitals was used. Trial registration number: NCT03228108. RESULTS: Data from 1288 patients (83.7%) were available for analysis (CG, 652; IG, 636). Infection rates within 7 days postbiopsy were 4.3% (n = 28) (CG) and 2.5% (n = 16) (IG) (P value = .08; reduction: -1.8%; 95% confidence interval, -.004 to .040). Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria were detected in 15.2% (n = 1288). In the CG, the presence of ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora resulted in a 6.2-fold higher risk of early postbiopsy infection. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the use of culture-based prophylaxis to reduce infectious complications after transrectal PB. Despite adequate prophylaxis, postbiopsy infections can still occur. Therefore, culture-based prophylaxis must be weighed against other strategies that could reduce postbiopsy infections. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03228108.

The effect of distractions in the operating room during endourological procedures.

BACKGROUND: Professionals working in the operating room (OR) are subject to various distractions that can be detrimental to their task performance and the quality of their work. This study aimed to quantify the frequency, nature, and effect on performance of (potentially) distracting events occurring during endourological procedures and additionally explored urologists' and residents' perspectives on experienced ill effects due to distracting factors. METHODS: First, observational data were collected prospectively during endourological procedures in one OR of a teaching hospital. A seven-point ordinal scale was used to measure the level of observed interference with the main task of the surgical team. Second, semistructured interviews were conducted with eight urologists and seven urology residents in two hospitals to obtain their perspectives on the impact of distracting factors. RESULTS: Seventy-eight procedures were observed. A median of 20 distracting events occurred per procedure, which corresponds to an overall rate of one distracting event every 1.8 min. Equipment problems and procedure-related and medically irrelevant communication were the most frequently observed causes of interruptions and identified as the most distracting factors in the interviews. Occurrence of distracting factors in difficult situations requiring high levels of concentration was perceived by all interviewees as disturbing and negatively impacting performance. The majority of interviewees (13/15) thought distracting factors impacted more strongly on residents' compared to urologists' performance due to their different levels of experience. CONCLUSION: Distracting events occur frequently in the OR. Equipment problems and communication, the latter both procedure-related and medically irrelevant, have the largest impact on the sterile team and regularly interrupt procedures. Distracting stimuli can influence performance negatively and should therefore be minimized. Further research is required to determine the direct effect of distraction on patient safety.