Analysis of Fever Following Bronchoscopy and Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration.

Objective: Bronchoscopy and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are two essential methods for obtaining the pathological diagnosis of central lung masses or hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathy. We can observe that many patients have a fever after examinations, but the pathogenesis is not yet fully clear. We tried to comprehensively assess the occurrence of postoperative fever and bacterial infections in patients undergoing bronchoscopy and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) procedures. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 512 patients undergoing bronchoscopy or EBUS-TBNA examination. According to examination methods, all patients were classified into three groups: Only perform bronchoscopy examination (BO) group (122 cases)，both perform bronchoscopy and biopsy (BB) group (262 cases), and EBUS-TBNA after bronchoscopy (EBUS) group (128 cases). Peripheral blood leucocyte, neutrophil count, and serum IL-6 test results were obtained before and after the examination. A blood culture was performed when the body temperature was higher than 38.5°C. Results: Among the three groups, the onset time (5.5h), average duration (6h), and peak temperature (37.7°C) of fever in the BO group were lower than those in the BB and EBUS groups. Still, there was no significant difference in onset time (11.66h, 11.83h), average duration (12.86h, 13.56h), and peak temperature (39.1°C, 39.1°C) between the BB group and EBUS group. There was no significant difference in the peripheral blood leukocyte count, neutrophil count or IL-6 level before the operation (P > .05). Compared with the preoperative, the leukocyte count, neutrophil count and IL-6 level in the three groups were increased after the operation (P < .05). Positive blood cultures were diagnosed as normal oropharyngeal flora. Conclusions: Postoperative fever after bronchoscopy is a relatively common complication, most of which do not require special treatment. Individuals with concomitant diseases such as diabetes may have postoperative infections after EBUS-TBNA, and they should be emphatically observed. The findings could potentially extend to similar diagnostic procedures or situations in pulmonary medicine. Understanding the risk factors associated with postoperative fever can help healthcare providers manage patient expectations and monitor certain groups more closely.

Peritoneal dissemination of pancreatic cancer caused by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: A case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a biopsy technique widely used to diagnose pancreatic tumors because of its high sensitivity and specificity. Although needle-tract seeding caused by EUS-FNA has been recently reported, dissemination of pancreatic cancer cells is generally considered to be a rare complication that does not affect patient prognosis. However, the frequency of dissemination and needle-tract seeding appears to have been underestimated. We present a case of peritoneal dissemination of pancreatic cancer due to preoperative EUS-FNA. CASE SUMMARY: An 81-year-old man was referred to the Department of Surgery of our hospital in Japan owing to the detection of a pancreatic mass on computed tomography during medical screening. Trans-gastric EUS-FNA revealed that the mass was an adenocarcinoma; hence laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with lympha-denectomy was performed. No intraoperative peritoneal dissemination and liver metastasis were visually detected, and pelvic lavage cytology was negative for carcinoma cells. The postoperative surgical specimen was negative for carcinoma cells at the dissected margin and the cut end margin; however, pathological findings revealed adenocarcinoma cells on the peritoneal surface proximal to the needle puncture site, and the cells were suspected to be disseminated via EUS- FNA. Hence, the patient received adjuvant therapy with S-1 (tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium); however, computed tomography performed 5 mo after surgery revealed liver metastasis and cancerous peritonitis. The patient received palliative therapy and died 8 mo after the operation. CONCLUSION: The indications of EUS-FNA should be carefully considered to avoid iatrogenic dissemination, especially for cancers in the pancreatic body or tail.

Adequate rectal preparation reduces hospital admission for urosepsis after transrectal ultrasound - guided prostate biopsy

ABSTRACT Objectives: Previous studies have compared infectious outcomes on the basis of whether rectal preparation was performed; however, they failed to evaluate the quality of each rectal preparation, which may have led to confounding results. This study aimed to compare hospitalizations for urosepsis within 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy between patients with adequate and traditional rectal preparations. Materials and Methods: Between January 2011 and December 2016, a total of 510 patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound - guided prostate biopsy at our institutions and were orally administered prophylactic antibiotics (levofloxacin) were included. Two rectal preparations were performed: (1) adequate rectal preparation confirmed by digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound (Group A, n = 310) and (2) traditional rectal preparation (Group B, n = 200). All patient characteristics were recorded. A logistic regression model was used to assess the effects of the two different rectal preparations on urosepsis, adjusted by patient characteristics. Results: There were a total of three and nine hospitalizations for urosepsis in Groups A and B, respectively. Differences in the demographic data between the two groups were insignificant. Logistic regression showed that adequate rectal preparation before biopsy significantly decreased the risk for urosepsis after biopsy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.2; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 - 0.78; P = 0.021). Conclusions: Adequate rectal preparation could significantly reduce hospitalizations for urosepsis within 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. The quality of rectal preparation should be evaluated before biopsy. If adequate rectal preparation is not achieved, postponing the biopsy and adjusting the rectal preparation regimen are suggested.

Adequate rectal preparation reduces hospital admission for urosepsis after transrectal ultrasound - guided prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have compared infectious outcomes on the basis of whether rectal preparation was performed; however, they failed to evaluate the quality of each rectal preparation, which may have led to confounding results. This study aimed to compare hospitalizations for urosepsis within 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy between patients with adequate and traditional rectal preparations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2016, a total of 510 patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound - guided prostate biopsy at our institutions and were orally administered prophylactic antibiotics (levofloxacin) were included. Two rectal preparations were performed: (1) adequate rectal preparation confirmed by digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound (Group A, n = 310) and (2) traditional rectal preparation (Group B, n = 200). All patient characteristics were recorded. A logistic regression model was used to assess the effects of the two different rectal preparations on urosepsis, adjusted by patient characteristics. RESULTS: There were a total of three and nine hospitalizations for urosepsis in Groups A and B, respectively. Differences in the demographic data between the two groups were insignificant. Logistic regression showed that adequate rectal preparation before biopsy significantly decreased the risk for urosepsis after biopsy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.2; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 - 0.78; P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Adequate rectal preparation could significantly reduce hospitalizations for urosepsis within 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. The quality of rectal preparation should be evaluated before biopsy. If adequate rectal preparation is not achieved, postponing the biopsy and adjusting the rectal preparation regimen are suggested.

Targeted Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Does Not Always Prevent Sepsis after Transrectal Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We compared the effectiveness of targeted prophylaxis to augmented empirical prophylaxis and single agent empirical prophylaxis to prevent sepsis after transrectal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of transrectal prostate biopsies performed during 3 years at 13 Southern California Kaiser Permanente® departments of urology. Targeted prophylaxis was guided by rectal culture bacterial susceptibility for use of a single prophylactic antibiotic while for empirical prophylaxis 1 antibiotic (single agent empirical prophylaxis) or multiple antibiotics (augmented empirical prophylaxis) were given according to the usual practice of the urologist. Sepsis was the primary outcome analyzed. RESULTS: We reviewed 15,236 transrectal prostate biopsy cases. Targeted prophylaxis, single agent empirical prophylaxis and augmented empirical prophylaxis were administered in 26%, 58% and 16% of cases, respectively. The overall incidence of post-biopsy sepsis was 0.64%. On multivariable analysis there was no significant difference in the rate of post-biopsy sepsis after targeted prophylaxis compared to empirical prophylaxis (single agent and augmented empirical prophylaxis together) (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53-1.41, p = 0.561). However, on subanalysis augmented empirical prophylaxis showed a significantly lower incidence of sepsis than single agent empirical or targeted prophylaxis (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.76, p = 0.008). Based on blood and urine cultures 38% of the patients with sepsis after transrectal prostate biopsy had been given the correct prophylactic antibiotic prior to biopsy. On multivariable analysis Asian/Pacific Islander or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity was associated with a higher incidence of harboring fluoroquinolone resistant bacteria on rectal swab cultures. CONCLUSIONS: This large retrospective study showed that augmented empirical prophylaxis was statistically superior to single agent empirical and targeted prophylaxis. Sepsis developed in a significant number of patients despite being given a prophylactic antibiotic to which the sepsis causing bacteria were sensitive.

Timing interval from peri-prostatic block to biopsy impacts procedural pain.

INTRODUCTION: To compare visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores between patients with a 2-minute versus 10-minute delay of peri-prostatic lidocaine injection prior to transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies (TRUS-bx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent standard 12-core TRUS-bx by a single surgeon were prospectively randomized into four different treatment arms: bibasilar injection with a 2-minute delay, bibasilar injection plus a single apical injection with a 2-minute delay, bibasilar injection with a 10-minute delay, and bibasilar injection plus a single apical injection with a 10-minute delay. Patients were asked to report their level of pain on the VAS (0-10, with 10 indicating unbearable pain) at the following intervals: probe insertion (baseline), after each core, and post-procedure. The primary outcome measure was mean VAS score across all 12 cores minus baseline VAS score, which we refer to baseline-adjusted mean VAS score. RESULTS: Baseline-adjusted mean VAS score was significantly higher for the 2-minute delay group compared to the 10-minute delay group (mean: -0.7 versus -1.6, p = 0.025). Subset analysis of biopsies 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and 10-12 also demonstrated higher baseline-adjusted mean VAS scores in the 2-minute delay group (all p ≤ 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Lower TRUS-bx VAS scores can be achieved by extending the time from lidocaine injection to onset of prostate biopsy from 2 to 10 minutes.

Prospective comparison of the efficacy of caudal versus periprostatic nerve block, both with intrarectal local anesthesia, during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostatic needle biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of caudal block (CB) versus periprostatic nerve block (PPNB), both with intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA), in reducing pain during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostatic biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 532 patients: 266 patients received CB with IRLA and 266 patients PPNB with IRLA. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was applied to prospectively evaluate pain (1) at induction of anesthesia, (2) at insertion of the TRUS probe, (3) at needle penetration to the prostate, and (4) throughout the biopsy procedure. Pain scores were compared to evaluate differences between groups. The secondary endpoint of serious complication rate was also evaluated. As a subanalysis, the pain scores were compared in patients with high body mass index (BMI ≥25 kg/m²). RESULTS: Overall, the pain score in the PPNB group was significantly lower than in the CB group at induction of anesthesia (mean ± SD: 2.0 ± 1.9 vs 2.9 ± 2.1, p = .0001) but higher at insertion of the TRUS probe (2.7 ± 2.5 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, p = .009). The pain score did not differ significantly between groups at needle penetration or throughout the biopsy. Univariate analyses indicated no significant association between VAS scores and patient demographics. Overall rates of serious complications did not differ between the two groups (5.6% vs 5.3%, p = .85). In patients with high BMI, the pain score was significantly lower in the PPNB group than in the CB group throughout the procedure (2.5 ± 2.0 vs 3.5 ± 2.5, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures were equally effective in reducing pain, and the incidence of serious complications was similar. PPNB with IRLA may be more applicable than CB with IRLA in obese patients.

Povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy are associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of povidone-iodine rectal disinfection and targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy based on rectal swab culture results. METHODS: From January 2011 to December 2015, we studied differences in infectious complications in men who received povidone-iodine rectal disinfection with targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis and those who received empirical prophylaxis before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Clinical variables including demographics, prior antibiotic, rectal swab culture results, povidone-iodine rectal cleansing, antibiotic prophylaxis, and infectious complications were evaluated. Patients were divided into three groups as follows: Group A received no povidone-iodine rectal cleansing but received empirical antimicrobial prophylaxis; group B received povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and empirical antimicrobial prophylaxis; and group C received povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis. RESULTS: Patients were divided into group A (n = 192; 13.2 %), group B (n = 579; 39.9 %), or group C (n = 679; 46.8 %). In groups A and B, all patients received fluoroquinolone antimicrobial prophylaxis. Group C patients received targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis according to antibiotic resistance of rectal flora, and 71.1 % of these received fluoroquinolone antimicrobial prophylaxis. Infectious complication rates were 3.6, 2.9, and 1.3 % in group A, group B, and group C, respectively. Incidences of acute prostatitis and bacteremia were significantly lower in group C (p = 0.041 and p = 0.049, respectively) than in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of quinolone resistance, the combination of povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and targeted antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the rate of infectious complications.

Cost-effectiveness of culture-guided antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of infections after prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical findings suggest that the use of rectal culture-guided antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the infection rate following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was designed to compare the outcomes of TRUSBx performed with (rectal culture-guided group) and without (standard ciprofloxacin prophylaxis) rectal swab culture-guided antimicrobial prophylaxis in Hong Kong. The post-biopsy infection rate, infection-related costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost for infection, and incremental cost per QALY saved (ICER) were assessed. Model inputs were retrieved from local epidemiology data and the medical literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that the infection rate in the culture-guided group was reduced from 2.42% to 0.23% and saved 0.0002 QALYs, with a lower cost (USD 31.4 versus USD 55.6) (USD 1=HKD 7.8). The number needed to screen to prevent an infection episode was 45.7. The hospital days avoided per 100 patients using culture-guided prophylaxis was 7.08 days. The relative effectiveness of culture-guided antimicrobial prophylaxis versus standard prophylaxis in carriers and non-carriers of FQ-resistant rectal flora were identified as potential influencing factors. In 10000 Monte Carlo simulations, ICERs of the culture-guided group were below the willingness-to-pay threshold 99.12% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Using rectal culture-guided antimicrobial prophylaxis for men undergoing TRUSBx appears to be a cost-saving strategy to avert post-biopsy infection and QALY loss in Hong Kong.

The effects of hypnotherapy during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy for pain and anxiety.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies evaluating the tolerance of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsies showed that moderate-to-severe pain was associated with the procedure. Additionally, prebiopsy anxiety or rebiopsy as a result of a prior biopsy procedure is mentioned as factors predisposing to higher pain intensity. Thus, in this study, we investigated the effects of hypnotherapy during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy for pain and anxiety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients presenting for TRUS-guided prostate needle biopsy were randomly assigned to receive either 10-min presurgery hypnosis session (n = 32, mean age 63.5 ± 6.1, p = 0.289) or a presurgery control session (n = 32, mean age 61.8 ± 6.8, p = 0.289). The hypnosis session involved suggestions for increased relaxation and decreased anxiety. Presurgery pain and anxiety were measured using visual analog scales (VAS), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAS), respectively. In our statistics, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Postintervention, and before surgery, patients in the hypnosis group had significantly lower mean values for presurgery VAS [mean 1 (0-8); p = 0.011], BAI (6.0 vs 2.0; p < 0.001), and HAS (11.0 vs 6.0; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The study results indicate that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention can be an effective means of controlling presurgical anxiety, and therefore pain, in patients awaiting diagnostic prostate cancer surgery.

Novel approach for pain control in patients undergoing prostate biopsy: iliohypogastric nerve block with or without topical application of prilocaine-lidocaine: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of a novel anesthetic technique called iliohypogastric nerve block (INB) for pain control in patients undergoing prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 59 consecutive patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostates biopsies were included in the study. Patients were randomized into four groups: (1) control, no method of anesthesia was administered, (2) intrarectal prilocaine-lidocaine cream application, (3) INB and (4) INB + intrarectal prilocaine-lidocaine cream application (combined group). Patients were asked to use a scale of 0-10 in a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaire about pain during probe insertion (VAS 1) and prostate biopsy (VAS 2). RESULTS: The mean VAS 1 and VAS 2 scores were 0.7 and 4.9 for controls, 0.5 and 1.8 for INB, 0.5 and 2.6 for the intrarectal cream group, and 0.4 and 1.8 for the combined group. The mean VAS 1 scores were not different between groups. However, the mean VAS 2 scores were significantly lower in INB, prilocaine-lidocaine cream and combined groups compared to the control group (P < .001). In addition, the INB group had significantly lower VAS 2 scores compared to the cream application group (P = .03). On the other hand, there was no difference between the INB and combined groups (P = .8). CONCLUSION: Any form of anesthesia was superior to none. However, INB alone seemed to be superior to prilocaine-lidocaine cream application in patients undergoing prostate biopsy. Addition of prilocaine-lidocaine cream application to INB may not provide better analgesia. 

Emergency hospital admissions attributable to infective complications of prostate biopsy despite appropriate prophylaxis: need for additional infection prevention strategies?

PURPOSE: To report the incidence of emergency admissions attributable to infective complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TGB) and evaluate appropriateness of antimicrobial prophylaxis. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of patients undergoing TGB at the North West London Hospitals in 2009-2011. Demographic information of patients who had emergency admission within 30 days of TGB, length of hospital stay and microbiology results were obtained from the hospital's information system, medical records and laboratory information system. All patients received ciprofloxacin and amikacin prophylaxis. RESULTS: 1,419 TGB were performed in 1,276 patients. Forty-eight (3.3 %) patients had emergency admissions. Thirty-three (2.3 %) admissions were due to complications from TGB, while 15 (1 %) were for unrelated reasons. 30/33 (90 %, overall 2.1 %) of admissions from TGB complications were due to confirmed infections or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). The rest were admitted with urinary retention. Admission rates due to TGB complications and infection/SIRS remained consistent over the 3 years (2009: TGB complications-2 %, TGB infection/SIRS-1.8 %; 2010: TGB complications-2.4 %, TGB infections/SIRS-2.2 %; 2011: TGB complications-2.6 %, TGB infection/SIRS-2.4 %; P > 0.05). All 11 cases with bacteraemia were caused by ciprofloxacin-resistant but amikacin-susceptible E. coli. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a consistent rate of emergency admissions for complications following TGB; 90 % of these were due to infections. Ciprofloxacin-resistant but amikacin-sensitive E. coli was isolated in all bacteriologically confirmed infections. These results suggest that infective complications of TGB cannot be altogether eliminated despite appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis. Therefore, additional strategies for reduction in biopsy-related admissions due to infections have to be considered.

Ciprofloxacin resistance in the faecal carriage of patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies (TRUSBx) are associated with a spectrum of complications, including most significantly infection, which affects up to 5% of patients. In the most severe cases, infection leads to sepsis, a life-threatening complication. Escherichia coli is the primary responsible pathogen. Although antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones is routinely used, there is evidence that the infection rate after TRUSBx is increasing, and this appears to be due to an increasing prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora. This is the largest prospective clinical trial to date analysing the rectal flora of men undergoing prostate biopsies. We determined the microbial and antibiotic sensitivity profiles from 849 patients. Ciprofloxacin-resistant Gram-negative organisms were identified in the rectal flora of 19.0% of men. Furthermore, fluoroquinolone use within 6 months preceding a TRUSBx and the presence of a prosthetic heart valve were significant predictors of ciprofloxacin resistance on rectal swab. Determining the prevalence of rectal fluoroquinolone resistance has important implications in evaluation of the suitability of prophylactic regimens. Antimicrobial profiles derived from rectal swabs pre-biopsy may prove useful in guiding targeted antibiotic prophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: To establish the prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies (TRUSBx) and to determine whether this predicts subsequent infectious complications. To identify risk factors for harbouring ciprofloxacin-resistant flora. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Any patient undergoing a TRUSBx from 2009 to 2011 was eligible for enrolment in this prospective study. Pre-biopsy rectal and urine cultures and post-biopsy urine cultures were obtained and antimicrobial susceptibility was determined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent patient risk factors associated with ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora. RESULTS: A total of 865 patients underwent TRUSBx, of whom 19.0% were found to have ciprofloxacin-resistant Gram-negative coliforms. Escherichia coli was the most prevalent Gram-negative rectal isolate (80.9%) and accounted for 90.6% of ciprofloxacin resistance. Patient characteristics that conferred an increased risk of harbouring ciprofloxacin-resistant organisms included a history of a heart valve replacement (P < 0.05) and ciprofloxacin use in the past 3 months (P < 0.05). Infectious complications were observed in 3.6% (n = 31) of the patient population and 48% of these patients grew ciprofloxacin-resistant organisms on the pre-biopsy rectal swab (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial resistance to ciprofloxacin in the rectal flora was common, particularly in patients with recent ciprofloxacin use and a heart valve replacement. Despite a significant correlation between those patients who developed infections and the detection of ciprofloxacin-resistant organisms, only 9.0% (n = 15) of the total group with ciprofloxacin resistance developed an infectious complication. Future studies will need to evaluate the cost effectiveness and clinical utility of a pre-biopsy rectal culture in targeting antibiotic prophylaxis.