Cargando…

Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates

BACKGROUND: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with infection rates between 0.3 % and 3.2%. Infectious complications include urinary tract infection, prostatitis, bacteraemia and sepsis. Surgical site surveillance in this patient cohort is becoming increasingly import...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lenihan, Cian, Daly, Emma, Bernard, Margaret, Murphy, Catriona, Lauhoff, Sandra, Power, Margaret, Lanigan, Dermot, Ryan, Peter, Murphy, Olive, Fraher, Marianne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9789349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36573091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2022.100247
_version_ 1784858933224013824
author Lenihan, Cian
Daly, Emma
Bernard, Margaret
Murphy, Catriona
Lauhoff, Sandra
Power, Margaret
Lanigan, Dermot
Ryan, Peter
Murphy, Olive
Fraher, Marianne
author_facet Lenihan, Cian
Daly, Emma
Bernard, Margaret
Murphy, Catriona
Lauhoff, Sandra
Power, Margaret
Lanigan, Dermot
Ryan, Peter
Murphy, Olive
Fraher, Marianne
author_sort Lenihan, Cian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with infection rates between 0.3 % and 3.2%. Infectious complications include urinary tract infection, prostatitis, bacteraemia and sepsis. Surgical site surveillance in this patient cohort is becoming increasingly important given global increases in antimicrobial resistance. METHODS: Surgical site surveillance for patients undergoing TRUS biopsies was introduced in our hospital in 2017. All patients had a risk assessment form completed to assess for carriage or risk of carriage of multi-drug resistant organisms. An intense analysis was completed on any patient who developed an infection post-TRUS biopsy. Data was fed back on a quarterly basis to a multi-disciplinary working group. Members of this group include a Consultant Microbiologist, Infection Prevention and Control Nurse, Consultant Urologist, Antimicrobial Pharmacists and Clinical Nurse Ward Managers. RESULTS: 784 TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate procedures were performed between January 1 st 2017 and the end of the third quarter, 2021. The rate of infection post-TRUS was 2.7% in 2017, 3.4% in 2018 and 3.2% in 2019. This improved to 0% in 2020 and 0.8% in the first three quarters of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions were introduced resulting in a sustained reduction in infection rates in this cohort. These include changing the choice of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, improvement in the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis and scheduling of other urology procedures. The introduction of surgical site surveillance and multi-disciplinary input has demonstrated a reduction in infection rates post TRUS biopsy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9789349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97893492022-12-25 Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates Lenihan, Cian Daly, Emma Bernard, Margaret Murphy, Catriona Lauhoff, Sandra Power, Margaret Lanigan, Dermot Ryan, Peter Murphy, Olive Fraher, Marianne Infect Prev Pract Short Report BACKGROUND: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with infection rates between 0.3 % and 3.2%. Infectious complications include urinary tract infection, prostatitis, bacteraemia and sepsis. Surgical site surveillance in this patient cohort is becoming increasingly important given global increases in antimicrobial resistance. METHODS: Surgical site surveillance for patients undergoing TRUS biopsies was introduced in our hospital in 2017. All patients had a risk assessment form completed to assess for carriage or risk of carriage of multi-drug resistant organisms. An intense analysis was completed on any patient who developed an infection post-TRUS biopsy. Data was fed back on a quarterly basis to a multi-disciplinary working group. Members of this group include a Consultant Microbiologist, Infection Prevention and Control Nurse, Consultant Urologist, Antimicrobial Pharmacists and Clinical Nurse Ward Managers. RESULTS: 784 TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate procedures were performed between January 1 st 2017 and the end of the third quarter, 2021. The rate of infection post-TRUS was 2.7% in 2017, 3.4% in 2018 and 3.2% in 2019. This improved to 0% in 2020 and 0.8% in the first three quarters of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions were introduced resulting in a sustained reduction in infection rates in this cohort. These include changing the choice of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, improvement in the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis and scheduling of other urology procedures. The introduction of surgical site surveillance and multi-disciplinary input has demonstrated a reduction in infection rates post TRUS biopsy. Elsevier 2022-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9789349/ /pubmed/36573091 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2022.100247 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Short Report
Lenihan, Cian
Daly, Emma
Bernard, Margaret
Murphy, Catriona
Lauhoff, Sandra
Power, Margaret
Lanigan, Dermot
Ryan, Peter
Murphy, Olive
Fraher, Marianne
Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates
title Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates
title_full Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates
title_fullStr Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates
title_full_unstemmed Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates
title_short Introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates
title_sort introduction of surgical site surveillance post transrectal ultrasound (trus) guided prostate biopsy and the impact on infection rates
topic Short Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9789349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36573091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2022.100247
work_keys_str_mv AT lenihancian introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT dalyemma introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT bernardmargaret introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT murphycatriona introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT lauhoffsandra introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT powermargaret introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT lanigandermot introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT ryanpeter introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT murphyolive introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates
AT frahermarianne introductionofsurgicalsitesurveillanceposttransrectalultrasoundtrusguidedprostatebiopsyandtheimpactoninfectionrates