Complication rates of ciprofloxacin alone vs. ciprofloxacin plus fosfomycin for transrectal prostate biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy have been increasing, driven in large part, by rates of antibiotic resistance to conventional prophylaxis, such as ciprofloxacin. This study was designed to compare conventional antibiotic prophylaxis (oral ciprofloxacin) with ciprofloxacin and fosfomycin combination therapy prior to biopsy. METHODS: This was a retrospective study looking at men between September 2021 and April 2023, who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy at several institutions in Alberta. The primary outcome was infectious complications within 30 days of prostate biopsy. Secondary outcomes included Clostridium difficile infections, urinary retention, gross hematuria, diarrhea, emergency room (ER ) visits, hospital admissions, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Data was collected on resistance patterns and pathogens isolated in culture. RESULTS: During the study period, 2168 men underwent transrectal prostate biopsy. A total of 1216 men received ciprofloxacin alone and 877 received fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin. Infectious complications were significantly higher in the ciprofloxacin alone group (5.8% vs. 0.5%, p<0.0001). Thirty-day complications (7.2% vs. 2.1%, p<0.0001), 30-day ER visits (7.1% vs. 1.8%, p<0.0001), and 30-day hospitalizations (2.7% vs. 0.7%, p<0.001) were all higher in the ciprofloxacin alone group. The most isolated pathogen was E. coli in 54/60 (90%). Ciprofloxacin resistance in the isolated pathogens was high, with 52/60 (87%) showing resistance to ciprofloxacin and 51/54 (94%) E. coli strains resistant. No difference was seen in retention, C. difficile infections, bleeding, or diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of fosfomycin for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to transrectal prostate biopsy was associated with significant improvement in infectious complications and healthcare utilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".