Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy

Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Gabriele Tulone [verfasserIn] Sofia Giannone [verfasserIn] Piero Mannone [verfasserIn] Alessio Tognarelli [verfasserIn] Tommaso Di Vico [verfasserIn] Rosa Giaimo [verfasserIn] Alessandro Zucchi [verfasserIn] Marta Rossanese [verfasserIn] Alberto Abrate [verfasserIn] Nicola Pavan [verfasserIn] Francesco Claps [verfasserIn] Vincenzo Ficarra [verfasserIn] Riccardo Bartoletti [verfasserIn] Alchiede Simonato [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	prostate biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis fluoroquinolones

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Antibiotics - MDPI AG, 2013, 11(2022), 3, p 415
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:11 ; year:2022 ; number:3, p 415

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/antibiotics11030415

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ064399303

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ064399303
003	DE-627
005	20240414175942.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/antibiotics11030415 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ064399303
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RM1-950
100	0		\|a Gabriele Tulone \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions.
650		4	\|a prostate biopsy
650		4	\|a antibiotic prophylaxis
650		4	\|a fluoroquinolones
653		0	\|a Therapeutics. Pharmacology
700	0		\|a Sofia Giannone \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Piero Mannone \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alessio Tognarelli \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Tommaso Di Vico \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Rosa Giaimo \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alessandro Zucchi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Marta Rossanese \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alberto Abrate \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Nicola Pavan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Francesco Claps \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Vincenzo Ficarra \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Riccardo Bartoletti \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alchiede Simonato \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Antibiotics \|d MDPI AG, 2013 \|g 11(2022), 3, p 415 \|w (DE-627)726120596 \|w (DE-600)2681345-2 \|x 20796382 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:11 \|g year:2022 \|g number:3, p 415
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 11 \|j 2022 \|e 3, p 415

Indexfelder

author_variant	g t gt s g sg p m pm a t at t d v tdv r g rg a z az m r mr a a aa n p np f c fc v f vf r b rb a s as
matchkey_str	article:20796382:2022----::oprsnfloounlnsnohrniitcrpyairgmnfrrvnigopiainiptetu
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	RM
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.3390/antibiotics11030415 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064399303 (DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 Gabriele Tulone verfasserin aut Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions. prostate biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis fluoroquinolones Therapeutics. Pharmacology Sofia Giannone verfasserin aut Piero Mannone verfasserin aut Alessio Tognarelli verfasserin aut Tommaso Di Vico verfasserin aut Rosa Giaimo verfasserin aut Alessandro Zucchi verfasserin aut Marta Rossanese verfasserin aut Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Nicola Pavan verfasserin aut Francesco Claps verfasserin aut Vincenzo Ficarra verfasserin aut Riccardo Bartoletti verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Antibiotics MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 3, p 415 (DE-627)726120596 (DE-600)2681345-2 20796382 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:3, p 415 https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 3, p 415
spelling	10.3390/antibiotics11030415 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064399303 (DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 Gabriele Tulone verfasserin aut Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions. prostate biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis fluoroquinolones Therapeutics. Pharmacology Sofia Giannone verfasserin aut Piero Mannone verfasserin aut Alessio Tognarelli verfasserin aut Tommaso Di Vico verfasserin aut Rosa Giaimo verfasserin aut Alessandro Zucchi verfasserin aut Marta Rossanese verfasserin aut Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Nicola Pavan verfasserin aut Francesco Claps verfasserin aut Vincenzo Ficarra verfasserin aut Riccardo Bartoletti verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Antibiotics MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 3, p 415 (DE-627)726120596 (DE-600)2681345-2 20796382 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:3, p 415 https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 3, p 415
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/antibiotics11030415 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064399303 (DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 Gabriele Tulone verfasserin aut Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions. prostate biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis fluoroquinolones Therapeutics. Pharmacology Sofia Giannone verfasserin aut Piero Mannone verfasserin aut Alessio Tognarelli verfasserin aut Tommaso Di Vico verfasserin aut Rosa Giaimo verfasserin aut Alessandro Zucchi verfasserin aut Marta Rossanese verfasserin aut Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Nicola Pavan verfasserin aut Francesco Claps verfasserin aut Vincenzo Ficarra verfasserin aut Riccardo Bartoletti verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Antibiotics MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 3, p 415 (DE-627)726120596 (DE-600)2681345-2 20796382 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:3, p 415 https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 3, p 415
allfieldsGer	10.3390/antibiotics11030415 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064399303 (DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 Gabriele Tulone verfasserin aut Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions. prostate biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis fluoroquinolones Therapeutics. Pharmacology Sofia Giannone verfasserin aut Piero Mannone verfasserin aut Alessio Tognarelli verfasserin aut Tommaso Di Vico verfasserin aut Rosa Giaimo verfasserin aut Alessandro Zucchi verfasserin aut Marta Rossanese verfasserin aut Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Nicola Pavan verfasserin aut Francesco Claps verfasserin aut Vincenzo Ficarra verfasserin aut Riccardo Bartoletti verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Antibiotics MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 3, p 415 (DE-627)726120596 (DE-600)2681345-2 20796382 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:3, p 415 https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 3, p 415
allfieldsSound	10.3390/antibiotics11030415 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064399303 (DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 Gabriele Tulone verfasserin aut Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions. prostate biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis fluoroquinolones Therapeutics. Pharmacology Sofia Giannone verfasserin aut Piero Mannone verfasserin aut Alessio Tognarelli verfasserin aut Tommaso Di Vico verfasserin aut Rosa Giaimo verfasserin aut Alessandro Zucchi verfasserin aut Marta Rossanese verfasserin aut Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Nicola Pavan verfasserin aut Francesco Claps verfasserin aut Vincenzo Ficarra verfasserin aut Riccardo Bartoletti verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Antibiotics MDPI AG, 2013 11(2022), 3, p 415 (DE-627)726120596 (DE-600)2681345-2 20796382 nnns volume:11 year:2022 number:3, p 415 https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2022 3, p 415
language	English
source	In Antibiotics 11(2022), 3, p 415 volume:11 year:2022 number:3, p 415
sourceStr	In Antibiotics 11(2022), 3, p 415 volume:11 year:2022 number:3, p 415
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	prostate biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis fluoroquinolones Therapeutics. Pharmacology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Antibiotics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Gabriele Tulone @@aut@@ Sofia Giannone @@aut@@ Piero Mannone @@aut@@ Alessio Tognarelli @@aut@@ Tommaso Di Vico @@aut@@ Rosa Giaimo @@aut@@ Alessandro Zucchi @@aut@@ Marta Rossanese @@aut@@ Alberto Abrate @@aut@@ Nicola Pavan @@aut@@ Francesco Claps @@aut@@ Vincenzo Ficarra @@aut@@ Riccardo Bartoletti @@aut@@ Alchiede Simonato @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	726120596
id	DOAJ064399303
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ064399303</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414175942.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/antibiotics11030415</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ064399303</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RM1-950</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gabriele Tulone</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prostate biopsy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">antibiotic prophylaxis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fluoroquinolones</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Therapeutics. Pharmacology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sofia Giannone</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Piero Mannone</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alessio Tognarelli</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tommaso Di Vico</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rosa Giaimo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alessandro Zucchi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marta Rossanese</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alberto Abrate</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicola Pavan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Francesco Claps</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vincenzo Ficarra</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Riccardo Bartoletti</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alchiede Simonato</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Antibiotics</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2022), 3, p 415</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)726120596</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2681345-2</subfield><subfield code="x">20796382</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3, p 415</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">3, p 415</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Gabriele Tulone
spellingShingle	Gabriele Tulone misc RM1-950 misc prostate biopsy misc antibiotic prophylaxis misc fluoroquinolones misc Therapeutics. Pharmacology Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
authorStr	Gabriele Tulone
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)726120596
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RM1-950
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20796382
topic_title	RM1-950 Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy prostate biopsy antibiotic prophylaxis fluoroquinolones
topic	misc RM1-950 misc prostate biopsy misc antibiotic prophylaxis misc fluoroquinolones misc Therapeutics. Pharmacology
topic_unstemmed	misc RM1-950 misc prostate biopsy misc antibiotic prophylaxis misc fluoroquinolones misc Therapeutics. Pharmacology
topic_browse	misc RM1-950 misc prostate biopsy misc antibiotic prophylaxis misc fluoroquinolones misc Therapeutics. Pharmacology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Antibiotics
hierarchy_parent_id	726120596
hierarchy_top_title	Antibiotics
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)726120596 (DE-600)2681345-2
title	Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ064399303 (DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14
title_full	Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
author_sort	Gabriele Tulone
journal	Antibiotics
journalStr	Antibiotics
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Gabriele Tulone Sofia Giannone Piero Mannone Alessio Tognarelli Tommaso Di Vico Rosa Giaimo Alessandro Zucchi Marta Rossanese Alberto Abrate Nicola Pavan Francesco Claps Vincenzo Ficarra Riccardo Bartoletti Alchiede Simonato
container_volume	11
class	RM1-950
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Gabriele Tulone
doi_str_mv	10.3390/antibiotics11030415
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparison of fluoroquinolones and other antibiotic prophylaxis regimens for preventing complications in patients undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy
callnumber	RM1-950
title_auth	Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
abstract	Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions.
abstractGer	Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions.
abstract_unstemmed	Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	3, p 415
title_short	Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415 https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14 https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415 https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382
remote_bool	true
author2	Sofia Giannone Piero Mannone Alessio Tognarelli Tommaso Di Vico Rosa Giaimo Alessandro Zucchi Marta Rossanese Alberto Abrate Nicola Pavan Francesco Claps Vincenzo Ficarra Riccardo Bartoletti Alchiede Simonato
author2Str	Sofia Giannone Piero Mannone Alessio Tognarelli Tommaso Di Vico Rosa Giaimo Alessandro Zucchi Marta Rossanese Alberto Abrate Nicola Pavan Francesco Claps Vincenzo Ficarra Riccardo Bartoletti Alchiede Simonato
ppnlink	726120596
callnumber-subject	RM - Therapeutics and Pharmacology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/antibiotics11030415
callnumber-a	RM1-950
up_date	2024-07-03T22:42:00.126Z
_version_	1803599499892883456
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ064399303</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414175942.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/antibiotics11030415</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ064399303</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RM1-950</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gabriele Tulone</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.48, <i<p</i< = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.43, <i<p</i< < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.92, <i<p</i< = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00–0.70, <i<p</i< = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prostate biopsy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">antibiotic prophylaxis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fluoroquinolones</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Therapeutics. Pharmacology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sofia Giannone</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Piero Mannone</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alessio Tognarelli</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tommaso Di Vico</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rosa Giaimo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alessandro Zucchi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marta Rossanese</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alberto Abrate</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicola Pavan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Francesco Claps</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vincenzo Ficarra</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Riccardo Bartoletti</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alchiede Simonato</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Antibiotics</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2022), 3, p 415</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)726120596</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2681345-2</subfield><subfield code="x">20796382</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3, p 415</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030415</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c6da8f3b5b3b4bc081abfa66d6903c14</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/3/415</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">3, p 415</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.402112

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?