Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urinary tract infections may be a severe complication after prostate biopsy. The aim of our study is to investigate the efficacy of cefixime versus prulifloxacin, as a prophylactic treatment in the era of fluoroquinolone resistance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective randomized trial, patients were allocated into two groups. In Group A, patients received cefixime 400 mg p.o./day, while in Group B, prulifoxacin 600 mg p.o./day, both for three days, starting the day before procedure. Eligible for the study were men with a high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or a positive rectal examination. Exclusion criteria were allergy to cefixime or fluoroquinolones, low glomerular filtration rate and drug-resistance to these antibiotics. Patients were followed-up for seven days. RESULTS: Finally, 120 patients were divided into 2 groups of 60 patients with a mean age of 68.6 years. A total of 16 (13.3%) men had already undergone another biopsy in the past, while 18 (15%) had received prulifloxacin and 8 (6.67%) cefixime, at least once in the last three months. During follow-up, hospital admission due to a severe urinary tract infection (UTI) was required in 2 of 60 (1.3%) and 1 of 60 (1.67%) patients from Group B and A respectively. The bacterial specimens detected in those urine cultures were resistant to prulifloxacin or cefixime. Among the remaining 117 patients (97.5%), nobody presented with a UTI. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic cefixime could be suggested as effective in preventing severe UTIs after prostate biopsy in the era of high bacterial resistance to fluoroquinolones.