The clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies in the NHS: analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics data 2008-2019.
readmissions after prostate biopsy
sepsis after prostate biopsy
transperineal prostate biopsy
transrectal prostate biopsy
upstream and downstream cost after prostate biopsy
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
2
4
2020
medline:
1
12
2020
entrez:
2
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies performed in the UK National Health Service (NHS) through the transrectal (TR) vs the transperineal (TP) route. We conducted an evaluation of the TR vs the TP biopsy approach in the context of 28 days post-procedure complications and readmissions. A secondary evaluation of burden of expenditure in NHS hospitals over the entire decade (2008-2019) was conducted through examination of national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. In this dataset of 486 467 prostate biopsies (387 879 TR and 98 588 TP biopsies), rates of infection and sepsis were higher for the TR compared to the TP cohort (0.53% vs 0.31%; P < 0.001, confidence interval 99% ). Rates of sepsis have more than doubled for TR biopsies in the last 2 years compared to the previous decade (1.12% vs 0.53%). Infective complications were the main reasons for readmissions in the TR cohort, whereas urinary retention was the predominant reason for readmission in the TP cohort. Over the last decade, non-elective (NEL) readmissions seem higher for the TP group; however, in the last 2 years these have reduced compared to the TR group (3.54% vs 3.74%). The cost estimates for NEL readmissions for the entire decade were £33,589,527.00 and £7,179,926.00 respectively, for TR and TP cohorts (P < 0.001). Estimated costs per patient readmission were £2,225.00 and £1,758.00 in the TR and TP groups (P < 0.001). Evaluation of nearly half a million prostate biopsies in the NHS over the entire decade gives sufficient evidence for the distinct advantages of the TP route over the TR route in terms of reduced infections and burden of expenditure. In addition, there is a potential for savings both in upstream and downstream costs if biopsy is performed under a local anaesthetic.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
133-141Subventions
Organisme : Intuitive Surgical
Pays : International
Organisme : Harvey Walsh
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Cancer Research UK. Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/incidence#heading-Two. Accessed July 2019
Cancer Research UK. Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/incidence. Accessed July 2019
Smittenaar CR, Petersen KA, Stewart K, Moitt N. Cancer incidence and mortality projections in the UK until 2035. Br J Cancer 2016; 115: 1147-55
Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186: 1830-4
Anastasiadis E, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a database analysis in England. Int J Urol 2015; 22: 181-6
Halpern JA, Sedrakyan A, Dinerman B, Hsu WC, Mao J, Hu JC. Indications, utilization and complications following prostate biopsy: New York state analysis. J Urol 2017; 197: 1020-5
Patel U, Dasgupta P, Amoroso P, Challacombe B, Pilcher J, Kirby R. Infection after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: increased relative risks after recent international travel or antibiotic use. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1781-5
Roth H, Millar JL, Cheng AC, Byrne A, Evans S, Grummet J. The state of TRUS biopsy sepsis: readmissions to Victorian hospitals with TRUS biopsy-related infection over 5 years. BJU Int 2015; 116(Suppl 3): 49-53
Lundstrom KJ, Drevin L, Carlsson S et al. Nationwide population based study of infections after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2014; 192: 1116-22
Carignan A, Roussy JF, Lapointe V, Valiquette L, Sabbagh R, Pépin J. Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol 2012; 62: 453-9
Togo Y, Kubo T, Taoka R et al. Occurrence of infection following prostate biopsy procedures in Japan: Japanese Research Group for Urinary Tract Infection (JRGU) - a multi-center retrospective study. J Infect Chemother 2014; 20: 232-7
Digital NHS. Hospital Episode Statistics. NHS Digit. 2019. Available at: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/hes. Accessed July 2019
World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision, Fifth edition, 2016. World Health Organization, 2015. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/246208. Accessed July 2019
Health & Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures (4th revision). Available at: http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/data/clinicalcoding/codingstandards/opcs4. Accessed July 2019
Jones R. Limitations of the HRG tariff: excess bed days. Br J Healthc Manag 2013; 14: 354-5
National Tariff Payment System. Annex A: The National Tariff Workbook. Available at: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/national-tariff/#h2-201920-national-tariff-payment-system. Accessed October 2019
PrecisionPoint Implementation Toolkit 2019 - the NHS Innovation Accelerator. PrecisionPoint™ Transperineal Access System. Available at: https://nhsaccelerator.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/PrecisionPoint-Implementation-Toolkit-Final.pdf. Accessed October 2019
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. 2015. Available at: http://www.rstudio.com/
GernotBonkat (@GBonkat). The European commission (EC) implemented stringent regulatory conditions regarding the use of fluoroquinolones in urology. I would appreciate your assistance in circulating our communication letter among your colleagues. I strongly recommend guideline adherence. #eauguidelines 4:32 PM on Wed, Jun 05, 2019.
Zaytoun OM, Vargo EH, Rajan R, Berglund R, Gordon S, Jones JS. Emergence of fluoroquinolone - resistant Escherichia coli as cause of post prostate biopsy infection: implications for prophylaxis and treatment. Urology 2011; 77: 1035-41
Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke P et al. Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 521-7
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 876-92
Kapoor DA, Klimberg IW, Malek GH et al. Single dose oral ciprofloxacin versus placebo for prophylaxis during transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology 1998; 52: 552-8
Aron M, Rajeev TP, Gupta NP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled study. BJU Int 2000; 85: 682-5
Wolf JS Jr, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR et al. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 2008; 179: 1379-90
Zani EL, Clark OA,Rodrigues Netto N Jr. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 11: CD006576
Ozgur A, Asif Y, Gokhan A et al. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance in fecal flora before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and the clinical impact of targeted antibiotic prophylaxis. Arch Esp Urol 2017; 70: 852-8
Batura D, Gopal Rao G. The national burden of infections after prostate biopsy in England and Wales: a wake-up call for better prevention. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68: 247-9
Guo LH, Wu R, Xu HX et al. Comparison between ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 16089
Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T et al. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 2008; 71: 191-5
Hansen N, Patruno G, Wadhwa K et al. magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion supported transperineal prostate biopsy using the ginsburg protocol: technique, learning points, and biopsy results. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 332-40
Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostatebiopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 189: 860-6
Hansen NL, Barrett T, Lloyd T et al. Optimising the number of cores for magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2020; 125: 260-9
Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol 2019; 201: 1121-6
Meyer AR, Joice GA, Schwen ZR, Partin AW, Allaf ME, Gorin MA. Initial experience performing in-office ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia using the precision point transperineal access system. Urology 2018; 115: 8-13
Ahmed HU, El-ShaterBosaily A, Brown LC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815-22
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-77
Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR et al. The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 2012; 14: 310-5
Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2019; 17: 31
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Transperineal versus transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy: detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15: e33-36
Losco G, Studd R, Blackmore T. Ertapenem prophylaxis reduces sepsis after transrectal biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int 2014; 113(Suppl 2): 69-72
Pepdjonovic L, Tan GH, Huang S et al. Zero hospital admissions for infection after 577 transperineal prostate biopsies using single-dose cephazolin prophylaxis. World J Urol 2017; 35: 1199-203
Thompson PM, Pryor JP, Williams JP et al. The problem of infection after prostatic biopsy: the case for the transperineal approach. Br J Urol 1982; 54: 736-40