Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 42(1): 60-68, Jan.-Feb. 2016. tab
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS | ID: lil-777327

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background Urosepsis is a rare but life-threatening complication following transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided needle prostate biopsy. Despite the technological and pharmacological improvements, the problem of bacterial urosepsis after prostate biopsy remains. A strategy for preventing urosepsis following TRUS prostate biopsy in areas with high prevalence of resistant strains or patients presenting risk factors is lacking. Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of urosepsis, as well its predictors, following TRUS guided needle biopsy of the prostate in a tertiary care medical center in Lebanon. Materials and Methods We carried out a retrospective study on all patients who underwent TRUS prostate biopsy at the American University of Beirut Medical Center between January 1, 2011 and June 31, 2013. Patients’ hospital charts were reviewed. Data collected included demographic information, pre-procedure disease specific information, as well as post-procedure information. Predictors of urosepsis following TRUS were assessed. Results In total, 265 patients were included in this study, where the prevalence of urosepsis following TRUS prostate biopsy was found to be 9.4%. The significant independent predictors of urosepsis were found to be: age with an OR=0.93 (95% CI: 0.88–1.00, p-value=0.03), and hypertension comorbidity with an OR=3.25 (95% CI: 1.19–8.85, p-value=0.02). Conclusion We found a high prevalence of urosepsis among patients who have undergone TRUS prostate biopsy, and identified two significant risk factors. The results of this study highlight the importance of implementing strategies for prevention of urosepsis following TRUS prostate biopsy.


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Idoso , Próstata/patologia , Infecções Urinárias/etiologia , Infecções Urinárias/epidemiologia , Bacteriemia/etiologia , Bacteriemia/epidemiologia , Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico/efeitos adversos , Centros de Atenção Terciária/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Biópsia por Agulha/efeitos adversos , Biópsia por Agulha/métodos , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Prevalência , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Fatores Etários , Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico/instrumentação , Líbano/epidemiologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
2.
Braz. j. microbiol ; 44(3): 807-812, July-Sept. 2013. tab
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS | ID: lil-699814

RESUMO

Fifty one strains of the Bacteroides fragilis group were isolated from 45 fecal samples. Classical phenotypic identification showed that 16 isolates were B. thetaiotaomicron, 12 B. uniformis, 9 B. eggerthii,7 B. vulgatus,3 B. caccae,2 Parabacteroides distasonis with 1 identified B. ovatus and 1 B. fragilis. The 51 strains were tested for susceptibility against 16 antimicrobial agents and the MICs for metronidazole were determined. The tests showed that imipenem, meropenem and chloram-phenicol were the most effective antibiotics (98%, 98% and 92.16% of susceptibility, respectively) followed by ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, rifampin (88.24% susceptibility), moxifloxacin 86.27% and tigecycline 84.31%. Ofloxacin and cefotaxime were the least effective antibiotics with 27.45% and 0% of activity respectively. Only six of the 51 isolated strains were resistant to metronidazole with MICs = 64 mg/L (1 strain) and > 256 mg/L (5 strains).


Assuntos
Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Bacteroides fragilis/efeitos dos fármacos , Bacteroides fragilis/isolamento & purificação , Fezes/microbiologia , Bacteroides fragilis/classificação , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Líbano/epidemiologia , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana , Prevalência
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA