413. Cost effectiveness of rectal screening for ESBL producing organism in preventing urosepsis following transrectal prostate biopsy


 
 
 Urosepsis following transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS PB) occurs in 0.3-3.1% of patients. Our center gives ciprofloxacin and ceftriaxone prophylaxis. With rise in urinary pathogens resistant to fluoroquinolones or producing extended spectrum beta lactam (ESBL+), prophylactic regimen might need changing. Studies have highlighted cost effectiveness of rectal screening for ESBL+ organism prior to TRUS PB to determine target antibiotic. We compare our center’s incidence of urosepsis admissions following TRUS PB to the expected rate and calculate cost-effectiveness of pre-procedure screening to prevent urosepsis admissions.
 
 
 
 All patients with CPT billing code 55700 (biopsy, prostate; needle or punch, single or multiple, any approach) from January 2020 through January 2021 were identified retrospectively. Charts were queried for emergency department or urgent care visits and hospital admissions within two weeks of TRUS PB and admissions reviewed for evidence of urosepsis and ESBL+ cultures. Hospitalization cost was compared to the extrapolated cost of doing pre-procedural rectal swabs. Cost of rectal swab and culture was estimated at $39.02 per swab, and identification and susceptibility at $67 per isolate.
 
 
 
 33 of 1593 patients presented to our institution within 2 weeks of TRUS PB over a 13 month period. 3 were admitted for urosepsis post TRUS PB (2 with ESBL+ infection, 1 with no growth on culture), 12 had ED visits relating to their TRUS PB without urosepsis, (2 due to UTI with other organisms) and 18 visits were unrelated to TRUS PB. Our urosepsis admission rate was 0.19% (for ESBL+ 0.13%). Cost of the 3 hospitalizations was $37,910.92 ($27,063.76 for 2 ESBL+ infections). Rectal swabs would in theory have prevented 2 admissions. Cost of swab and culture would be $62,158.86. 50% of the swabs would need further testing to identify ESBL+ organism, for an additional cost of $53,365.50.
 
 
 
 Given lower than expected urosepsis admission rates at our institution after TRUS PB, pre-procedure rectal swabs would not be cost effective, especially since some admissions may be unavoidable. The cost analysis is an underestimate as a visit some days prior to procedure would be scheduled and the staff resource utilization to collect the swab is not accounted for.
 
 
 
 All Authors: No reported disclosures.
