METHOD: s. A prospective cohort observational study was performed on patients who underwent prostate biopsy under LA. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used during the procedure. International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile dysfunction (IIEF) were assessed before the procedure and in 14 days after the procedure. Complication for each procedure was recorded.
RESULT: A total of 128 patients with 64 patients for each group underwent prostate biopsy by TP and TR under LA. TP targeted biopsy group had comparable pain scores to those who underwent the procedure using the TR routes. The median pain score for the TP group was 2 and TR was 3, (IQR=2, range 0-10 for both groups)with no significant pain difference between both groups (P=0.48). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in urinary function(p=0.68) and sexual function (p=0.19) between the two groups post-procedure. Both groups have similar rates of complications, with no significant difference observed. Urinary tract infection incidents that did occur were rare and did not significantly differ between the groups (p=0.21). None of the patients experienced sepsis postoperatively. AUR was reported in both groups, slightly higher with 9.4%(N=6) in the TP group and 6.3%(N=4) in the TR group however no significant difference(p=0.112) was noted. Haematuria is common in both groups with TP (66%) and TR (59%) but self-limiting with Clavien-Dindo grade I without significant difference (p=0.589).
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that both Transperineal and transrectal approaches have similar tolerability with no significant difference in functional outcome or complications. Further studies are mandatory to verify our results.
METHODS: This retrospective study was performed on all KTRs ≥18 years of age at our center from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015, who were prescribed diltiazem as tacrolimus-sparing agent. Blood tacrolimus trough level (TacC0) and other relevant clinical data for 70 eligible KTRs were reviewed.
RESULTS: The dose of 1 mg tacrolimus resulted in a median TacC0 of 0.83 ± 0.52 ng/mL. With the introduction of a 90-mg/d dose diltiazem, there was a significant TacC0 increase to 1.39 ± 1.31 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus (P < .01). A further 90-mg increase in diltiazem to 180 mg/d resulted in a further increase of TacC0 to 1.66 ± 2.58 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus (P = .01). After this, despite a progressive increment of every 90-mg/d dose diltiazem to 270 mg/d and 360 mg/d, there was no further increment in TacC0 (1.44 ± 1.15 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus and 1.24 ± 0.94 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus, respectively [P < .01]). Addition of 180 mg/d diltiazem reduced the required tacrolimus dose to 4 mg/d, resulting in a cost-savings of USD 2045.92 per year (per patient) at our center. Adverse effects reported within 3 months of diltiazem introduction were bradycardia (1.4%) and postural hypotension (1.4%), which resolved after diltiazem dose reduction.
CONCLUSION: Coadministration of tacrolimus and diltiazem in KTRs appeared to be safe and resulted in a TacC0 increment until reaching a 180-mg/d total diltiazem dose, at which point it began to decrease. This approach will result in a marked savings in immunosuppression costs among KTRs in Malaysia.