Download PDF
Rofo 2021; 193(07): 763-777
DOI: 10.1055/a-1406-8477
Consensus

mpMRT der Prostata (MR-Prostatografie): Aktualisierte Empfehlungen der DRG und des BDR zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Tobias Franiel
1   Institut für diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Deutschland
,
Patrick Asbach
2   Klinik für Radiologie, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Deutschland
,
Dirk Beyersdorff
3   Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Dirk Blondin
4   Klinik für Radiologie, Gefäßradiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Städtische Kliniken Mönchengladbach GmbH Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Rheydt, Mönchengladbach, Germany
5   Klinik für Radiologie, Gefäßradiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Städtische Kliniken Mönchengladbach, Germany
,
Sascha Kaufmann
6   Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Siloah St. Trudpert Klinikum, Pforzheim, Deutschland
,
Ullrich Gerd Mueller-Lisse 
7   Klinik und Poliklinik für Radiologie, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Deutschland
,
Michael Quentin
8   Centrum für Diagnostik und Therapie GmbH, Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum CDT Strahleninstitut GmbH, Köln, Germany
,
Stefan Rödel
9   Radiologische Klinik, Städtisches Klinikum Dresden, Germany
,
Matthias Röthke
10   Conradia Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Conradia Hamburg MVZ GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
,
Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
11   Radiologie, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany
,
Lars Schimmöller 
12   Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Vorstand der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft e. V. (DRG)
,
Vorstand des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Radiologen (BDR)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die AG Uroradiologie und Urogenitaldiagnostik der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft hat die Empfehlungen zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung der multiparametrischen MRT der Prostata im Konsensusverfahren und in Abstimmung mit den Vorständen der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft und des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Radiologen überarbeitet und aktualisiert. Diese aktualisierten Empfehlungen definieren die in der deutschen S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom referenzierten „geltenden Qualitätsstandards“ und gehen detailliert auf die Themen 1. Anamnestische Angaben, 2. Untersuchungsterminierung und -vorbereitung, 3. Untersuchungsprotokoll und 4. MRT- (in-bore) -Biopsie ein.

Kernaussagen:

  • Die Empfehlungen zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung der multiparametrischen MRT der Prostata wurden von der AG Uroradiologie und Urogenitaldiagnostik der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft in Abstimmung mit den Vorständen der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft und des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Radiologen überarbeitet und aktualisiert.

  • Es werden detailiert Empfehlungen zu 1. Anamnestische Angaben, 2. Untersuchungsterminierung und -vorbereitung, 3. Untersuchungsprotokoll und 4. MRT-(in-bore)-Biopsie gegeben.

  • Diese Empfehlungen definieren die in der S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom referenzierten „geltenden Qualitätsstandards“.

Zitierweise

  • Franiel T, Asbach P, Beyersdorff D et al. mpMRI of the Prostate (MR-Prostatography): Updated Recommendations of the DRG and BDR on Patient Preparation and Examination Protocol. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 763 – 777

Key words

prostate - MR-imaging - genital/reproductive - MR-diffusion/perfusion - technical aspects

Ergänzendes Material/Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 16 February 2021

Accepted: 04 March 2021

Article published online:
18 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie. Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms Version 5.1. 2019
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D. et al The Value of PSA Density in Combination with PI-RADS for the Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Prediction. J Urol 2017; 198: 575-582
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK. et al Can Radiologic Staging With Multiparametric MRI Enhance the Accuracy of the Partin Tables in Predicting Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer?. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 87-95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV. et al Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population. Cancer 2017; 123: 1941-1948
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C. et al Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer-Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 888-896
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Stonier T, Simson N, Shah T. et al The "Is mpMRI Enough" or IMRIE Study: A Multicentre Evaluation of Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared with Biopsy. Eur Urol Focus 2020;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Robert Koch Institut (RKI) und Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland (GEKID). Krebs in Deutschland für 2013/14. Berlin: 2017
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Zeegers MP, Jellema A, Ostrer H. Empiric risk of prostate carcinoma for relatives of patients with prostate carcinoma: a meta – analysis. Cancer 2003; 97: 1894-1903
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Mueller-Lisse UG, Swanson MG, Vigneron DB. et al Time-dependent effects of hormone-deprivation therapy on prostate metabolism as detected by combined magnetic resonance imaging and 3D magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46: 49-57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Truong H, Logan J, Turkbey B. et al MRI characterization of the dynamic effects of 5alpha-reductase inhibitors on prostate zonal volumes. Can J Urol 2013; 20: 7002-7007
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Franiel T, Ludemann L, Taupitz M. et al MRI before and after external beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer: the feasibility of monitoring of radiation-induced tissue changes using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 241-245
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B. et al Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol 2008; 43: 481-487
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR Guidelines on Contrast Agents 10.0. 2018
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Europäische Arzneimittelagentur (EMA) und Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM). Gadolinium-haltige Kontrastmittel: Aktualisierte Empfehlungen nach Bewertung von Gadoliniumablagerungen im Gehirn und anderen Geweben 2018.
    PubMed
  • 15 Tsai LL, Grant AK, Mortele KJ. et al A Practical Guide to MR Imaging Safety: What Radiologists Need to Know. Radiographics 2015; 35: 1722-1737
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Attenberger UI, Rathmann N, Sertdemir M. et al Small Field-of-view single-shot EPI-DWI of the prostate: Evaluation of spatially-tailored two-dimensional radiofrequency excitation pulses. Z Med Phys 2016; 26: 168-176
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Czarniecki M, Caglic I, Grist JT. et al Role of PROPELLER-DWI of the prostate in reducing distortion and artefact from total hip replacement metalwork. Eur J Radiol 2018; 102: 213-219
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ariyanayagam T, Malcolm PN, Toms AP. Advances in Metal Artifact Reduction Techniques for Periprosthetic Soft Tissue Imaging. Semin Musculoskel R 2015; 19: 328-334
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Barrett T, Vargas H, Akin O. et al Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 2012; 263: 751-757
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 European Society of Urogenital Radioloy, American College of Radiology. Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System Version 2.1. 2019
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Engels RRM, Israel B, Padhani AR. et al Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 1: Acquisition. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 457-468
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Slough RA, Caglic I, Hansen NL. et al Effect of hyoscine butylbromide on prostate multiparametric MRI anatomical and functional image quality. Clin Radiol 2018; 73: 216 e219-216 e214
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Ullrich T, Quentin M, Schmaltz AK. et al Hyoscine butylbromide significantly decreases motion artefacts and allows better delineation of anatomic structures in mp-MRI of the prostate. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Radbruch A. et al Prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla: Is administration of hyoscine-N-butyl-bromide mandatory?. World J Radiol 2013; 5: 259-263
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Wagner M, Rief M, Busch J. et al Effect of butylscopolamine on image quality in MRI of the prostate. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 460-464
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Caglic I, Hansen NL, Slough RA. et al Evaluating the effect of rectal distension on prostate multiparametric MRI image quality. Eur J Radiol 2017; 90: 174-180
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Lim C, Quon J, McInnes M. et al Does a cleansing enema improve image quality of 3T surface coil multiparametric prostate MRI?. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42: 689-697
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Medved M, Sammet S, Yousuf A. et al MR imaging of the prostate and adjacent anatomic structures before, during, and after ejaculation: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Radiology 2014; 271: 452-460
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Kabakus IM, Borofsky S, Mertan FV. et al Does Abstinence From Ejaculation Before Prostate MRI Improve Evaluation of the Seminal Vesicles?. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 1205-1209
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Barrett T, Tanner J, Gill AB. et al The longitudinal effect of ejaculation on seminal vesicle fluid volume and whole-prostate ADC as measured on prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 5236-5243
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Shin T, Kaji Y, Shukuya T. et al Significant changes of T2 value in the peripheral zone and seminal vesicles after ejaculation. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 1009-1015
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Yuruk E, Pastuszak AW, Suggs 3rd JM. et al The association between seminal vesicle size and duration of abstinence from ejaculation. Andrologia 2017; 49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Mueller-Lisse UG, Mueller-Lisse UL, Zamecnik P. et al [Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate]. Radiologe 2011; 51: 205-214
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Klingebiel M, Ullrich T, Quentin M. et al Advanced diffusion weighted imaging of the prostate: Comparison of readout-segmented multi-shot, parallel-transmit and single-shot echo-planar imaging. Eur J Radiol 2020; 130: 109161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Stocker D, Manoliu A, Becker AS. et al Image Quality and Geometric Distortion of Modern Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Sequences in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate. Invest Radiol 2018; 53: 200-206
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Thierfelder KM, Scherr MK, Notohamiprodjo M. et al Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate: advantages of Zoomed EPI with parallel-transmit-accelerated 2D-selective excitation imaging. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 3233-3241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Quentin M, Schimmoller L, Arsov C. et al Increased signal intensity of prostate lesions on high b-value diffusion-weighted images as a predictive sign of malignancy. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 209-213
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T. et al Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011; 259: 775-784
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Decker G, Murtz P, Gieseke J. et al Intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the prostate: dynamic ADC monitoring by DWI at 3.0 T. Radiother Oncol 2014; 113: 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Jie C, Rongbo L, Ping T. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 1929-1941
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Zhang ZX, Yang J, Zhang CZ. et al The value of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen levels: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 2014; 21: 578-589
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C. et al MR-sequences for prostate cancer diagnostics: validation based on the PI-RADS scoring system and targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 2582-2589
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Wu LM, Xu JR, Ye YQ. et al The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 103-110
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Othman AE, Falkner F, Weiss J. et al Effect of Temporal Resolution on Diagnostic Performance of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 290-296
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Othman AE, Falkner F, Martirosian P. et al Optimized Fast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate: Effect of Sampling Duration on Pharmacokinetic Parameters. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 106-112
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Ullrich T, Quentin M, Arsov C. et al Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MR Imaging in Peripheral Lesions in PI-RADS-4 Patients. Rofo 2020; 192: 441-447
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Sun C, Chatterjee A, Yousuf A. et al Comparison of T2-Weighted Imaging, DWI, and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Calculation of Prostate Cancer Index Lesion Volume: Correlation With Whole-Mount Pathology. Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212: 351-356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Barret E, Turkbey B, Puech P. et al Update on the ICUD-SIU consultation on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in localised prostate cancer. World J Urol 2019; 37: 429-436
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor M. et al A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 2020; ; online ahead of prin
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 O'Donohoe RL, Dunne RM, Kimbrell V. et al Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44: 1062-1069
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Baur AD, Daqqaq T, Wagner M. et al T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 1075-1084
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R. et al Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 2015; 22: 467-474
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC. et al Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39: 1443-1448
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Mueller-Lisse UG, Scherr MK. Proton MR spectroscopy of the prostate. Eur J Radiol 2007; 63: 351-360
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U. et al Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 575-590
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Polanec SH, Lazar M, Wengert GJ. et al 3D T2-weighted imaging to shorten multiparametric prostate MRI protocols. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 1634-1641
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Caglic I, Povalej BrzanP, Warren AY. et al Defining the incremental value of 3D T2-weighted imaging in the assessment of prostate cancer extracapsular extension. Eur Radiol 2019; 29: 5488-5497
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Ding K, Yao Y, Gao Y. et al Diagnostic evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer: Detection in a biopsy population. Eur J Radiol 2019; 118: 138-146
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Roethke MC, Kuder TA, Kuru TH. et al Evaluation of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Versus Standard Diffusion Imaging for Detection and Grading of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer. Invest Radiol 2015; 50: 483-489
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Mai J, Abubrig M, Lehmann T. et al T2 Mapping in Prostate Cancer. Investigative Radiology 2019; 54: 146-152
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Kaufmann S, Russo GI, Bamberg F. et al Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy. World J Urol 2018; 36: 761-768
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH. et al Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive-registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate. Urology 2016; 92: 75-79
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Schimmoller L, Blondin D, Arsov C. et al MRI-Guided In-Bore Biopsy: Differences Between Prostate Cancer Detection and Localization in Primary and Secondary Biopsy Settings. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206: 92-99
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Kaufmann S, Kruck S, Kramer U. et al Direct comparison of targeted MRI-guided biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in patients with previous negative prostate biopsies. Urol Int 2015; 94: 319-325
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D. et al Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 713-720
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Durmus T, Reichelt U, Huppertz A. et al MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate: correlation between the cancer detection rate and the number of previous negative TRUS biopsies. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013; 19: 411-417
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Rastinehad AR, Durand M. A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion guided prostate biopsy devices: too many uncontrolled variables. BJU Int 2016; 117: 548-549
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Patel IJ, Rahim S, Davidson JC. et al Society of Interventional Radiology Consensus Guidelines for the Periprocedural Management of Thrombotic and Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Image-Guided Interventions-Part II: Recommendations: Endorsed by the Canadian Association for Interventional Radiology and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019; 30: 1168-1184 e1161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Chee YL, Crawford JC, Watson HG. et al Guidelines on the assessment of bleeding risk prior to surgery or invasive procedures. British Committee for Standards in Haematology. Br J Haematol 2008; 140: 496-504
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Burger W, Chemnitius JM, Kneissl GD. et al Low-dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention – cardiovascular risks after its perioperative withdrawal versus bleeding risks with its continuation – review and meta-analysis. J Intern Med 2005; 257: 399-414
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 Poldermans D, Bax JJ, Boersma E. et al Guidelines for pre-operative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery: the Task Force for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Perioperative Cardiac Management in Non-cardiac Surgery of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27: 92-137
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Patel IJ, Davidson JC, Nikolic B. et al Addendum of newer anticoagulants to the SIR consensus guideline. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24: 641-645
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Bootsma AM, Laguna Pes MP, Geerlings SE. et al Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic procedures: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1270-1286
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI. et al Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186: 1830-1834
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar