Efficacy of a non-vancomycin-based peritoneal dialysis peritonitis protocol

Evidence-based medicine: An update on treatments for peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis

Peritonitis continues to be a major complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), and adequate treatment is crucial for a favorable outcome. There is no consensus regarding the optimal therapeutic regimen, and few prospective controlled studies have been published. The objective of this manuscript is to review the results of PD peritonitis treatment reported in narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and proportional meta-analyses. Two narrative reviews, the only existing systematic review and its update published between 1991 and 2014 were included. In addition, we reported the results of a proportional meta-analysis published by our group. Results from systematic reviews of randomized control trials (RCT) and quasi-RCT were not able to identify any optimal antimicrobial treatment, but glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure than a first generation cephalosporin. Compared to urokinase, simultaneous catheter removal and replacement resulted in better outcomes. Continuous and intermittent IP antibiotic use had similar outcomes. Intraperitoneal antibiotics were superior to intravenous antibiotics in reducing treatment failure. In the proportional meta-analysis of RCTs and the case series, the resolution rate (86%) of ceftazidime plus glycopeptide as initial treatment was significantly higher than first generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycosides (66%) and glycopeptides plus aminoglycosides (75%). Other comparisons of regimens used for either initial treatment or treatment of gram-positive rods or gram-negative rods did not show statistically significant differences. The superiority of a combination of a glycopeptide and a third generation cephalosporin was also reported by a narrative review study published in 1991, which reported an 88% resolution rate.

Efficacy of antibiotic therapy for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: a proportional meta-analysis

Background

The choice of antimicrobials for initial treatment of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis is crucial for a favorable outcome. There is no consensus about the best therapy; few prospective controlled studies have been published, and the only published systematic reviews did not report superiority of any class of antimicrobials. The objective of this review was to analyze the results of PD peritonitis treatment in adult patients by employing a new methodology, the proportional meta-analysis.

Methods

A review of the literature was conducted. There was no language restriction. Studies were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS. The inclusion criteria were: (a) case series and RCTs with the number of reported patients in each study greater than five, (b) use of any antibiotic therapy for initial treatment (e.g., cefazolin plus gentamicin or vancomycin plus gentamicin), for Gram-positive (e.g., vancomycin or a first generation cephalosporin), or for Gram-negative rods (e.g., gentamicin, ceftazidime, and fluoroquinolone), (c) patients with PD-related peritonitis, and (d) studies specifying the rates of resolution. A proportional meta-analysis was performed on outcomes using a random-effects model, and the pooled resolution rates were calculated.

Results

A total of 64 studies (32 for initial treatment and negative culture, 28 reporting treatment for Gram-positive rods and 24 reporting treatment for Gram-negative rods) and 21 RCTs met all inclusion criteria (14 for initial treatment and negative culture, 8 reporting treatment for Gram-positive rods and 8 reporting treatment for Gram-negative rods). The pooled resolution rate of ceftazidime plus glycopeptide as initial treatment (pooled proportion = 86% [95% CI 0.82–0.89]) was significantly higher than first generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycosides (pooled proportion = 66% [95% CI 0.57–0.75]) and significantly higher than glycopeptides plus aminoglycosides (pooled proportion = 75% [95% CI 0.69–0.80]. Other comparisons of regimens used for either initial treatment, treatment for Gram-positive rods or Gram-negative rods did not show statistically significant differences.

Conclusion

We showed that the association of a glycopeptide plus ceftazidime is superior to other regimens for initial treatment of PD peritonitis. This result should be carefully analyzed and does not exclude the necessity of monitoring the local microbiologic profile in each dialysis center to choice the initial therapeutic protocol.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-445) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Positive dialysate gram stain predicts outcome of empirical antibiotic therapy for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

Empirical antibiotic treatment with a first-generation cephalosporin plus gentamicin for peritoneal dialysis (PD)-associated peritonitis before culture results are available is still wildly used due to concerns regarding the economic burden and antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. The aim of this study is to define the factors that predict the outcome of empirical antibiotic therapy for PD peritonitis. This is a retrospective study of patients with PD peritonitis over the last 10 years. Patients who had been treated empirically with intermittent intraperitoneal first-generation cephalosporin and gentamicin were enrolled. Eighty-three patients had 192 episodes of PD peritonitis. In total, 159 peritonitis episodes were treated with intraperitoneal antibiotics combined with first-generation cephalosporin and gentamicin empirically. Twenty-five peritonitis episodes had no pathogens identified by dialysate culture. In total, 122 (122/159, 76.7%) PD peritonitis episodes were caused by bacteria, 9 (9/159, 5.7%) were fungal, and 3 (3/159, 1.9%) were Mycobacterium tuberculosis peritonitis. Sixty-four (64/159, 40.3%) peritonitis episodes were successfully cured by empirical intraperitoneal antibiotic therapy. Empirical antibiotic treatment failed in 95 episodes (95/159, 59.7%). The positive rates of dialysate Gram stain in the empirical treatment success and failure groups were 15.6% and 40.0%, respectively (P = 0.001). The odds ratio of empirical treatment failure with a positive bacteria Gram stain was 3.60 (95% CI: 1.65-7.82). The dialysate Gram staining result was a significant predictor of empirical antibiotics treatment outcome for PD-associated peritonitis. Therefore, using an empirical antibiotic regimen for patients with an initial positive bacterial Gram stain of the dialysate should be introduced cautiously.

Comparison of biochemical, haematological and volume parameters in two treatment schedules of nocturnal home haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

The biochemical, haemodynamic, clinical and nutritional benefits of nocturnal home haemodialysis (NHHD) compared with 4 h, three times per week conventional haemodialysis are well known and accrue by increasing dialysis time and frequency either for 8 h alternate night per week (NHHD3.5) or for 8 h six nights per week (NHHD6). However, there are little data comparing NHHD3.5 with NHHD6.

METHOD AND RESULTS

Thirteen patients on NHHD6 were compared with 21 patients on NHHD3.5, all with similar demographic profiles. Pre- and post-dialysis phosphate (PO4) control was ideal between the groups. However, all NHHD6 needed PO4 supplementation compared with 4/21 (19%) NHHD3.5. In the present study, 8/21 (38%) NHHD3.5 needed PO4 binders whereas none was required with NHHD6. The pre-haemoglobin (Hb) 122.8 g/L (NHHD6) versus 124.9 g/L (NHHD3.5) and the pre-albumin 38.31 g/L (NHHD6) versus 37.71 g/L (NHHD3.5) were not significantly different. NHHD6 had significantly lower pre-blood urea and creatinine (10.16 vs 19.54 mmol/L and 437.0 vs 812.3 micromol/L, respectively). Less interdialytic urea and creatinine fluctuation were also noted in NHHD6. Of major significance was the significantly lower ultra filtration rate and intradialytic weight gains (mean +/- SEM) of NHHD6 (249 +/- 76 mL/h and 2.0 +/- 0.65 kg) versus NHHD3.5 (425 +/- 168 mL/h and 2.9 +/- 1.2 kg).

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that NHHD6 offers the optimum biochemical, volume and clinical outcome, but NHHD3.5 has additional appeal to providers seeking home-based therapy cost advantages and consumable expenditure control. A flexible dialysis programme should offer all the time and frequency options of NHHD but in particular, should support NHHD at a frequency sympathetic to the clinical rehabilitation and lifestyle aspirations of individual patients.