The recommendations from the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis for Peritonitis Treatment: a single-center historical comparison
Silva, M.M.; Pecoits-Filho, R.; Rocha, C.S.; Stinghen, Aéa.E.M.; Pachaly, M.A.; Nascimento, M.M.; Campos, R.P.; Sauthier, S.; Fuerbringer, R.; Riella, M.C.
Advances in peritoneal dialysis. Conference on Peritoneal Dialysis 20: 74-77
2004
ISSN/ISBN: 1197-8554 PMID: 15384800 Document Number: 584020
The antibiotic treatment currently recommended by the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) for peritonitis consists of a combination of a first- and a third-generation cephalosporin. The schedule formerly recommended combined a first-generation cephalosporin and an aminoglycoside. No comparison between the treatment schedules has been performed until now. We compared the effectiveness of these two regimens in peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis at our center. From January 1999 to April 2000, we followed 107 patients in our PD clinic (period 1: 47% men; 32% with diabetes; mean age: 52 +/- 13 years). We followed a similar number of patients from January 2002 to July 2003 (period 2: 109 patients; 54% men; 51% with diabetes; mean age: 56 +/- 18 years). In each period, diagnosis and treatment of peritonitis were based on the recommendations of the ISPD as earlier described. Negative culture rates were similar in period 1 and period 2 (32% vs. 30%). In both study groups, the bacteria that most commonly caused peritonitis were Staphylococcus epidermidis (period 1: 41%; period 2: 39%) and S. aureus (period 1: 27%; period 2: 18%). Gram-positive infections occurred in 59% of patients during period 1 and in 57% during period 2. Gram-negative infections occurred in 16% of patients during period 1 and in 18% during period 2. We observed no significant difference in the peritonitis cure rate from period 1 to period 2 (78% vs. 83%; chi-square: 0.98; p = 0.3), but changes in the primary antibiotic schedule were necessary in 4 patients in period 1 as compared with 1 patient in period 2. The rates of catheter removal were not significantly different during the two periods (period 1: 14%; period 2: 5%; chi-square: 2.5; p = 0.11). Mortality was also not significantly different during the two periods (period 1: 7%; period 2: 5%; chi-square: 0.23; p = 0.62). The two antibiotic schedules were equally effective in the treatment of peritonitis. Cost-effectiveness, impact on residual renal function, and potential development of bacterial resistance must be considered when selecting the antibiotic schedule for peritonitis treatment.