4.6 Review

Staphylococcus aureus peritonitis complicates peritoneal dialysis: Review of 245 consecutive cases

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.03180906

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peritonitis that is caused by Staphylococcus aureus is a serious complication in peritoneal dialysis (PD), but the clinical course of PD-related S. aureus peritonitis remains unclear. All of the S. aureus peritonitis in a dialysis unit from 1994 to 2005 were reviewed. During this period, 2065 episodes of peritonitis were recorded; 245 (11.9%) episodes in 152 patients were caused by S. aureus and 45 (18.4%) episodes were caused by methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Patients with a history of recent hospitalization had a higher risk for isolation of MRSA than the others (30.6 versus 14.2%; P = 0.004). The overall primary response rate was 87.8%; the complete cure rate was 74.3%. However, 21 (8.6%) episodes developed relapse and 59 (24.1%) developed repeat S. aureus peritonitis. Episodes that were caused by MRSA had a lower primary response rate (64.4 versus 93.0%; P < 0.001) and complete cure rate (60.0 versus 77.5%; P = 0.023) than the others. Episodes that were treated initially with vancomycin had better primary response rate than those that were treated with cefazolin (98.0 versus 85.2%; P = 0.001), but the complete cure rate was similar. Adjuvant rifampicin treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk for relapse or repeat S. aureus peritonitis than was treatment without rifampicin (21.4 versus 42.8%; P = 0.004). In contrast, initial antibiotic regimen (cefazolin versus vancomycin) and concomitant exit-site infection did not have any effect on the risk for relapse or repeat peritonitis. S. aureus peritonitis is a serious complication of PD. Recent hospitalization is a major risk factor of methicillin resistance in the bacterial isolate. Rifampicin is a valuable adjunct in preventing relapse and repeat S. aureus peritonitis after the index episode.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据