Abstract
In 2016, the International Society of Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) published guidelines that focus on the importance of both prevention and treatment of peritonitis. For once more, the need for annual reporting of peritonitis rates and recording of peritonitis and exit-site infections, isolated microorganism and antimicrobial susceptibilities as a central component of a quality improvement program is highlighted. Data on new antibiotic regimens, techniques for microorganism isolation and peritoneal dialysis solutions are included. Training of both peritoneal dialysis nurses and patients seems to be crucial, while the modifiable risk factors for peritonitis seem to be of great interest. In this article, we record the changes in the last ISPD (2016) guidelines compared to the previous ones published in 2010.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Peritonitis remains one of the most serious and life-threatening complications of peritoneal dialysis (PD). It is closely related to loss of ultrafiltration and permanent peritoneal membrane damage, as well as to the necessity of catheter removal leading thus to technique failure and conversion to hemodialysis.
The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis has been publishing guidelines on PD-related infections since 1983. In 2016, ISPD published the “ISPD peritonitis recommendations: 2016 update on prevention and treatment” [1]. The 2005 guidelines focused on prevention [2], while in the 2010 guidelines treatment was covered for the first time in a separate ISPD position statement [3]. The latest guidelines highlight the importance of both prevention and treatment as the title of the statement reveal. The authors of the present article, as have already done in the past [4], aim to compare the recent guidelines to the previous ones published in 2005 and in 2010 in order to record the changes and any new guidelines introduced.
Peritonitis rate
In the present guidelines “reporting of peritonitis” constitutes a separate section similarly to the 2010 guidelines. For once more, the need for annual reporting of peritonitis rates and recording of peritonitis and exit-site infections, isolated microorganism and antimicrobial susceptibilities as a central component of a quality improvement program is highlighted. Several methods have been used for reporting peritonitis rates leading to a certain degree of confusion. Therefore, for practical reasons, the guidelines recommend a specific way of reporting rates, more precisely number of episodes per year, instead of number of patient-month per episode or percentage of peritonitis-free patients that have been also used in the past. Episodes of relapsing peritonitis should be counted as one episode. The Committee gives credit to centers with very low peritonitis rates, as low as 0.18–0.20 episodes per year [5], and incites centers to achieve lower peritonitis rates (0.5 episodes per year of risk instead of 0.67 proposed in the 2010 guidelines). Another addition, based on recent publications, is the recommendation for reporting peritonitis episodes that have occurred after the placement of the catheter and before the initiation of PD, separately.
Prevention of peritonitis
The current guidelines are trying to underline the importance of peritonitis prevention by dedicating a significant part similarly to the 2005 guidelines. Prevention of peritonitis and the exit-site and tunnel infections’ prevention are covered in separate guidelines [6]. The placement of the catheter constitutes the important first step for the initiation of the method. In the 2005 guidelines, prophylactic use of antibiotics prior to the catheter insertion was suggested. In the present guidelines, the Committee supports this practice based on the results of a systematic review that included four randomized trials [7]. On the other hand, although vancomycin seems to be more effective than first-generation cephalosporins, the Committee does not support its routine use, since vancomycin resistance remains a problem of great concern. Finally, the Committee deals with the handling of nasal colonization of Staphylococcus aureus, but is unable to provide a clear suggestion. Regarding the catheter insertion technique, there are not enough data to support laparoscopic or peritoneoscopic catheter insertion over the standard laparotomy procedure. Furthermore, there is no clear benefit of buried catheter techniques.
Regarding the catheter design, still the Committee cannot provide safe guidelines. It seems that there is no difference in peritonitis rate between straight and coiled catheters or between swan-neck and traditional Tenckhoff catheters [8]. Even the use of double-cuffed catheters instead of single-cuffed ones remains controversial [9], and there are also not enough data to support the downward direction of the tunnel [10]. Regarding the connection methods, the Committee recommends, as in the 2005 guidelines, the use of “flush before fill” disconnection systems for continuous ambulatory PD. Two systematic reviews support this disconnection system [11], while the results of three systematic reviews regarding the use of the double bag instead of the Y system are conflicting [11]. Finally, the Committee has not enough data on the difference of peritonitis rate between continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and machine-assisted automated PD.
Although ISPD has already published separate recommendations for PD training, this subject is covered in the present guidelines, as well. The role of the PD training nurses is crucial and remains central; so much effort must be spared on their education and on the update of their skills [12]. The home visit is still supported, even though a retrospective study did not manage to prove its significance [13]. The use of specific protocols, as well as the further testing of each patient as soon as his/her education has been completed, is suggested. Finally, retraining seems to be of great importance and a table of the indications for retraining is included. Two uncontrolled [14] studies support its use [15], while the results of the only randomized controlled trial on the field have not been yet published [16]. Moreover, the Committee cannot suggest the use of specific dialysis solutions for prevention of peritonitis because the results of randomized controlled studies [17] and a subsequent meta-analysis are controversial [18].
The exit-site care is a new chapter on the 2016 ISPD guidelines of great importance because exit-site infection is closely related to peritonitis [19]. The Committee suggests the daily topical use of antibiotics in order to prevent exit-site infections and peritonitis. Hand hygiene remains important, the use of face-mask is considered optional and the use of povidone-iodine does not seem to be superior to simple soap and water use [20]. Mupirocin and gentamicin are the most studied topical antibiotics. The daily use of mupirocin seems to reduce S. aureus exit-site infection and peritonitis significantly [21], is cost-effective [22] and in conjunction with sodium hypochlorite solution can be more drastic in reducing peritonitis rate [23], but the issue of mupirocin resistance deserves more research [24]. Intranasal prophylactic use of mupirocin although effective [25] is not universally proposed because it seems that is not well tolerated by patients [26]. The use of prophylactic agents against S. aureus has been related to increased incidence of exit-site infections related to Pseudomonas species. On the other hand, gentamycin cream or ointment is considered as effective as mupirocin in exit-site infection prevention, but in observational studies its use has been related to increased infection rate by Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas species, and probably non-tuberculous mycobacteria [27]. Gentamicin should be considered as an alternative to mupirocin, but still gentamicin resistance remains an issue. Antibacterial honey [28], topical triple ointment [29], ciprofloxacin otologic solution and oral rifampicin have been successfully tested but cannot be integrated in a routine exit-site care. In particular, rifampicin, due to high rates of resistance occurrence, adverse effects and interactions with other drugs, must be used with caution.
In the current guidelines, a comment is made regarding invasive interventional procedures, such as colonoscopy and gynecologic procedures that have been related to increased peritonitis incidence. The Committee supports the prophylactic use of antibiotics prior to those procedures [30]. In the 2005 guidelines, ampicillin with or without metronidazole and removal of fluid from the abdomen prior to the procedure were suggested. In the present guidelines, data are considered to be inconclusive in order the Committee to suggest the implementation of those methods and each PD center is advised to choose the prophylactic antibiotics of its preference. A further comment about constipation and enteritis that remain important problems in preventing peritonitis is included in the guidelines [31], while hypokalemia is introduced as a new parameter related to enteric peritonitis [32]. Finally, lactulose use is mentioned as a reducing peritonitis agent although its use is supported only by observational data [33].
The Committee in the 2016 guidelines included a table with the modifiable risk factors for peritonitis that are social or environmental, medical, dialysis related and infection related. Gynecological and dental procedures are considered risk factors for peritonitis, and the Committee suggests, especially in the latter case, the prophylactic use of ampicillin, even as a single dose [34]. For wet contamination on the other hand, no standard protocol is suggested, although prophylactic antibiotics seem to be necessary. Hypoalbuminemia, depression, loss of motivation [35], domestic animals presence [36, 37] and vitamin D deficiency [38, 39] are considered to be related to peritonitis, but more studies are needed to provide safe data on their role and the way that PD centers must deal with them.
In the current guidelines, a new concept is introduced, the continuous quality improvement program [40]. It is a program that involves a multidisciplinary team that reviews each centers performance in a regular basis identifying problems and developing solutions, including patients’ retraining, catheter removal and reinsertion. Finally, antifungal prophylaxis for patients receiving antibiotics that was discussed in the 2005 guidelines and very briefly mentioned in the subsequent 2010 guidelines is now in the 2016 guidelines supported as an effective method for secondary prevention of peritonitis. Two randomized controlled trials and one systematic review proved the efficacy of both oral nystatin and fluconazole [7], but problems regarding the availability of nystatin and interactions with other drugs and resistance for fluconazole must be taken into account.
Initial presentation and management of peritonitis
Clinical presentation and diagnosis of peritonitis represent a chapter in the 2016 ISPD guidelines that has very few changes compared to the 2010 guidelines. There is an addition of calcium channel blockers in the differential diagnosis of cloudy effluent. Another important section of the guidelines is the specimen processing and identification of causative organism. In the new version of the guidelines, the Committee suggests an even lower acceptable rate of culture-negative peritonitis episodes (less than 15% compared to the less than 20% in 2010) and describes how data support the effectiveness of lysis techniques beyond the blood-culture bottle and the centrifuging technique [41]. Although some new techniques for the early diagnosis of peritonitis have been described in 2010 and 2016 guidelines, their use cannot be described as superior to the ones that are already being widely used. Finally, when it comes to the empiric antibiotic selection, vancomycin or a first-generation cephalosporin plus a third-generation cephalosporin or an aminoglycoside remains the recommended combination in order to cover for both gram-positive and gram-negative organisms, although a recently published proportional meta-analysis supports the combination of vancomycin or teicoplanin with ceftazidime as more effective than other combinations [42].
Dosing of antibiotics is another chapter of great interest in the 2016 guidelines. The Committee continuously supports the intraperitoneal (IP) route for the administration of antibiotics instead of the intravenous (IV) route, while specific recommendations for the IP administration of aminoglycosides, vancomycin and cephalosporin are provided. The guidelines include an updated table with the IP antibiotic dosing with some corrections from the previous guidelines [14] and a new table with the systemic (IV) antibiotic dosing. Of interest is the recommendation that vancomycin should preferably be administered intermittently (in one exchange every 5–7 days) and not continuously (in every exchange). Moreover, the Committee confirms the lack of data regarding the stability of various new antibiotics and the possible effect of new peritoneal dialysis solutions, such as icodextrin. Special consideration is given in the administration of antibiotics in patients under automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), as rapid exchanges seem to interfere with the antibiotics concentration. Conversion to CAPD, longer exchange cycles and intermitted administration of vancomycin are recommended, but still more studies are needed to provide sufficient data. Only one retrospective single-center observational cohort study has been conducted on this issue that showed no significant difference between the two modalities [43].
The 2016 ISPD guidelines include a chapter with the adjunctive treatments to the typical antibiotic treatment in peritonitis. As in the past guidelines antifungal treatment, heparin and analgesics use, peritoneal lavage and use of IP urokinase are being mentioned. Regarding IP use of urokinase data do not seem to support its routine use, while the IP use of immunoglobulin mentioned in the past guidelines is omitted in the present ones. The Committee for the first time highlights the need of using hypertonic solutions or icodextrin [44] and short duration dwells in order to address the encountered problem of low ultrafiltration and hypervolemia during peritonitis episodes. Moreover, better glycemic control in diabetic patients and screening for signs of malnutrition due to increased protein loss as a result of inflammation and enhanced permeability of the peritoneum are being also suggested.
Subsequent management of peritonitis
Refractory, recurrent, relapsing and repeat peritonitis are four different types of peritonitis with different prognosis [45]. In the present guidelines, two new methods for early prediction of relapsing or refractory peritonitis are mentioned. The measurement of bacterial DNA fragments levels in the PD effluent 5 days before and upon the completion of the treatment [46] and the effluent white cell count and leukocyte strip test upon the completion of the treatment [47] seem to predict relapse or recurrent episodes of peritonitis. Their clinical utility, however, remains yet to be proven.
Gram-positive peritonitis
Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and especially S. epidermidis is a common cause of peritonitis. IP cephalosporins or vancomycin are considered effective antibiotic regimens for Staphylococcus peritonitis. Important problem that still has to be faced is methicillin resistance [48]. The Committee suggests continuous IP administration instead of intermittent in order to avoid the growth of resistant strains. As in the past guidelines, IP urokinase and oral rifampicin are proposed as a method for catheter salvage in cases of Staphylococcus peritonitis, although more studies are needed to support this approach.
Enterococcus and Streptococcus peritonitis are being separately discussed in the present guidelines and not as one entity as in 2010. More precisely, new data regarding the treatment of Enterococcus peritonitis have been derived from recent studies and modified the therapeutic protocols. IP vancomycin for 3 weeks is considered the first antibiotic choice when it comes to Enterococcus peritonitis, while first-generation cephalosporins should be avoided because of high prevalence of resistance [49]. In case of peritonitis with severe clinical presentation and high suspicion of Enterococcus origin, aminoglycosides should be added. In cases of vancomycin resistance, daptomycin is now considered the best antibiotic choice [50]. In streptococcal peritonitis, IP ampicillin is still the preferred regimen [51]. The species of Streptococcus seems to play an important role in the clinical outcome of peritonitis episodes. Streptococcus viridans is closely related to refractory episodes of peritonitis [52].
The ISPD in the 2016 guidelines focuses on the duration of the treatment for S. aureus peritonitis that should be 3 weeks with proper antibiotic regimen [53]. Based on recent data, first-generation cephalosporins are the first choice antibiotics, while IP vancomycin and teicoplanin or daptomycin can be used in case of methicillin resistance [54]. Rifampicin remains a useful adjuvant antibiotic, but its enzyme-inducing effect and the risk of development of resistant tuberculosis strains should be taken into consideration.
When it comes to peritonitis episodes due to Corynebacterium the 2016 ISPD guidelines do not include new data derived from new studies. However, because its rate has increased over the past few years and it is closely related to repeat and relapsing peritonitis, hospitalization, permanent catheter loss, transfer to hemodialysis and even death, the Committee suggests that it should be treated with proper antibiotics for 3 weeks as in S. aureus peritonitis.
Gram-negative peritonitis
Pseudomonas species usually cause severe peritonitis. Although the 2016 ISPD guidelines do not refer to new studies regarding this type of peritonitis, they suggest that the treatment should last for 3 weeks and include two differently acting antibiotics. The recommended antibiotic combination is IP gentamicin or oral ciprofloxacin with IP ceftazidime or cefepime, while carbapenems could be an option and moxifloxacin should be avoided. Finally, for once more the Committee suggests prompt catheter removal when Pseudomonas peritonitis and exit-site or tunnel infection coexist.
Other gram-negative peritonitis is a type of peritonitis that has increasingly caught the attention of experts over the past few years. In the present guidelines, the duration of the recommended treatment is 3 weeks, but full eradication remains a problem. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae are two mechanism of accumulated resistance to antibiotics that can influence the progress of each peritonitis episode [55]. The lower sensitivity of the organisms in a biofilm compared to that in laboratory is a problem related to the high prevalence of treatment failure. Finally, regarding Stenotrophomonas peritonitis, the Committee still considers that prior antibiotic treatment could be responsible and that treatment should last for 3–4 weeks including two different antibiotics. Besides trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole that should be initially included in the treatment, the Committee suggests the use of tigecycline, polymyxin B and for the first time colistin.
Peritonitis due to multiple organisms
Peritonitis due to multiple organisms is an entity related with severe clinical presentation and outcome when gram-negative organisms are present and with more favorable prognosis when only gram-positive organisms are present [56]. In the case of gram-negative organisms, surgical evaluation and special antibiotic treatment are required. As in the past guidelines, the Committee suggests the use of three antibiotics (metronidazole, IP vancomycin and IP aminoglucoside or IP ceftazidime) for at least 3 weeks. Similarly, 3-week duration of antibiotic treatment is now suggested for multiple gram-positive organisms as well.
Culture-negative peritonitis
Culture-negative peritonitis is an important problem that the peritoneal dialysis centers have to face and a special section is included in the present guidelines. It is suggested that if the culture remains negative after day 3, new effluent WBC count with differential should be obtained and in the case of ongoing inflammation special culture techniques should be used in order to isolate unusual microorganisms. Regarding antibiotic therapy, if peritonitis is resolving then initial therapy should be continued, but aminoglycosides could be discontinued in rapidly resolving (within the first 3 days) episodes.
Fungal peritonitis
Fungal peritonitis on the other hand requires prompt catheter removal and continuation of antifungal therapy for at least 2 weeks after the removal [57]. It is considered to be a severe type of peritonitis and according to recent data only one-third of the patients will be able to return to the method after the resolution of peritonitis [58]. As in the past guidelines, amphotericin B, flucytosine, fluconazole, echinocandins, posaconazole and voriconazole are described as effective antifungal treatment options. Still, the Committee highlights that the use of fluconazole could lead to azole resistance [59].
Tuberculous peritonitis
Mycobacteriae are still considered to be a rare cause of peritonitis. If tuberculous peritonitis is suspected, then Ziehl-Neelsen stain, a combination of conventional solid (Löwenstein–Jensen agar) and fluid medium cultures and mycobacterial DNA PCR in the effluent can be used in order to isolate mycobacteriae. Even the performance of laparoscopy with biopsy has been proposed for rapid diagnosis. The treatment protocol has not changed over time. Rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide and ofloxacin are the four drugs used. The Committee in the present guidelines has reduced the duration of pyrazinamide and ofloxacin treatment to two months instead of three months suggested in the past guidelines. Still pyridoxine, streptomycin and ethambutol are related to high rate of adverse effects. In particular, for ethambutol the committee suggests a dose of 15 mg/kg every 48 h or three times per week for up to two months [60]. New studies confirmed previous ones that the anti-tuberculous therapy could be carried through without removal of the catheter [61].
Non-tuberculous mycobacterial peritonitis
Non-tuberculous mycobacterial peritonitis is a type of peritonitis that was mentioned in the 2010 guidelines. During the past few years, many new studies have been published bringing to light important information [62,63,64]. It is now known that many of the non-tuberculous mycobacteria are rapidly grown and can be easily confused with gram-positive microorganisms [65]. On the other hand, gentamycin remains an important risk factor for the induction of this type of peritonitis. Still the Committee cannot suggest a proper antibiotic regimen, and catheter removal is very common.
Catheter removal and reinsertion
In the 2016b guidelines, the Committee included a table with the indications for catheter removal. Moreover, new data are included and the Committee gives information regarding the catheter reinsertion after a peritonitis episode, the proper duration of therapy before the reinsertion of the catheter, the indicated method for the reinsertion and patients’ prognosis after reinsertion of the catheter [66,67,68].
Conclusion
The 2016 guidelines provide new data on peritonitis, one of the major complications of PD. The focus is now balanced between both preventing and treating peritonitis. The studies conducted over the past 6 years have been studied and analyzed in order new data on microorganisms, their isolation and their handling to be exported and presented. Still the Committee recognizes the need for more studies so that new antibiotics, new techniques for microorganisms isolation and new PD solutions to be analyzed and incorporated in the everyday clinical practice.
References
Li PK, Szeto CC, Piraino B, de Arteaga J, Fan S, Figueiredo AE, Fish DN, Goffin E, Kim YL, Salzer W, Struijk DG, Teitelbaum I, Johnson DW (2016) ISPD peritonitis recommendations: 2016 update on prevention and treatment. Perit Dial Int 36(5):481–508. doi:10.3747/pdi.2016.00078
Piraino B, Bailie GR, Bernardini J, Boeschoten E, Gupta A, Holmes C, Kuijper EJ, Li PK, Lye WC, Mujais S, Paterson DL, Fontan MP, Ramos A, Schaefer F, Uttley L, Committee IAHA (2005) Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2005 update. Perit Dial Int 25(2):107–131
Li PK, Szeto CC, Piraino B, Bernardini J, Figueiredo AE, Gupta A, Johnson DW, Kuijper EJ, Lye WC, Salzer W, Schaefer F, Struijk DG, International Society for Peritoneal D (2010) Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2010 update. Perit Dial Int 30(4):393–423. doi:10.3747/pdi.2010.00049
Nikitidou O, Liakopoulos V, Kiparissi T, Divani M, Leivaditis K, Dombros N (2012) Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2010 update. What is new? Int Urol Nephrol 44(2):593–600. doi:10.1007/s11255-011-9995-9
Nishina M, Yanagi H, Kakuta T, Endoh M, Fukagawa M, Takagi A (2014) A 10-year retrospective cohort study on the risk factors for peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis: a single-center study at Tokai University Hospital. Clin Exp Nephrol 18(4):649–654. doi:10.1007/s10157-013-0872-y
Szeto CC, Li PK, Johnson DW, Bernardini J, Dong J, Figueiredo AE, Ito Y, Kazancioglu R, Moraes T, Van Esch S, Brown EA (2017) ISPD catheter-related infection recommendations: 2017 update. Perit Dial Int 37(2):141–154. doi:10.3747/pdi.2016.00120
Strippoli GF, Tong A, Johnson D, Schena FP, Craig JC (2004) Antimicrobial agents to prevent peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Kidney Dis 44(4):591–603
Hagen SM, Lafranca JA, IJzermans JN, Dor FJ (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complication rate and catheter survival. Kidney Int 85(4):920–932. doi:10.1038/ki.2013.365
Eklund B, Honkanen E, Kyllonen L, Salmela K, Kala AR (1997) Peritoneal dialysis access: prospective randomized comparison of single-cuff and double-cuff straight Tenckhoff catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant 12(12):2664–2666
Lo WK, Lui SL, Li FK, Choy BY, Lam MF, Tse KC, Yip TP, Ng FS, Lam SC, Chu WL, Cheng SW (2003) A prospective randomized study on three different peritoneal dialysis catheters. Perit Dial Int 23(Suppl 2):S127–131
Daly C, Cody JD, Khan I, Rabindranath KS, Vale L, Wallace SA (2014) Double bag or Y-set versus standard transfer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD003078. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003078.pub2
Figueiredo AE, Bernardini J, Bowes E, Hiramatsu M, Price V, Su C, Walker R, Brunier G (2016) A syllabus for teaching peritoneal dialysis to patients and caregivers. Perit Dial Int 36(6):592–605. doi:10.3747/pdi.2015.00277
Ellis EN, Blaszak C, Wright S, Van Lierop A (2012) Effectiveness of home visits to pediatric peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int 32(4):419–423. doi:10.3747/pdi.2010.00145
Liakopoulos V, Leivaditis K, Nikitidou O, Divani M, Antoniadi G, Dombros N (2012) Intermittent intraperitoneal dose of teicoplanin in peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 32(3):365–366. doi:10.3747/pdi.2011.00171
Bordin G, Casati M, Sicolo N, Zuccherato N, Eduati V (2007) Patient education in peritoneal dialysis: an observational study in Italy. J Ren Care 33(4):165–171
Ljungman S Prevention of peritonnitis in peritoneal dialysis (PEPS). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT01293799
Johnson DW, Brown FG, Clarke M, Boudville N, Elias TJ, Foo MW, Jones B, Kulkarni H, Langham R, Ranganathan D, Schollum J, Suranyi M, Tan SH, Voss D (2012) Effects of biocompatible versus standard fluid on peritoneal dialysis outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 23(6):1097–1107. doi:10.1681/ASN.2011121201
Cho Y, Johnson DW, Badve SV, Craig JC, Strippoli GF, Wiggins KJ (2013) The impact of neutral-pH peritoneal dialysates with reduced glucose degradation products on clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int 84(5):969–979. doi:10.1038/ki.2013.190
Lloyd A, Tangri N, Shafer LA, Rigatto C, Perl J, Komenda P, Sood MM (2013) The risk of peritonitis after an exit site infection: a time-matched, case-control study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28(7):1915–1921. doi:10.1093/ndt/gft002
Piraino B, Bernardini J, Brown E, Figueiredo A, Johnson DW, Lye WC, Price V, Ramalakshmi S, Szeto CC (2011) ISPD position statement on reducing the risks of peritoneal dialysis-related infections. Perit Dial Int 31(6):614–630. doi:10.3747/pdi.2011.00057
Davenport A (2012) Pan Thames Renal Audit Peritoneal Dialysis Group. Do topical antibiotics reduce exit site infection rates and peritonitis episodes in peritoneal dialysis patients? The Pan Thames Renal Audit. J Nephrol 25(5):819–824. doi:10.5301/jn.5000071
Wong C, Luk IW, Ip M, You JH (2014) Prevention of gram-positive infections in peritoneal dialysis patients in Hong Kong: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Infect Control 42(4):412–416. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2013.12.008
Chua AN, Goldstein SL, Bell D, Brewer ED (2009) Topical mupirocin/sodium hypochlorite reduces peritonitis and exit-site infection rates in children. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4(12):1939–1943. doi:10.2215/CJN.02770409
Al-Hwiesh AK, Abdul-Rahman IS, Al-Muhanna FA, Al-Sulaiman MH, Al-Jondebi MS, Divino-Filho JC (2013) Prevention of peritoneal dialysis catheter infections in Saudi peritoneal dialysis patients: the emergence of high-level mupirocin resistance. Int J Artif Organs 36(7):473–483. doi:10.5301/ijao.5000207
Aykut S, Caner C, Ozkan G, Ali C, Tugba A, Zeynep G, Taner C (2010) Mupirocin application at the exit site in peritoneal dialysis patients: five years of experience. Ren Fail 32(3):356–361. doi:10.3109/08860221003611703
Piraino B (2010) Mupirocin for preventing exit-site infection and peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Was it effective? Nephrol Dial Transplant 25(2):349–352. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfp615
Lo MW, Mak SK, Wong YY, Lo KC, Chan SF, Tong GM, Lo KY, Wong PN, Tse CW, Kam KM, Wong AK (2013) Atypical mycobacterial exit-site infection and peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients on prophylactic exit-site gentamicin cream. Perit Dial Int 33(3):267–272. doi:10.3747/pdi.2011.00184
Johnson DW, Badve SV, Pascoe EM, Beller E, Cass A, Clark C, de Zoysa J, Isbel NM, McTaggart S, Morrish AT, Playford EG, Scaria A, Snelling P, Vergara LA, Hawley CM, Group HSC (2014) Antibacterial honey for the prevention of peritoneal-dialysis-related infections (HONEYPOT): a randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis 14(1):23–30. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70258-5
McQuillan RF, Chiu E, Nessim S, Lok CE, Roscoe JM, Tam P, Jassal SV (2012) A randomized controlled trial comparing mupirocin and polysporin triple ointments in peritoneal dialysis patients: the MP3 Study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7(2):297–303. doi:10.2215/CJN.07970811
Wu HH, Li IJ, Weng CH, Lee CC, Chen YC, Chang MY, Fang JT, Hung CC, Yang CW, Tian YC (2013) Prophylactic antibiotics for endoscopy-associated peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71532. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071532
Su CY, Pei J, Lu XH, Tang W, Wang T (2012) Gastrointestinal symptoms predict peritonitis rates in CAPD patients. Clin Nephrol 77(4):267–274
Shu KH, Chang CS, Chuang YW, Chen CH, Cheng CH, Wu MJ, Yu TM (2009) Intestinal bacterial overgrowth in CAPD patients with hypokalaemia. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24(4):1289–1292. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn617
Afsar B, Elsurer R, Bilgic A, Sezer S, Ozdemir F (2010) Regular lactulose use is associated with lower peritonitis rates: an observational study. Perit Dial Int 30(2):243–246. doi:10.3747/pdi.2009.00035
Yildiz N, Turhan P, Bilgic O, Erguven M, Candan C (2010) Vaginal dialysate leakage in a child on peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 30(6):666–667. doi:10.3747/pdi.2009.00205
Paudel K, Namagondlu G, Samad N, McKitty K, Fan SL (2015) Lack of motivation: a new modifiable risk factor for peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis? J Ren Care 41(1):33–42. doi:10.1111/jorc.12101
Satomura A, Yanai M, Fujita T, Arashima Y, Kumasaka K, Nakane C, Ito K, Fuke Y, Maruyama T, Maruyama N, Okada K, Nakayama T, Matsumoto K (2010) Peritonitis associated with Pasteurella multocida: molecular evidence of zoonotic etiology. Ther Apher Dial 14(3):373–376. doi:10.1111/j.1744-9987.2009.00788.x
Broughton A, Verger C, Goffin E (2010) Pets-related peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: companion animals or trojan horses? Semin Dial 23(3):306–316. doi:10.1111/j.1525-139X.2010.00726.x
Rudnicki M, Kerschbaum J, Hausdorfer J, Mayer G, Konig P (2010) Risk factors for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: the role of oral active vitamin d. Perit Dial Int 30(5):541–548. doi:10.3747/pdi.2009.00108
Kerschbaum J, Vychytil A, Lhotta K, Prischl FC, Wiesholzer M, Machhold-Fabrizii V, Kopriva-Altfahrt G, Schwarz C, Balcke P, Oberbauer R, Kramar R, Konig P, Rudnicki M (2013) Treatment with oral active vitamin D is associated with decreased risk of peritonitis and improved survival in patients on peritoneal dialysis. PLoS ONE 8(7):e67836. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067836
Qamar M, Sheth H, Bender FH, Piraino B (2009) Clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis: impact of continuous quality provement initiatives. Adv Perit Dial Conf Perit Dial 25:76–79
Iyer RN, Reddy AK, Gande S, Aiyangar A (2014) Evaluation of different culture methods for the diagnosis of peritonitis in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 20(5):O294–296. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12402
Barretti P, Doles JV, Pinotti DG, El Dib R (2014) Efficacy of antibiotic therapy for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: a proportional meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis 14:445. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-445
Ruger W, van Ittersum FJ, Comazzetto LF, Hoeks SE, ter Wee PM (2011) Similar peritonitis outcome in CAPD and APD patients with dialysis modality continuation during peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 31(1):39–47. doi:10.3747/pdi.2009.00235
Chow KM, Szeto CC, Kwan BC, Pang WF, Ma T, Leung CB, Law MC, Li PK (2014) Randomized controlled study of icodextrin on the treatment of peritoneal dialysis patients during acute peritonitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29(7):1438–1443. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfu033
Liakopoulos V, Stefanidis I, Dombros NV (2010) Peritoneal dialysis glossary 2009. Int Urol Nephrol 42(2):417–423. doi:10.1007/s11255-009-9619-9
Szeto CC, Lai KB, Kwan BC, Chow KM, Leung CB, Law MC, Yu V, Li PK (2013) Bacteria-derived DNA fragment in peritoneal dialysis effluent as a predictor of relapsing peritonitis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8(11):1935–1941. doi:10.2215/CJN.02360213
Fan S, Lane C, Punzalan S (2010) Correlation of periscreen strip results and white cell count in peritoneal dialysis peritonitis. J Ren Care 36(2):90–95. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6686.2010.00150.x
Kitterer D, Latus J, Pohlmann C, Alscher MD, Kimmel M (2015) Microbiological surveillance of peritoneal dialysis associated peritonitis: antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of a referral center in GERMANY over 32 years. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0135969. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135969
Sutherland SM, Alexander SR, Feneberg R, Schaefer F, Warady BA, International Pediatric Peritonitis R (2010) Enterococcal peritonitis in children receiving chronic peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25(12):4048–4054. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfq295
Gilmore JF, Kim M, LaSalvia MT, Mahoney MV (2013) Treatment of enterococcal peritonitis with intraperitoneal daptomycin in a vancomycin-allergic patient and a review of the literature. Perit Dial Int 33(4):353–357. doi:10.3747/pdi.2012.00277
O’Shea S, Hawley CM, McDonald SP, Brown FG, Rosman JB, Wiggins KJ, Bannister KM, Johnson DW (2009) Streptococcal peritonitis in Australian peritoneal dialysis patients: predictors, treatment and outcomes in 287 cases. BMC Nephrol 10:19. doi:10.1186/1471-2369-10-19
Chao CT, Lee SY, Yang WS, Chen HW, Fang CC, Yen CJ, Chiang CK, Hung KY, Huang JW (2015) Viridans streptococci in peritoneal dialysis peritonitis: clinical courses and long-term outcomes. Perit Dial Int 35(3):333–341. doi:10.3747/pdi.2013.00108
Barretti P, Moraes TM, Camargo CH, Caramori JC, Mondelli AL, Montelli AC, da Cunha Mde L (2012) Peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis due to Staphylococcus aureus: a single-center experience over 15 years. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31780. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031780
Lin SY, Ho MW, Liu JH, Liu YL, Yeh HC, Hsieh TL, Wang IK, Lin HH, Huang CC (2011) Successful salvage of peritoneal catheter in unresolved methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus peritonitis by combination treatment with daptomycin and rifampin. Blood Purif 32(4):249–252. doi:10.1159/000328028
Zhang W, Wu YG, Qi XM, Dai H, Lu W, Zhao M (2014) Peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis with Acinetobacter baumannii: a review of seven cases. Perit Dial Int 34(3):317–321. doi:10.3747/pdi.2012.00198
Liakopoulos V, Arampatzis S, Kourti P, Tsolkas T, Zarogiannis S, Eleftheriadis T, Giannopoulou M, Stefanidis I (2011) Aeromonas hydrophila as a causative organism in peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis: case report and review of the literature. Clin Nephrol 75(S1):65–68. doi:10.2379/CNP75065
Basturk T, Koc Y, Unsal A, Ahbap E, Sakaci T, Yildiz I, Kayabasi H, Sevinc M, Kose S, Arar A (2012) Fungal peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: a 10 year retrospective analysis in a single center. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 16(12):1696–1700
Nadeau JH (2015) A pre-modern and post-modern perspective of epigenetic inheritance. Semin Cell Dev Biol 43:65. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2015.10.006
Levallois J, Nadeau-Fredette AC, Labbe AC, Laverdiere M, Ouimet D, Vallee M (2012) Ten-year experience with fungal peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients: antifungal susceptibility patterns in a North-American center. Int J Infect Dis (IJID) 16(1):e41–43. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2011.09.016
Bhowmik D, Mahajan S, Bora M (2011) Concerns regarding the ISPD guidelines/recommendations for peritonitis due to mycobacteria. Perit Dial Int 31(3):363–364. doi:10.3747/pdi.2010.00292 Author reply 365
Ram R, Swarnalatha G, Akpolat T, Dakshinamurty KV (2013) Mycobacterium tuberculous peritonitis in CAPD patients: a report of 11 patients and review of literature. Int Urol Nephrol 45(4):1129–1135. doi:10.1007/s11255-012-0311-0
Renaud CJ, Subramanian S, Tambyah PA, Lee EJ (2011) The clinical course of rapidly growing nontuberculous mycobacterial peritoneal dialysis infections in Asians: a case series and literature review. Nephrology (Carlton) 16(2):174–179. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01370.x
Jiang SH, Roberts DM, Dawson AH, Jardine M (2012) Mycobacterium fortuitum as a cause of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: case report and review of the literature. BMC Nephrol 13:35. doi:10.1186/1471-2369-13-35
Jiang SH, Roberts DM, Clayton PA, Jardine M (2013) Non-tuberculous mycobacterial PD peritonitis in Australia. Int Urol Nephrol 45(5):1423–1428. doi:10.1007/s11255-012-0328-4
Song Y, Wu J, Yan H, Chen J (2012) Peritoneal dialysis-associated nontuberculous mycobacterium peritonitis: a systematic review of reported cases. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27(4):1639–1644. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfr504
Ram R, Swarnalatha G, Dakshinamurty KV (2014) Reinitiation of peritoneal dialysis after catheter removal for refractory peritonitis. J Nephrol 27(4):445–449. doi:10.1007/s40620-014-0048-1
Cho Y, Badve SV, Hawley CM, McDonald SP, Brown FG, Boudville N, Clayton P, Johnson DW (2014) Peritoneal dialysis outcomes after temporary haemodialysis transfer for peritonitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29(10):1940–1947. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfu050
Szeto CC, Kwan BC, Chow KM, Pang WF, Kwong VW, Leung CB, Li PK (2011) Persistent symptomatic intra-abdominal collection after catheter removal for PD-related peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 31(1):34–38. doi:10.3747/pdi.2009.00185
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liakopoulos, V., Nikitidou, O., Kalathas, T. et al. Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2016 update. What is new?. Int Urol Nephrol 49, 2177–2184 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1632-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1632-9