The Effects of Catheter Revision and Mupirocin on Exit Site Infection/Peritonitis in CAPD Patients.
10.12701/yujm.1999.16.2.347
- Author:
Jun Beom PARK
1
;
Jung Mee KIM
;
Jun Hyuk CHOI
;
Kyu Hyang JO
;
Hang Jae JUNG
;
Yeung Jin KIM
;
Jun Yeung DO
;
Kyung Woo YOON
Author Information
1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine college of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Taegu, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Exit-site infection;
Peritonitis;
Catheter revision;
Mupirocin ointment
- MeSH:
Abscess;
Anti-Bacterial Agents;
Catheters*;
Ciprofloxacin;
Disinfection;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Incidence;
Methicillin Resistance;
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus;
Mupirocin*;
Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory*;
Peritonitis;
Recurrence;
Rifampin;
Staphylococcus
- From:Yeungnam University Journal of Medicine
1999;16(2):347-356
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Exit site/tunnel infection causes cosiderable morbidity and technique failure in CAPD patients. We presently use a unique revision method for the treatment of refractory ESI/TI in CAPD patients and mupirocin prophylaxis for high risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 139 CAPD patients about the ESI/TI from October 1993 to February 1999 at Yeungnam University Hospital. At the beginning of the ESI, we usually started medications with rifampicin and ciprofloxacin and then changed the antibiotics according to the sensitivity test. If the ESI had persisted and there were T1 symptoms(purulent discharge, abscess lesion around exit site), we performed catheter revision(external cuff shaving, disinfection around tunnel and new exit site on opposit direction) with a combination of proper antibiotics. We applied local mupirocin ointment at the exit site three times per week to the 34 patients who had the risk of ESI starting from October 1998. RESULTS: The total follow-up was 2401 patient months(pt. mon). ESI occurred on 105 occasions in 36 out of 139 patients, and peritonitis occurred on 112 occasions in 67 out of 139 patients. The total number of incidences of ESI and peritonitis was 1 per 23.0 pt.mon and 0 per 21.6 pt.mon. The most common organism responsible for ESI was Staphylococcus aureus(26 of 54 isolated cases, 48%), followed by the Methicillin resistant S. auresu(MRSA) (13 cases, 24%). Seven patients(5: MRSA, 2: Pseudomonas) had to be treated with a revision to control infection. Three patients experienced ESI relapse after revision. One of them improved with antibiotics, while another needed a second revision and the remaining required catheter removal due to persistent MRSA infection with re-insertion at the same time. But, there was no more ESI in these 3 patients who were received management to relapse (The mean duration: 14.0 months). The rates of ESI were significantly reduced after using mupirocin than before(1 per 12.7 vs 34.0 pt.mon, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: In summary, revision technique can be regarded as an effective method for refractory ESI/T1 before catheter removal. Also local mupirocin ointment can play a significant role in the prevention of ESI.
