Clinical Value of Screening Peritoneal Dialysis Patients for Bacterial Colonization or Contamination

Introduction The adoption of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guideline of using mupirocin ointment has been limited by fear of developing mupirocin-resistant organisms. We performed a surveillance program of a large peritoneal dialysis (PD) unit. Methods We performed 1,175 surveill...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Peritoneal dialysis international 2019-03, Vol.39 (2), p.126-133
Hauptverfasser: Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana, Kashem, Tasnuva, NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe, Melzer, Mark, Fan, Stanley L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 133
container_issue 2
container_start_page 126
container_title Peritoneal dialysis international
container_volume 39
creator Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana
Kashem, Tasnuva
NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe
Melzer, Mark
Fan, Stanley L.
description Introduction The adoption of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guideline of using mupirocin ointment has been limited by fear of developing mupirocin-resistant organisms. We performed a surveillance program of a large peritoneal dialysis (PD) unit. Methods We performed 1,175 surveillance swabs from anterior nares, PD catheter exit site, groin, and axilla, from 240 patients. The mean interval between swabs was 3.3 months. Results Colonization by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) or Pseudomonas species was 9.5% and 10.9%, respectively. Despite adopting a universal policy of applying mupirocin to PD catheter exit sites in 2001, no instances of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus were identified. Moreover, patients who grew S. aureus from surveillance swabs did not experience higher peritonitis rates than those with “no growth.” This was in contrast to patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms. There were no differences in patient demographics for those who grew S. aureus, Pseudomonas, or enteric organisms (compared with “no-growth” patients). Conclusion Our results suggest that the application of mupirocin ointment appeared to minimize peritonitis of patients colonized with S. aureus. The use of mupirocin in this patient cohort has not led to mupirocin resistance. The increased peritonitis rate of patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms is of interest. We propose that greater attention to hygiene and catheter care in these patients is warranted. The increasing use of paid healthcare workers attending patients daily to help perform PD (assisted PD) gives an opportunity for us to address these wider issues.
doi_str_mv 10.3747/pdi.2018.00082
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_3747_pdi_2018_00082</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.3747_pdi.2018.00082</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.3747_pdi.2018.00082</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c331t-d7075359ee9ad7c585d5555c552006a11ce97f02693c8cb40bbf4d7cbe48b8473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhi0EolXpyoiyo4RzbMf2COFTqkQlPtbIcZzKKLUrOx3g1-O2wMYtJ9373En3IHSOoSCc8qtNZ4sSsCgAQJRHaIo5FjklQI_RFISsclGBmKB5jLYFSmVFKRenaEKAEwmSTVFXD9ZZrYbsXQ1bk_k-e9HBGGfdKluaYEfvTEpvrRo-o43ZUo3WuDFmvQ_ZjdJjYlJe-8E7-5VC77KU1N6Nam3dfnCGTno1RDP_6TP0dn_3Wj_mi-eHp_p6kWtC8Jh3HDgjTBojVcc1E6xjqTRjJUClMNZG8h7KShItdEuhbXuawNZQ0QrKyQwVh7s6-BiD6ZtNsGsVPhsMzc5Yk4w1O2PN3lhauDgsbLbt2nR_-K-fBFwegKhWpvnw2-DSA_-d-wZ3bXXR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical Value of Screening Peritoneal Dialysis Patients for Bacterial Colonization or Contamination</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana ; Kashem, Tasnuva ; NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe ; Melzer, Mark ; Fan, Stanley L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana ; Kashem, Tasnuva ; NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe ; Melzer, Mark ; Fan, Stanley L.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction The adoption of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guideline of using mupirocin ointment has been limited by fear of developing mupirocin-resistant organisms. We performed a surveillance program of a large peritoneal dialysis (PD) unit. Methods We performed 1,175 surveillance swabs from anterior nares, PD catheter exit site, groin, and axilla, from 240 patients. The mean interval between swabs was 3.3 months. Results Colonization by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) or Pseudomonas species was 9.5% and 10.9%, respectively. Despite adopting a universal policy of applying mupirocin to PD catheter exit sites in 2001, no instances of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus were identified. Moreover, patients who grew S. aureus from surveillance swabs did not experience higher peritonitis rates than those with “no growth.” This was in contrast to patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms. There were no differences in patient demographics for those who grew S. aureus, Pseudomonas, or enteric organisms (compared with “no-growth” patients). Conclusion Our results suggest that the application of mupirocin ointment appeared to minimize peritonitis of patients colonized with S. aureus. The use of mupirocin in this patient cohort has not led to mupirocin resistance. The increased peritonitis rate of patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms is of interest. We propose that greater attention to hygiene and catheter care in these patients is warranted. The increasing use of paid healthcare workers attending patients daily to help perform PD (assisted PD) gives an opportunity for us to address these wider issues.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0896-8608</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1718-4304</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3747/pdi.2018.00082</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30739095</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use ; Bacteria - drug effects ; Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification ; Catheter-Related Infections - microbiology ; Catheter-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control ; Catheters, Indwelling - microbiology ; Drug Resistance, Bacterial ; Equipment Contamination - prevention &amp; control ; Humans ; Mupirocin - pharmacology ; Mupirocin - therapeutic use ; Ointments ; Peritoneal Dialysis ; Peritonitis - microbiology ; Peritonitis - prevention &amp; control ; Staphylococcus aureus - drug effects ; Staphylococcus aureus - isolation &amp; purification</subject><ispartof>Peritoneal dialysis international, 2019-03, Vol.39 (2), p.126-133</ispartof><rights>2019 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c331t-d7075359ee9ad7c585d5555c552006a11ce97f02693c8cb40bbf4d7cbe48b8473</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c331t-d7075359ee9ad7c585d5555c552006a11ce97f02693c8cb40bbf4d7cbe48b8473</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3747/pdi.2018.00082$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3747/pdi.2018.00082$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30739095$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kashem, Tasnuva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melzer, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fan, Stanley L.</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical Value of Screening Peritoneal Dialysis Patients for Bacterial Colonization or Contamination</title><title>Peritoneal dialysis international</title><addtitle>Perit Dial Int</addtitle><description>Introduction The adoption of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guideline of using mupirocin ointment has been limited by fear of developing mupirocin-resistant organisms. We performed a surveillance program of a large peritoneal dialysis (PD) unit. Methods We performed 1,175 surveillance swabs from anterior nares, PD catheter exit site, groin, and axilla, from 240 patients. The mean interval between swabs was 3.3 months. Results Colonization by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) or Pseudomonas species was 9.5% and 10.9%, respectively. Despite adopting a universal policy of applying mupirocin to PD catheter exit sites in 2001, no instances of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus were identified. Moreover, patients who grew S. aureus from surveillance swabs did not experience higher peritonitis rates than those with “no growth.” This was in contrast to patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms. There were no differences in patient demographics for those who grew S. aureus, Pseudomonas, or enteric organisms (compared with “no-growth” patients). Conclusion Our results suggest that the application of mupirocin ointment appeared to minimize peritonitis of patients colonized with S. aureus. The use of mupirocin in this patient cohort has not led to mupirocin resistance. The increased peritonitis rate of patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms is of interest. We propose that greater attention to hygiene and catheter care in these patients is warranted. The increasing use of paid healthcare workers attending patients daily to help perform PD (assisted PD) gives an opportunity for us to address these wider issues.</description><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Bacteria - drug effects</subject><subject>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Catheter-Related Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Catheter-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Catheters, Indwelling - microbiology</subject><subject>Drug Resistance, Bacterial</subject><subject>Equipment Contamination - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mupirocin - pharmacology</subject><subject>Mupirocin - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Ointments</subject><subject>Peritoneal Dialysis</subject><subject>Peritonitis - microbiology</subject><subject>Peritonitis - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus - drug effects</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus - isolation &amp; purification</subject><issn>0896-8608</issn><issn>1718-4304</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhi0EolXpyoiyo4RzbMf2COFTqkQlPtbIcZzKKLUrOx3g1-O2wMYtJ9373En3IHSOoSCc8qtNZ4sSsCgAQJRHaIo5FjklQI_RFISsclGBmKB5jLYFSmVFKRenaEKAEwmSTVFXD9ZZrYbsXQ1bk_k-e9HBGGfdKluaYEfvTEpvrRo-o43ZUo3WuDFmvQ_ZjdJjYlJe-8E7-5VC77KU1N6Nam3dfnCGTno1RDP_6TP0dn_3Wj_mi-eHp_p6kWtC8Jh3HDgjTBojVcc1E6xjqTRjJUClMNZG8h7KShItdEuhbXuawNZQ0QrKyQwVh7s6-BiD6ZtNsGsVPhsMzc5Yk4w1O2PN3lhauDgsbLbt2nR_-K-fBFwegKhWpvnw2-DSA_-d-wZ3bXXR</recordid><startdate>201903</startdate><enddate>201903</enddate><creator>Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana</creator><creator>Kashem, Tasnuva</creator><creator>NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe</creator><creator>Melzer, Mark</creator><creator>Fan, Stanley L.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201903</creationdate><title>Clinical Value of Screening Peritoneal Dialysis Patients for Bacterial Colonization or Contamination</title><author>Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana ; Kashem, Tasnuva ; NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe ; Melzer, Mark ; Fan, Stanley L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c331t-d7075359ee9ad7c585d5555c552006a11ce97f02693c8cb40bbf4d7cbe48b8473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Bacteria - drug effects</topic><topic>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Catheter-Related Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Catheter-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Catheters, Indwelling - microbiology</topic><topic>Drug Resistance, Bacterial</topic><topic>Equipment Contamination - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mupirocin - pharmacology</topic><topic>Mupirocin - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Ointments</topic><topic>Peritoneal Dialysis</topic><topic>Peritonitis - microbiology</topic><topic>Peritonitis - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus - drug effects</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus - isolation &amp; purification</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kashem, Tasnuva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melzer, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fan, Stanley L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Peritoneal dialysis international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parthasarathy, Rajeevalochana</au><au>Kashem, Tasnuva</au><au>NicFhogartaigh, Caoimhe</au><au>Melzer, Mark</au><au>Fan, Stanley L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical Value of Screening Peritoneal Dialysis Patients for Bacterial Colonization or Contamination</atitle><jtitle>Peritoneal dialysis international</jtitle><addtitle>Perit Dial Int</addtitle><date>2019-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>126</spage><epage>133</epage><pages>126-133</pages><issn>0896-8608</issn><eissn>1718-4304</eissn><abstract>Introduction The adoption of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guideline of using mupirocin ointment has been limited by fear of developing mupirocin-resistant organisms. We performed a surveillance program of a large peritoneal dialysis (PD) unit. Methods We performed 1,175 surveillance swabs from anterior nares, PD catheter exit site, groin, and axilla, from 240 patients. The mean interval between swabs was 3.3 months. Results Colonization by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) or Pseudomonas species was 9.5% and 10.9%, respectively. Despite adopting a universal policy of applying mupirocin to PD catheter exit sites in 2001, no instances of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus were identified. Moreover, patients who grew S. aureus from surveillance swabs did not experience higher peritonitis rates than those with “no growth.” This was in contrast to patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms. There were no differences in patient demographics for those who grew S. aureus, Pseudomonas, or enteric organisms (compared with “no-growth” patients). Conclusion Our results suggest that the application of mupirocin ointment appeared to minimize peritonitis of patients colonized with S. aureus. The use of mupirocin in this patient cohort has not led to mupirocin resistance. The increased peritonitis rate of patients who grew Pseudomonas or enteric organisms is of interest. We propose that greater attention to hygiene and catheter care in these patients is warranted. The increasing use of paid healthcare workers attending patients daily to help perform PD (assisted PD) gives an opportunity for us to address these wider issues.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>30739095</pmid><doi>10.3747/pdi.2018.00082</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0896-8608
ispartof Peritoneal dialysis international, 2019-03, Vol.39 (2), p.126-133
issn 0896-8608
1718-4304
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_3747_pdi_2018_00082
source Access via SAGE; MEDLINE
subjects Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use
Bacteria - drug effects
Bacteria - isolation & purification
Catheter-Related Infections - microbiology
Catheter-Related Infections - prevention & control
Catheters, Indwelling - microbiology
Drug Resistance, Bacterial
Equipment Contamination - prevention & control
Humans
Mupirocin - pharmacology
Mupirocin - therapeutic use
Ointments
Peritoneal Dialysis
Peritonitis - microbiology
Peritonitis - prevention & control
Staphylococcus aureus - drug effects
Staphylococcus aureus - isolation & purification
title Clinical Value of Screening Peritoneal Dialysis Patients for Bacterial Colonization or Contamination
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T09%3A12%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20Value%20of%20Screening%20Peritoneal%20Dialysis%20Patients%20for%20Bacterial%20Colonization%20or%20Contamination&rft.jtitle=Peritoneal%20dialysis%20international&rft.au=Parthasarathy,%20Rajeevalochana&rft.date=2019-03&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=126&rft.epage=133&rft.pages=126-133&rft.issn=0896-8608&rft.eissn=1718-4304&rft_id=info:doi/10.3747/pdi.2018.00082&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.3747_pdi.2018.00082%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/30739095&rft_sage_id=10.3747_pdi.2018.00082&rfr_iscdi=true