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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Peritoneal dialysis international 2019-03, Vol.39 (2), p.126-133 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & 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</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 & purification</subject><subject>Catheter-Related Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Catheter-Related Infections - prevention & control</subject><subject>Catheters, Indwelling - microbiology</subject><subject>Drug Resistance, Bacterial</subject><subject>Equipment Contamination - prevention & 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 & control</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus - drug effects</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus - isolation & 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 & purification</topic><topic>Catheter-Related Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Catheter-Related Infections - prevention & control</topic><topic>Catheters, Indwelling - microbiology</topic><topic>Drug Resistance, Bacterial</topic><topic>Equipment Contamination - prevention & 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 & control</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus - drug effects</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus - isolation & 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 |