Factors Contributing to Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis: Comparing Triple Cuff Saudi Catheter to Double Cuff Tenckhoff Catheter: A 12-Year Observational Study.

Very few detailed descriptive studies focusing on peritonitis in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) have been published. Most of the current information is available through from either study with the limited number of patients or isolated case reports. We conducted an observational study of our PD-peritonitis database over the past 12 years to study the clinical profile and the outcomes of peritonitis episodes in our PD center. A total of 1123 patients (male: 59.5%) with 319 episodes of peritonitis were identified. Of the patients, 130 (11.6%) were considered immunocompromised (steroid use, failed renal transplant, systemic lupus erythematosus, malignancy) and 468 (41.7%) had diabetes mellitus. The total number of bacterial peritonitis episodes was 319; of these 226 (70.8%) were seen with double cuff Tenckhoff PD catheter and 93 (29.2%) occurred with triple-cuff Saudi PD catheter (P = 0.0001). Of all peritonitis episodes 170 (53.3%) episodes were caused by a single Gram-positive organism, 124 (38.9%) episodes by a single Gram-negative organism, and 25 (7.8%) were polymicrobial. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were responsible for most cases of Gram-positive peritonitis (n = 110, 64.7%), while Escherichia coli was the causative organism in 67 (54.0%) of the single Gram-negative episodes. Peritonitis episodes due to Gram-positive organisms had a better outcome than those caused by Gram-negative bacteria. Fifteen (4.7%) of the 319 episodes resulted in death in 13 patients. In 79 (24.8%) episodes, the patients had to be transferred to hemodialysis because of unresolved peritonitis. Resolution rate was 75.2% (240 episodes) which was influenced by PD catheter type, PD duration and the number of days peritoneal fluid effluent remained above 100 cells/µL. Other modifiable and non-modifiable factors had no effect on the resolution rate. Peritonitis episodes due to Gram-positive organisms had a better outcome than those with Gram-negative or polymicrobial etiology. Peritonitis resolution rates were worse with Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Diabetes, current steroid use, and exit-site/tunnel infections seemed to have limited influence on the peritonitis outcome. Type of PD catheter (double Tenckhoff vs triple-cuff Saudi catheter), duration of PD and the number of days peritoneal fluid effluent remained >100 cells/µL were the only factors with significant effects on the outcome.

Tidal peritoneal dialysis versus ultrafiltration in type 1 cardiorenal syndrome: A prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of peritoneal dialysis in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by acute cardiorenal syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 88 patients with type 1 acute cardiorenal syndrome to a strategy of ultrafiltration therapy (44 patients) or tidal peritoneal dialysis (44 patients). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the serum creatinine level and left ventricular function represented as ejection fraction, as assessed 72 and 120 h after random assignment. Patients were followed for 90 days after discharge from the hospital. RESULTS: Ultrafiltration therapy was inferior to tidal peritoneal dialysis therapy with respect to the primary endpoint of the change in the serum creatinine levels at 72 and 120 h (p = 0.041) and ejection fraction at 72 and 120 h after enrollment (p = 0.044 and p = 0.032), owing to both an increase in the creatinine level in the ultrafiltration therapy group and a decrease in its level in the tidal peritoneal dialysis group. At 120 h, the mean change in the creatinine level was 1.4 ± 0.5 mg/dL in the ultrafiltration therapy group, as compared with 2.4 ± 1.3 mg/dL in the tidal peritoneal dialysis group (p = 0.023). At 72 and 120 h, there was a significant difference in weight loss between patients in the ultrafiltration therapy group and those in the tidal peritoneal dialysis group (p = 0.025). Net fluid loss was also greater in tidal peritoneal dialysis patients (p = 0.018). Adverse events were more observed in the ultrafiltration therapy group (p = 0.007). At 90 days post-discharge, tidal peritoneal dialysis patients had fewer rehospitalization for heart failure (14.3% vs 32.5%, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Tidal peritoneal dialysis is a safe and effective means for removing toxins and large quantities of excess fluid from patients with intractable heart failure. In patients with cardiorenal syndrome type 1, the use of tidal peritoneal dialysis was superior to ultrafiltration therapy for the preservation of renal function, improvement of cardiac function, and net fluid loss. Ultrafiltration therapy was associated with a higher rate of adverse events.