Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The outcomes of refractory peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients have been reported to be inferior to those of solitary peritonitis. The current study aimed to examine the factors associated with treatment failure in PD patients experiencing refractory peritonitis.

METHOD

This single-center retrospective study included all episodes of refractory peritonitis in adult PD patients in Marmara University Hospital, Turkey, between 2009 and 2020. Patient characteristics, microbiological data, outcomes and factors associated with refractory peritonitis were analysed. The primary outcome was peritonitis-related catheter loss. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and peritonitis-related death.

RESULTS

Overall, 236 episodes of refractory peritonitis occurring in 135 patients were included. Gram-positive, gram-negative and fungal infections accounted for 44.1%, 20.4% and 2.4% of all peritonitis episodes, respectively. Forty-seven patients (34.8%) needed catheter removal, 2 patients (1.5%) died due to peritonitis complications and 59 episodes (25%) needed hospitalization. Mean fifth day PD fluid cell count was significantly greater among patients who required PD catheter removal (3621.3 |$ \pm $| 3144.1 versus 1589.4 |$ \pm $| 2316.6 P < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with >1000/mm3 cell count on the fifth day had higher rate of catheter removal (72.3% versus 37.6%, P < 0.001) as compared to patients with cell count under 300/mm3. Treatment failure was more common in peritonitis episodes caused by gram (−) organisms (31.9% versus 14.8%, P:0.012). Pseudomonas and fungi-associated peritonitis were also significantly correlated with catheter loss (P:0.001 and P: <0.001) (Table 1). When peritonitis episodes with more and <1000 cells/mm3 on the fifth day were compared, there were more episodes with gram (−) bacteria (29.7% versus 12.9%, P:0.003) and hospitalization (41.9% versus 11.4%, P: <0.001) in the group with more than 1000 cells/mm3. In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with catheter loss were a cell count of >1000 on the fifth day and hospitalization, while presence of gram (+) bacteria related peritonitis was inversely correlated with catheter loss (Table 2).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the PD cell count on the fifth day of peritonitis can be used as a prognostic tool to determine the prognosis of refractory peritonitis episodes. Although we were unable to show the adverse prognostic effect of gram (−) bacteria related peritonitis, gram (+) bacteria related peritonitis was associated with better outcome. Prospective studies are needed to assess the risk factors for adverse outcomes of patients with refractory peritonitis, as the evidence in this area is sparse.

Table 1.

Episode characteristics according to catheter loss

Loss (+) (n = 47)Loss (–) (n = 189)P-value
Mean first day cell count,/mm34759.6 ± 3097.84769.3 |$ \pm $| 3106.50.985
Mean fifth day cell count,/mm33621.3 ± 3144.11589.4 |$ \pm $| 2316.6<0.001
Firth day cell count range 0 to |$ < $|300/mm3|$\quad \ge $|300–1000/mm3|$\quad \ge $|1000/mm34 (8.5%)9 (19.1%)34 (72.3%)80 (42.3%)38 (20.1%)71 (37.6%)<0.0011.000<0.001
Culture Bacteria  Gram (+) bacteria  Gram (−) bacteria Microorganism Pseudomonas spp Fungi (Candida)28 (59.6%)10 (21.3%)15 (31.9%)7 (14.9%)5 (10.6%)113 (59.8%)83 (43.9%)28 (14.8%)3 (1.6%)0 (0%)0.8560.002 0.0120.001<0.001
Loss (+) (n = 47)Loss (–) (n = 189)P-value
Mean first day cell count,/mm34759.6 ± 3097.84769.3 |$ \pm $| 3106.50.985
Mean fifth day cell count,/mm33621.3 ± 3144.11589.4 |$ \pm $| 2316.6<0.001
Firth day cell count range 0 to |$ < $|300/mm3|$\quad \ge $|300–1000/mm3|$\quad \ge $|1000/mm34 (8.5%)9 (19.1%)34 (72.3%)80 (42.3%)38 (20.1%)71 (37.6%)<0.0011.000<0.001
Culture Bacteria  Gram (+) bacteria  Gram (−) bacteria Microorganism Pseudomonas spp Fungi (Candida)28 (59.6%)10 (21.3%)15 (31.9%)7 (14.9%)5 (10.6%)113 (59.8%)83 (43.9%)28 (14.8%)3 (1.6%)0 (0%)0.8560.002 0.0120.001<0.001
Table 1.

Episode characteristics according to catheter loss

Loss (+) (n = 47)Loss (–) (n = 189)P-value
Mean first day cell count,/mm34759.6 ± 3097.84769.3 |$ \pm $| 3106.50.985
Mean fifth day cell count,/mm33621.3 ± 3144.11589.4 |$ \pm $| 2316.6<0.001
Firth day cell count range 0 to |$ < $|300/mm3|$\quad \ge $|300–1000/mm3|$\quad \ge $|1000/mm34 (8.5%)9 (19.1%)34 (72.3%)80 (42.3%)38 (20.1%)71 (37.6%)<0.0011.000<0.001
Culture Bacteria  Gram (+) bacteria  Gram (−) bacteria Microorganism Pseudomonas spp Fungi (Candida)28 (59.6%)10 (21.3%)15 (31.9%)7 (14.9%)5 (10.6%)113 (59.8%)83 (43.9%)28 (14.8%)3 (1.6%)0 (0%)0.8560.002 0.0120.001<0.001
Loss (+) (n = 47)Loss (–) (n = 189)P-value
Mean first day cell count,/mm34759.6 ± 3097.84769.3 |$ \pm $| 3106.50.985
Mean fifth day cell count,/mm33621.3 ± 3144.11589.4 |$ \pm $| 2316.6<0.001
Firth day cell count range 0 to |$ < $|300/mm3|$\quad \ge $|300–1000/mm3|$\quad \ge $|1000/mm34 (8.5%)9 (19.1%)34 (72.3%)80 (42.3%)38 (20.1%)71 (37.6%)<0.0011.000<0.001
Culture Bacteria  Gram (+) bacteria  Gram (−) bacteria Microorganism Pseudomonas spp Fungi (Candida)28 (59.6%)10 (21.3%)15 (31.9%)7 (14.9%)5 (10.6%)113 (59.8%)83 (43.9%)28 (14.8%)3 (1.6%)0 (0%)0.8560.002 0.0120.001<0.001
Table 2.

Factors correlated with catheter removal (multivariate analysis)

Beta valueP-valueExp (B) 95% CI
|$ \ge $|1000/mm3 fifth day cell count0.8220.0442.275 (1.022–5.062)
Hospitalization1.3370.0013.809 (1.727–8.401)
Gram (+) bacteria−0.8640.0390.421 (0.185–0.957)
Beta valueP-valueExp (B) 95% CI
|$ \ge $|1000/mm3 fifth day cell count0.8220.0442.275 (1.022–5.062)
Hospitalization1.3370.0013.809 (1.727–8.401)
Gram (+) bacteria−0.8640.0390.421 (0.185–0.957)
Table 2.

Factors correlated with catheter removal (multivariate analysis)

Beta valueP-valueExp (B) 95% CI
|$ \ge $|1000/mm3 fifth day cell count0.8220.0442.275 (1.022–5.062)
Hospitalization1.3370.0013.809 (1.727–8.401)
Gram (+) bacteria−0.8640.0390.421 (0.185–0.957)
Beta valueP-valueExp (B) 95% CI
|$ \ge $|1000/mm3 fifth day cell count0.8220.0442.275 (1.022–5.062)
Hospitalization1.3370.0013.809 (1.727–8.401)
Gram (+) bacteria−0.8640.0390.421 (0.185–0.957)
This content is only available as a PDF.
This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.