Análisis de las infecciones del orificio de salida del catéter peritoneal. Efectividad de un protocolo basado en la aplicación de mupirocina tópica diaria

Objetivos: Analizar las infecciones del orificio de salida del catéter peritoneal, identificando los principales factores relacionados con las mismas; asimismo se ha comparado la efectividad de un protocolo basado en la utilización diaria de mupirocina tópica en la cura del orificio de salida frente a la utilización suero salino. Material y Método: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo. Recogimos variables demográficas, clínicas, la etiología y evolución de los episodios de infección del orificio en un periodo de 2 años. Utilizamos un protocolo de profilaxis con suero fisiológico y con mupirocina crema al 2%. Resultados: Estudiamos 75 pacientes, edad media 60,3±13,9 años, 66,7% varones, mediana de tiempo en diálisis peritoneal 24,3 meses (rango intercuartílico 11-48,7). La incidencia de infección del orificio de salida fue del 26,7%, el 77% fueron originadas por microorganismos de piel y mucosas. La infección del orificio de salida se relacionó con el estado portador nasal de Staphylococcus aureus (p=0,048) y la extrusión del dacron externo (p=0,004). De los 4 pacientes que presentaron una peritonitis secundaria a la infección del orificio de salida, 3 fueron trasferidos a hemodiálisis (p=0,025). Con el protocolo de antibioterapia tópica diaria se redujo un 68% la tasa de infecciones. Conclusiones: La exteriorización del anillo externo del catéter peritoneal es un factor predisponente de infecciones. La aplicación diaria de mupirocina es una estrategia efectiva para reducir la incidencia de infección del orificio y peritonitis. La erradicación de portadores nasales de Staphylococcus aureus puede contribuir a reducir la pérdida del catéter y la transferencia a hemodiálisis.

Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing catheter-related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is one of the limiting factors for the growth of peritoneal dialysis (PD) worldwide and is a major cause of technique failure. Several studies have examined the effectiveness of various catheter-related interventions for lowering the risk of PD-related peritonitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of different catheter implantation techniques and catheter types in lowering the risk of PD-related peritonitis in PD patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 15 January 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies comparing different catheter insertion techniques, catheter types, use of immobilisation techniques and different break-in periods were included. Studies of different PD sets were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model and the results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two studies (3144 participants) were included: 18 evaluated techniques of catheter implantation, 22 examined catheter types, one assessed an immobiliser device, and one examined break-in period. In general, study quality was variable and almost all aspects of study design did not fulfil CONSORT standards for reporting.Catheter insertion by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy probably makes little or no difference to the risks of peritonitis (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.35; moderate certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.31; low certainty evidence), catheter removal/replacement (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.86; low certainty evidence), technique failure (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.08; low certainty evidence), and death (all causes) (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.20; moderate certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether subcutaneous burying of catheter increases peritonitis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.60; very low certainty evidence). Midline insertion compared to lateral insertion probably makes little or no difference to the risks of peritonitis (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.33; moderate certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.58; low certainty evidence). Percutaneous insertion compared with open surgery probably makes little or no difference to the exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.30; moderate certainty evidence).Straight catheters probably make little or no difference to the risk of peritonitis (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.31; moderate certainty evidence), peritonitis rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence), risk of exit-site infection (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34; moderate certainty evidence), and exit-site infection rate (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.43; moderate certainty evidence) compared to coiled catheter. It is uncertain whether straight catheters prevent catheter removal or replacement (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.66; very low certainty evidence) but straight catheters probably make little or no difference to technique failure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.31; moderate certainty evidence) and death (all causes) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.46; low certainty evidence) compared to coiled catheter. Tenckhoff catheter with artificial curve at subcutaneous tract compared with swan-neck catheter may make little or no difference to peritonitis (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.96; low certainty evidence) and incidence of exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; low certainty evidence) but may slightly improve exit-site infection rate (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence that any catheter-related intervention, including the use of different catheter types or different insertion techniques, reduces the risks of PD peritonitis or other PD-related infections, technique failure or death (all causes). However, the numbers and sizes of studies were generally small and the methodological quality of available studies was suboptimal, such that the possibility that a particular catheter-related intervention might have a beneficial effect cannot be completely ruled out with confidence.

Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

As many as 15-50% of end-stage kidney disease patients are on peritoneal dialysis (PD), but peritonitis limits its more widespread use. Several PD catheter-related interventions have been purported to reduce the risk of peritonitis in PD.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of catheter-related interventions for the prevention of peritonitis in PD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (June 2004), The Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2 2004), MEDLINE (1966-April 2004), EMBASE (1988-April 2004) and reference lists were searched without language restriction

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials comparing different catheter insertion techniques, catheter types, use of immobilisation techniques or different break in periods were included. Trials of different PD sets were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen eligible trials (1089 patients) were identified, eight of surgical strategies of catheter insertion, eight of straight versus coiled catheters, one of single cuff versus double cuff catheters and one of an immobiliser device. The methodological quality was suboptimal. There were no significant differences with laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for peritonitis, the peritonitis rate, exit-site/tunnel infection or catheter removal/replacement. Standard insertion with resting but no subcutaneous burying of the catheter versus implantation and subcutaneous burying was not associated with a significant reduction in peritonitis rate, exit-site/tunnel infection rate or all-cause mortality. Midline compared to lateral insertion showed no significant difference in the risk of peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection. There was no significant difference in the risk of peritonitis, peritonitis rate, exit-site/tunnel infection, exit-site/tunnel infection rate or catheter removal/replacement between straight versus coiled intraperitoneal portion catheters. One trial compared single versus double cuffed catheters and showed no significant difference in the risk of peritonitis, exit-site/tunnel infection or catheter removal/replacement. One trial compared immobilisation versus no immobilisation of the PD catheter and showed no significant difference in the risk of peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infection. No trials of different break-in periods were identified.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

No major advantages from any of the catheter-related interventions which have been purported to reduce the risk of PD peritonitis could be demonstrated in this review. The frequency and quality of available trials are suboptimal.