Posthysteroscopy fungal peritonitis in a patient on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

Peritoneal Dialysis Guidelines 2019 Part 1 (Position paper of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy)

Approximately 10 years have passed since the Peritoneal Dialysis Guidelines were formulated in 2009. Much evidence has been reported during the succeeding years, which were not taken into consideration in the previous guidelines, e.g., the next peritoneal dialysis PD trial of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) in Japan, the significance of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), the effects of icodextrin solution, new developments in peritoneal pathology, and a new international recommendation on a proposal for exit-site management. It is essential to incorporate these new developments into the new clinical practice guidelines. Meanwhile, the process of creating such guidelines has changed dramatically worldwide and differs from the process of creating what were “clinical practice guides.” For this revision, we not only conducted systematic reviews using global standard methods but also decided to adopt a two-part structure to create a reference tool, which could be used widely by the society’s members attending a variety of patients. Through a working group consensus, it was decided that Part 1 would present conventional descriptions and Part 2 would pose clinical questions (CQs) in a systematic review format. Thus, Part 1 vastly covers PD that would satisfy the requirements of the members of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT). This article is the duplicated publication from the Japanese version of the guidelines and has been reproduced with permission from the JSDT.

Periprocedural Peritonitis Prophylaxis: A Summary of the Microbiology and the Role of Systemic Antimicrobials

Background

Peritonitis is a leading complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD). One strategy that the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) has used to help mitigate the morbidity and mortality associated with peritonitis is through prevention, including antibiotic prophylaxis utilization in high-risk situations. The aim of this study is to summarize our current understanding of postprocedural peritonitis and discuss the existing data behind periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis, focusing primarily on PD catheter insertion, dental procedures, colonoscopies, upper endoscopies with gastrostomy, and gynecologic procedures.

Summary

The ISPD currently recommends intravenous antibiotics prior to PD catheter insertion, colonoscopies, and invasive gynecologic procedures, though prophylaxis has only demonstrated benefit in a prospective, randomized control setting for PD catheter insertion. However, multiple retrospective studies exist that support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the other 2 procedures. No specific antibiotic regimen has been established as most optimal to prevent peritonitis for any of the 3 procedures. Antibiotic coverage should include the Enterobacteriaceae family, as well as Gram-positive organisms commonly found on the skin flora for PD catheter insertion, anaerobes for colonoscopies, and common organisms from the urogenital flora in gynecologic procedures. Additionally, the ISPD currently recommends oral amoxicillin prior to dental procedures. There is currently no ISPD recommendation to provide antibiotic prophylaxis prior to an upper endoscopy with or without gastrostomy, though this is a potential area for research.

Key Messages

PD patients are at high risk for developing peritonitis after typical procedures. Antibiotic prophylaxis is a potential strategy that the ISPD utilizes to prevent these infections. However, further research needs to be done to determine the optimal antibiotic regimen.

Regional variation in the treatment and prevention of peritoneal dialysis-related infections in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections lead to significant morbidity. The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guidelines for the prevention and treatment of PD-related infections are based on variable evidence. We describe practice patterns across facilities participating in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS).

METHODS

PDOPPS, a prospective cohort study, enrolled nationally representative samples of PD patients in Australia/New Zealand (ANZ), Canada, Thailand, Japan, the UK and the USA. Data on PD-related infection prevention and treatment practices across facilities were obtained from a survey of medical directors'.

RESULTS

A total of 170 centers, caring for >11 000 patients, were included. The proportion of facilities reporting antibiotic administration at the time of PD catheter insertion was lowest in the USA (63%) and highest in Canada and the UK (100%). Exit-site antimicrobial prophylaxis was variably used across countries, with Japan (4%) and Thailand (28%) having the lowest proportions. Exit-site mupirocin was the predominant exit-site prophylactic strategy in ANZ (56%), Canada (50%) and the UK (47%), while exit-site aminoglycosides were more common in the USA (72%). Empiric Gram-positive peritonitis treatment with vancomycin was most common in the UK (88%) and USA (83%) compared with 10-45% elsewhere. Empiric Gram-negative peritonitis treatment with aminoglycoside therapy was highest in ANZ (72%) and the UK (77%) compared with 10-45% elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in PD-related infection prevention and treatment strategies exist across countries with limited uptake of ISPD guideline recommendations. Further work will aim to understand the impact these differences have on the wide variation in infection risk between facilities and other clinically relevant PD outcomes.

Fungal Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

Peritonitis is one of the most frequent complications of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 1% – 15% of episodes are caused by fungal infections. The mortality rate of fungal peritonitis (FP) varies from 5% to 53%; failure to resume PD occurs in up to 40% of patients. The majority of these FP episodes are caused by Candida species. Candida albicans has historically been reported to be a more common cause than non-albicans Candida species, but in recent reports a shift has been observed and non-albicans Candida may now be more common. Unusual, often “nonpathogenic,” fungi are being increasingly reported as etiologic agents in FP. Clinical features of FP are not different from those of bacterial peritonitis. Phenotypic identification of fungi in clinical microbiology laboratories is often difficult and delayed. New molecular diagnostic techniques ( e.g., polymerase chain reaction) are being developed and evaluated, and may improve diagnosis and so facilitate early treatment of infected patients. Abdominal pain, abdominal pain with fever, and catheter left in situ are risk factors for mortality and technique failure in FP. In programs with high baseline rates of FP, nystatin prophylaxis may be beneficial. Each program must examine its own history of FP to decide whether prophylaxis would be beneficial. Catheter removal is indicated immediately after fungi are identified by Gram stain or culture in all patients with FP. Prolonged treatment with antifungal agents to determine response and attempt clearance is not encouraged. Antifungals should be continued for 10 days to 2 weeks after catheter removal. Attempts at reinsertion should be made only after waiting for 4 – 6 weeks.

Prophylactic Antibiotic Reduces the Risk of Peritonitis after Invasive Gynecologic Procedures

Background:Peritonitis is a serious complication after invasive procedures in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). Most studies that have investigated peritonitis following invasive gynecologic procedures enrolled small patient populations. This study focuses on the clinical presentation, outcomes, and effects of prophylactic antibiotic use before invasive techniques.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent invasive gynecologic procedures between 2005 and 2015 in a tertiary medical center. Eligible patients were identified and enrolled and their demographic data were collected. The use of prophylactic antibiotics and the outcomes of peritonitis were recorded.Results:Twenty-six gynecologic procedures were performed on 18 PD patients. Seven episodes of peritonitis occurred in 6 patients after invasive gynecologic procedures. Eleven procedures were preceded by prophylactic antibiotic treatment (6 oral cefadroxil, 1 oral cefuroxime, 1 oral clindamycin, 1 intravenous [IV] ceftriaxone, 1 IV ceftazidime, and 1 IV cefazolin). The pathogens were diverse (group B Streptococcus, group D Streptococcus, E. coli, and Enterococcus). All episodes of peritonitis were successfully treated using intraperitoneal antibiotics without recurrence, technique failure, or mortality. The odds ratio of peritonitis in the non-prophylaxis group was 20.29 (95% confidence interval 1.01 - 406.35, p = 0.0103).Conclusion:The use of prophylactic antibiotic treatment considerably reduced the risk of peritonitis after invasive gyne co logic procedures.

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection following uterine instrumentation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding

Shunt infections are most common within the first 6 months following implantation. A shunt infection 19 years after implantation secondary to uterine ablation has not been reported to our knowledge. Office hysteroscopic procedures have become commonplace in gynecologic practice. Infectious complication rates are low, but peritonitis has been described. We present a patient with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection following a uterine ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Three days following the ablation she developed abdominal pain. CT scan of the abdomen 5 months after the procedure revealed a pseudocyst. She then underwent removal of her shunt with intra-operative cultures revealing Streptococcus agalactiae. Definitive treatment consisted of shunt explantation and antibiotic treatment with complete resolution of her pain and pseudocyst. Consideration for prophylactic antibiotics should be made when a patient with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt undergoes any transvaginal procedure.

Prevention of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis

Reducing the frequency of peritonitis for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) continues to be a challenge. This review focuses on recent updates in catheter care and other patient factors that influence infection rates. An experienced nursing staff plays an important role in teaching proper PD technique to new patients, but nursing staff must be cognizant of each patient's unique educational needs. Over time, many patients become less adherent to proper dialysis technique, such as washing hands or wearing a mask. This behavior is associated with higher risk of peritonitis and is modifiable with re-training. Prophylactic antibiotics before PD catheter placement can decrease the infection risk immediately after catheter placement. In addition, some studies suggest that prophylaxis against fungal superinfection after antibiotic exposure is effective in reducing fungal peritonitis, although larger randomized studies are needed before this practice can be recommended for all patients. Over time, exit site and nasal colonization with pathogenic organisms can lead to exit-site infections and peritonitis. For patients with Staphylococcus aureus colonization, exit-site prophylaxis with either mupirocin or gentamicin cream reduces clinical infection with this organism. Although there are limited data for support, antibiotic prophylaxis before gastrointestinal, gynecologic, or dental procedures may also help reduce the risk of peritonitis.

Prophylactic antibiotics for endoscopy-associated peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients

INTRODUCTION

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) peritonitis may develop after endoscopic procedures, and the benefit of prophylactic antibiotics is unclear. In the present study, we investigated whether prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of peritonitis in these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all endoscopic procedures, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, cystoscopy, hysteroscopy, and hysteroscopy-assisted intrauterine device (IUD) implantation/removal, performed in CAPD patients at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, between February 2001 and February 2012.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty-three patients were enrolled, and 125 endoscopies were performed in 45 patients. Eight (6.4%) peritonitis episodes developed after the examination. Antibiotics were used in 26 procedures, and none of the patients had peritonitis (0% vs. 8.1% without antibiotic use; p=0.20). The peritonitis rate was significantly higher in the non-EGD group than in the EGD group (15.9% [7/44] vs. 1.2% [1/81]; p<0.005). Antibiotic use prior to non-EGD examinations significantly reduced the endoscopy-associated peritonitis rate compared to that without antibiotic use (0% [0/16] vs. 25% [7/28]; p<0.05). Peritonitis only occurred if invasive procedures were performed, such as biopsy, polypectomy, or IUD implantation, (noninvasive procedures, 0% [0/20] vs. invasive procedures, 30.4% [7/23]; p<0.05). No peritonitis was noted if antibiotics were used prior to examination with invasive procedures (0% [0/10] vs. 53.8% [7/13] without antibiotic use; p<0.05). Although not statistically significant, antibiotics may play a role in preventing gynecologic procedure-related peritonitis (antibiotics, 0% [0/4] vs. no antibiotics, 55.6% [5/9]; p=0.10).

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endoscopy-associated PD peritonitis in the non-EGD group. Endoscopically assisted invasive procedures, such as biopsy, polypectomy, IUD implantation/removal, and dilatation and curettage (D&C), pose a high risk for peritonitis. Prophylactic antibiotics for peritonitis prevention may be required in colonoscopic procedures and gynecologic procedures.

Fungal infections of the perivesical space

We describe 3 patients with fungal infection in the perivesical space who manifested lower abdominal pain and urinary tract symptomatology. Imaging studies demonstrated perivesical abnormalities. Urine culture was positive for fungus in only 1 patients. Management required surgical exploration, drainage, débridement of necrotic tissue and in 1 patient partial bladder resection. Systemic antifungal therapy was administered postoperatively. All patients had a successful outcome.