The use of nurse-administered vascular access audit in home hemodialysis patients: A quality initiative

INTRODUCTION

Vascular access complications are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in home hemodialysis (HHD). Nurse-administered vascular access checklist is a feasible quality improvement strategy aimed to lower HHD access errors.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective quality improvement initiative for consecutive HHD patients between April 2013 and December 2016 at the Toronto General Hospital. Vascular access audits were administered every 6 months during clinic visits and during retraining sessions after an infection. We aimed to (1) determine whether prospective serial administration of vascular audit will decrease in the number of errors performed by the patient and (2) to determine whether there is an association between the number of errors and vascular access related infection.

FINDINGS

A total of 370 audits were performed on 122 patients with a mean HHD vintage of 6.7 (0.8-19.5) years. The mean number of errors per patient decreased from 1.24 ± 1.75 (baseline) to 0.33 ± 0.49 (last follow-up), P < 0.001. Among patients who had serial vascular access audits performed, there was a significant decrease in median number of errors (baseline median 1, [0-2] end of study median 0, [0-1] P = 0.01). Patients performing buttonhole cannulation made most proportion of errors as compared to CVC, 54% vs. 40% (P = 0.01) respectively; and as compared to rope ladder cannulation 54% vs. 37% (P = 0.008). We were unable to demonstrate an association between the change in patient reported errors and vascular access related infection.

DISCUSSION

Vascular access audit is a feasible quality initiative, which leads to a decrease in the number of patient reported errors in vascular access. The longitudinal clinical sequelae of this strategy warrants further examination.

Antimicrobial agents for preventing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value is often limited by the development of infections such as peritonitis and exit-site and tunnel infections. Multiple strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of peritonitis including antibiotics, topical disinfectants to the exit site and antifungal agents. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has been variable and are based on a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The optimal preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of peritonitis remain unclear.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of antimicrobial strategies used to prevent peritonitis in PD patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs or quasi-RCTs in patients receiving chronic PD, which evaluated any antimicrobial agents used systemically or locally to prevent peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies, randomising 4435 patients, were included. Twenty additional studies have been included in this update. The risk of bias domains were often unclear or high; risk of bias was judged to be low in 19 (49%) studies for random sequence generation, 12 (31%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for incomplete outcome reporting, and in 12 (31%) studies for selective outcome reporting. Blinding of participants and personnel was considered to be at low risk of bias in 8 (21%) and 10 studies (26%) for blinding of outcome assessors. It should be noted that blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in many of the studies because of the nature of the intervention or control treatment.The use of oral or topical antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment, had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 191 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.04) and the risk of peritonitis (5 studies, 395 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.19).The use of nasal antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.87) and the risk of peritonitis (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.31).Pre/perioperative intravenous vancomycin compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of early peritonitis (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61) but has an uncertain effect on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.32).The use of topical disinfectant compared with standard care or other active treatment (antibiotic or other disinfectant) had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (8 studies, 973 patients, low quality evidence, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33) and the risk of peritonitis (6 studies, 853 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06).Antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin/fluconazole compared with placebo/no treatment may reduce the risk of fungal peritonitis occurring after a patient has had an antibiotic course (2 studies, 817 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63).No intervention reduced the risk of catheter removal or replacement. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality. Only six studies enrolled 200 or more patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this update, we identified limited data from RCTs and quasi-RCTs which evaluated strategies to prevent peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infections. This review demonstrates that pre/peri-operative intravenous vancomycin may reduce the risk of early peritonitis and that antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. However, no other antimicrobial interventions have proven efficacy. In particular, the use of nasal antibiotic to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus, had an uncertain effect on the risk of peritonitis and raises questions about the usefulness of this approach. Given the large number of patients on PD and the importance of peritonitis, the lack of adequately powered and high quality RCTs to inform decision making about strategies to prevent peritonitis is striking.

Exit-Site Dressing and Infection in Peritoneal Dialysis: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

♦

OBJECTIVE

Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection is a common cause of catheter loss and the main reason for PD drop-out. Exit-site infection (ESI) is a pathway to developing tunnel infection and peritonitis, hence rigorous exit-site care has always been emphasized in PD therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of exit-site dressing vs non-dressing on the rate of PD-related infection. ♦

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in prevalent PD patients at the Hospital Tuanku Jaafar Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia, from April 2011 until April 2013. All patients were required to perform daily washing of the exit site with antibacterial soap during a shower. In the dressing group (n = 54), patients were required to clean their exit site using povidone-iodine after drying, followed by topical mupirocin antibiotic application to the exit site. The exit site was then covered with a sterile gauze dressing and the catheter immobilized with tape. In the non-dressing group (n = 54), patients were not required to do any further dressing after drying. They were only required to apply mupirocin cream to the exit site and then left the exit site uncovered. The catheter was immobilized with tape. The primary outcome was ESI. The secondary outcomes were evidence of tunnel infection or peritonitis. ♦

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients completed the study. There were a total of 12 ESI episodes: 4 episodes in 4 patients in the dressing group vs 8 episodes in 4 patients in the non-dressing group. This corresponds to 1 episode per 241.3 patient-months vs 1 episode per 111.1 patient-months in the dressing and non-dressing groups respectively. Median time to first ESI episode was shorter in the non-dressing than in the dressing group, but not significant (p = 0.25). The incidence of gram-positive ESI in both groups was similar. There were no gram-negative ESI in the non-dressing group compared with 2 in the dressing group. The peritonitis rate was 1 per 37.1 patient-month in the dressing group and 1 per 44.4 patient-months in the non-dressing group. Median time to first peritonitis episode was significantly shorter in the dressing group compared to non-dressing (p = 0.03). There was no impact of dressing disruptions in the occurrence of major PD catheter-related infection. ♦

CONCLUSION

Use of a non-dressing technique with only prophylactic topical mupirocin cream application is effective in preventing PD-related infection. The non-dressing technique is more cost-effective and convenient for PD patients, with fewer disposables.

The association between exit site infection and subsequent peritonitis among peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Peritonitis is the most common infectious complication seen in peritoneal dialysis (PD). Traditionally, exit site infection (ESI) has been thought to predispose PD patients to peritonitis, although the risks have not been quantified. This study aimed to quantify the risk of PD peritonitis after ESI.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Data from 203 clinically stable PD patients >18 years of age who were followed as part of a randomized controlled trial over 18 months were used to estimate the risk of developing peritonitis within 30 days of an ESI compared with individuals who did not have a recent ESI. Sensitivity analyses were performed at 15, 45, and 60 days.

RESULTS

Patients were mostly male (64.5%) and Caucasian, with a mean age of 60.5 ± 14.4 years. There were 44 ESIs and 87 peritonitis episodes during the 18-month study. Seven patients had an ESI followed by peritonitis within 30 days. Using a frailty model, patients who had an ESI had a significantly higher risk of developing peritonitis within 30 days, even if the ESI was appropriately treated. This risk was maximal early on and diminished with time, with hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 11.1 at 15 days (HR=11.1, 95% CI=4.9-25.1), 5.3 at 45 days (2.5-11.3), and 4.9 at 60 days (2.4-9.9). In 2.3% of patients, subsequent peritonitis was caused by the same organism as the previous ESI.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong association between a treated ESI and subsequent PD peritonitis was present up to 60 days after initial diagnosis.

A randomized controlled trial comparing mupirocin and polysporin triple ointments in peritoneal dialysis patients: the MP3 Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Infectious complications remain a significant cause of peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique failure. Topical ointments seem to reduce peritonitis; however, concerns over resistance have led to a quest for alternative agents. This study examined the effectiveness of applying topical Polysporin Triple ointment (P(3)) against mupirocin in a multi-centered, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

PD patients routinely applied either P(3) or mupirocin ointment to their exit site. Patients were followed for 18 months or until death or catheter removal. The primary study outcome was a composite endpoint of exit-site infection (ESI), tunnel infection, or peritonitis.

RESULTS

Seventy-five of 201 randomized patients experienced a primary outcome event (51 peritonitis episodes, 24 ESIs). No difference was seen in the time to first event for P(3) (13.2 months; 95% confidence interval, 11.9-14.5) and mupirocin (14.0 months; 95% confidence interval, 12.7-15.4) (P=0.41). Twice as many patients reported redness at the exit site in the P(3) group (14 versus 6, P=0.10). Over the complete study period, a higher rate per year of fungal ESIs was seen in patients using P(3) (0.07 versus 0.01; P=0.02) with a corresponding increase in fungal peritonitis (0.04 versus 0.00, respectively; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that P(3) is not superior to mupirocin in the prophylaxis of PD-related infections. Colonization of the exit site with fungal organisms is of concern and warrants further study. As such, the use of P(3) over mupirocin is not advocated in the prophylaxis of PD-related infections.

Prevention of peritoneal dialysis-related infections

Despite substantial advances in peritoneal dialysis (PD) as a renal replacement modality, PD-related infection remains an important cause of morbidity, technique failure, and mortality. This review describes the microbiology and outcomes of PD peritonitis and catheter infection, followed by a discussion of several strategies that may reduce the risk of PD-related infections. Strategies that are reviewed include use of antibiotics at the time of PD catheter insertion, selection of PD catheter design and insertion technique, patient training, PD connectology, exit site prophylaxis, periprocedural prophylaxis, fungal prophylaxis, and choice of PD solutions.