Oral versus Intraperitoneal Application of Clindamycin in Tunnel Infections: A Prospective, Randomized Study in Capd Patients

Objective

To evaluate the potential superiority of either oral or intraperitoneal treatment of catheter tunnel infections (TI), using clindamycin as a first-Iine antibiotic and ultrasound as a diagnostic tool.

Design

This was a prospective, randomized study in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients. From August 1993 until August 1995, 16 clinically and ultrasound-proven episodes of TI were randomly assigned to either an oral or an intraperitoneal (IP) treatment (100 patients, 1414 patient-months). Main criteria for TI diagnosis were purulent drainage from the exit site and/or a positive ultrasound (pericatheter fluid collection of at least 2 mm, 7.5 MHz transducer). Initially, clindamycin (20 mg/kg body weight) was given via the oral (three times per day) or intraperitoneal route (four times per day). In the case of incompatibility or resistance to clindamycin, either oxacillin orciprofloxacin were used orally or IP.

Results

Based on ultrasound criteria, the mean time until a ≥50% reduction of pericatheter abscess diameter was 26 days (median) (range: 8 28 days) in the oral, and 15 days (8 27 days) in the IP group (p ≤ 0.05). Showing no significant difference of pericatheter fluid at study entry with 4 mm (median) (range: 2 -6 mm) in the oral group and 4 mm (2 -4 mm) in the IP group, the IP treatment resulted in a decrease to 0 mm (0 2 mm) after 28 days (p < 0.05), while the diameter was still 2 mm (0 10 mm) (NS) in the oral group. Disappearance of exit-site infection was also somewhat earlier in the intraperitoneal group (51 vs 15 days, NS). Catheter removal had to be done once in the IP group and twice in the oral group within 6 months after study entry.

Conclusions

The results give evidence for greater efficacy of the IP application of clindamycin as a first -Iine antibiotic compared to the oral route for the treatment of tunnel infections.

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a review of its mechanics, advantages, complications, and areas of controversy

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this article is to review the mechanics, advantages, complications, pharmacokinetics, and future trends of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) as they pertain to pharmacotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

Pertinent articles were obtained from an English-language literature search using MEDLINE (1980-1991), Index Medicus (1987-1990), and bibliographic reviews of review articles. Indexing terms included peritoneal dialysis, pharmacokinetics, peritonitis, vancomycin, and fluoroquinolones.

DATA SYNTHESIS

All clinical studies comparing organism recovery methods and treatment of peritonitis have methodologic limitations (e.g., comparison of disparate patient groups, different definitions of peritonitis, lack of follow-up, lack of control for sterile cultures) that may affect the reported results.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPD is an alternative to hemodialysis for the treatment of endstage renal disease and has many complications, leading to significant morbidity. This indicates that CAPD is not appropriate for all patients. Using blood-culturing techniques to culture for dialysate is most productive, but also the most costly. There are few data to indicate exactly the drugs, doses, and durations of choice for peritonitis. Both intraperitoneal and oral administration appear to be appropriate.