PDI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Perit Dial Int 28(5): 505-508
2008
© 2008 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chu, K. H.
Right arrow Articles by Tong, K. L. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chu, K. H.
Right arrow Articles by Tong, K. L. M.

Clinical

A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF THE EFFICACY OF LOCAL APPLICATION OF GENTAMICIN VERSUS MUPIROCIN IN THE PREVENTION OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS CATHETER-RELATED INFECTIONS

Kwok Hong Chu1, Wai Yee Choy2, Chi Chung William Cheung2, Ka Shun Fung1, Hon Lok Tang1, William Lee1, Au Cheuk1, Ka Fai Yim1, Wai Han Hilda Chan1 and Kwok Lung Matthew Tong1

Department of Medicine and Geriatrics,1 Department of Pharmacy,2 Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong, China

Correspondence to: K.H. Chu, Department of Medicine and Geriatrics, Princess Margaret Hospital, Lai Chi Kok, Hong Kong SAR, China. pmhrenal{at}gmail.com

{diamondsuit} Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections are the major cause of technique failure. Exit-site infections (ESI) can be prevented by local application of antibiotics. Mupirocin (M) is the most extensively studied drug for this application. Long-term use can result in the development of resistance. Gentamicin (G) is an attractive alternative, with both gram-positive and gram-negative activities. We studied the comparative efficacy of G cream versus M ointment in the prevention of PD-related infections in a Chinese cohort.

{diamondsuit} Methods: This was a prospective study of adult PD patients of the Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong. Patients were excluded if they had active infection, recent ESI or peritontiis, history of allergy to either drug, or were unable to apply the drug or give consent. Patients were taught to apply the drug daily to the exit site after routine exitsite care. Records were tracked prospectively during hospital admissions and clinic follow-ups.

{diamondsuit} Results: 95 patients were recruited; 14 discontinued the study. The ESI rates were 0.38 and 0.20 episodes/patient-year for the G group and the M group respectively (p = 0.36). Gram-positive ESI rates were 0.18 and 0 episodes/patient-year for the G group and the M group respectively. Gram-negative ESI rates were 0.20 episodes/patient-year for both groups (p = 0.62). The overall peritonitis rates were similar in the two groups (p = 0.91).

{diamondsuit} Discussion: In addition to good perioperative care and strict exit-site care, local antibiotic application can prevent ESI. Mupirocin has been extensively studied and shown to be effective. Similar if not superior effects of G cream have been demonstrated. In this study, neither antibiotic gave significantly better results in the prevention of either ESI or peritonitis.

{diamondsuit} Conclusions: Both gentamicin and mupirocin were effective as prophylaxis for ESI. Longer study is required to determine the long-term efficacy and the potential beneficial effect on the prevention of peritonitis.

KEY WORDS: Exit-site infection; peritonitis; prophylaxis; gentamicin; mupirocin.

Received 28 February 2007; accepted 14 May 2008.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Multimed Inc. logo
Copyright © 2008 by Multimed Inc.