Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on October 5, 2004
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2004 19(12):3140-3143; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh494
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/12/3140    most recent
gfh494v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (16)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lobbedez, T.
Right arrow Articles by Oreopoulos, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lobbedez, T.
Right arrow Articles by Oreopoulos, D. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant Vol. 19 No. 12 © ERA-EDTA 2004; all rights reserved

Original Article

Routine use of mupirocin at the peritoneal catheter exit site and mupirocin resistance: still low after 7 years

Thierry Lobbedez1, Michael Gardam2, Helen Dedier2, Dorothy Burdzy1, Maggie Chu1, Sharon Izatt1, Joanne M. Bargman1, Sarbjit V. Jassal1, Stephen Vas1, James Brunton3 and Dimitrios G. Oreopoulos1

1 Division of Nephrology, 2 Division of Infection Prevention and Control and 3 Division of Infectious Disease, University Health Network Toronto, Canada

Correspondence and offprint requests to: D. G. Oreopoulos, Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario M5T2S8, Canada. Email: shaina{at}istar.ca

Objective. The purpose of this study (the third in a series of similar studies) is to evaluate the prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus (SA), methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA) and mupirocin-resistant SA (MuRSA) carriers in a peritoneal dialysis centre where patients have been instructed to use prophylactic mupirocin ointment at the catheter exit site over the last 7 years.

Methods. Swabs were taken from catheter exit site, nares, axillae and groin in 147 chronic peritoneal dialysis out-patients between November 2003 and January 2004. Axillae/groin and nasal samples were pooled and cultured in the same medium, whereas exit site swabs were cultured separately. All SA isolated were tested for methicillin and mupirocin resistance using oxacillin screening plates and E-test strips.

Results. Sixteen of 147 patients (10.9%) were found to be SA carriers: of these 13 (8.8%) had a positive nasal/axillae/groin culture; two (1.4%) had both nasal/axillae/groin- and exit site-positive culture; and one (0.7%) had only exit site-positive culture. In these 16 SA carriers, we found mupirocin-resistant strains (MuRSA) in four patients (25%) and MRSA in two patients (12.5%). Among the four MuRSA carriers, one had both nasal/axillae/groin- and exit site-positive culture and three had only nasal/axillae/groin-positive culture. Three high-level resistance and one low-level resistance MuRSA carriers were isolated. One MuRSA strain was also methicillin resistant. All MRSA strains were sensitive to vancomycin and rifampicin.

Conclusion. After 7 years' routine use of prophylactic mupirocin ointment at the catheter exit site in non-selected chronic peritoneal dialysis patients, MuRSA was found in 25% of SA strains isolated or in 2.7% of the patients. Compared with our previous study, 3 years earlier, there is no significant increase in the MuRSA prevalence in peritoneal dialysis patients who routinely apply mupirocin ointment at the catheter exit site.

Keywords: catheter exit site; mupirocin; resistance; Staphylococcus aureus; peritoneal dialysis


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
M. T. James, J. Conley, M. Tonelli, B. J. Manns, J. MacRae, B. R. Hemmelgarn, and for the Alberta Kidney Disease Network
Meta-analysis: Antibiotics for Prophylaxis against Hemodialysis Catheter-Related Infections
Ann Intern Med, April 15, 2008; 148(8): 596 - 605.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 pdiHome page
R. T. Krediet
30 YEARS OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS DEVELOPMENT: THE PAST AND THE FUTURE
Perit. Dial. Int., June 1, 2007; 27(Supplement_2): S35 - S41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
N. K. Shrestha, M. K. Banbury, M. Weber, R. E. Cwynar, C. Lober, G. W. Procop, M. T. Karafa, and S. M. Gordon
Safety of Targeted Perioperative Mupirocin Treatment for Preventing Infections After Cardiac Surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2006; 81(6): 2183 - 2188.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
D. W. Johnson, C. van Eps, D. W. Mudge, K. J. Wiggins, K. Armstrong, C. M. Hawley, S. B. Campbell, N. M. Isbel, G. R. Nimmo, and H. Gibbs
Randomized, Controlled Trial of Topical Exit-Site Application of Honey (Medihoney) versus Mupirocin for the Prevention of Catheter-Associated Infections in Hemodialysis Patients
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., May 1, 2005; 16(5): 1456 - 1462.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.