Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on August 10, 2004
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2004 19(10):2584-2591; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh386
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/10/2584    most recent
gfh386v1
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 (26)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kavanagh, D.
Right arrow Articles by Mactier, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kavanagh, D.
Right arrow Articles by Mactier, R. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant Vol. 19 No. 10 © ERA-EDTA 2004; all rights reserved

Original Article

Peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis in Scotland (1999–2002)

David Kavanagh, Gordon J. Prescott and Robert A. Mactier on behalf of the Scottish Renal Registry

The Scottish Renal Registry, Royal Infirmary, Castle Street, Glasgow G4 0SF, UK

Correspondence and offprint requests to: David Kavanagh, The Scottish Renal Registry, Royal Infirmary, Castle Street, Glasgow G4 0SF, UK. Email: David.Kavanagh{at}newcastle.ac.uk

Background. Peritonitis is a major complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD). We have performed a national study of all patients on PD in Scotland over a 3.5 year period examining the causes of technique failure, rates of peritonitis, causative organisms, clinical outcomes and differences between automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD).

Methods. All 10 adult renal units in Scotland participated in the study and the data include all 1205 patients who were on PD in Scotland from January 1999 to June 2002. The data were collected prospectively by the PD nurses and reported to the Scottish Renal Registry every 6 months.

Results. Refractory or recurrent peritonitis was the cause of technique failure in 167 patients (42.6% of all cases of technique failure). There were 928 cases of peritonitis in 1487 patient-years, which equates to an overall peritonitis rate of one episode every 19.2 months. The peritonitis rates for APD and CAPD were similar at one episode every 20.3 months and one episode every 18.6 months, respectively. These results include 88 cases of peritonitis due to relapse or re-infection. There was a statistically significant difference (P = 0.012) in peritonitis rates between units using nasal mupiricin (one episode every 21.9 months) and those that did not (one episode every 18.3 months). Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most common cause of peritonitis (29%), although this rate is lower than in historic studies. The overall initial cure rate was 75%. The initial cure rate for APD was 77.2% and for CAPD was 73.7%. No causative organism was isolated in 17% of cases.

Conclusion. PD-associated peritonitis is the leading cause of technique failure in Scotland. We validate previous studies showing a decrease in the proportion of peritonitis episodes that are caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci. APD peritonitis rates are not significantly better than CAPD peritonitis rates in Scotland, and the initial cure rates for APD and CAPD are similar.

Keywords: patient outcome; peritoneal dialysis; peritonitis; quality assurance; technique failure


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
 CJASNHome page
S. J. Nessim, J. M. Bargman, P. C. Austin, R. Nisenbaum, and S. V. Jassal
Predictors of Peritonitis in Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis: Results of a Large, Prospective Canadian Database
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., July 1, 2009; 4(7): 1195 - 1200.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 pdiHome page
R. Mactier
PERITONITIS IS STILL THE ACHILLES' HEEL OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS
Perit. Dial. Int., May 1, 2009; 29(3): 262 - 266.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 pdiHome page
A. Davenport
PERITONITIS REMAINS THE MAJOR CLINICAL COMPLICATION OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS: THE LONDON, UK, PERITONITIS AUDIT 2002-2003
Perit. Dial. Int., May 1, 2009; 29(3): 297 - 302.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 pdiHome page
F. F. Ersoy
IMPROVING TECHNIQUE SURVIVAL IN PERITONEAL DIALYSIS: WHAT IS MODIFIABLE?
Perit. Dial. Int., February 1, 2009; 29(Supplement_2): S74 - S77.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
P. Evenepoel, R. Selgas, F. Caputo, L. Foggensteiner, J. G. Heaf, A. Ortiz, A. Kelly, S. Chasan-Taber, A. Duggal, and S. Fan
Efficacy and safety of sevelamer hydrochloride and calcium acetate in patients on peritoneal dialysis
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., January 1, 2009; 24(1): 278 - 285.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CJASNHome page
S. J. Nessim, J. M. Bargman, P. C. Austin, K. Story, and S. V. Jassal
Impact of Age on Peritonitis Risk in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: An Era Effect
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2009; 4(1): 135 - 141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
B. A. Warady, R. Feneberg, E. Verrina, J. T. Flynn, D. E. Muller-Wiefel, N. Besbas, A. Zurowska, N. Aksu, M. Fischbach, E. Sojo, et al.
Peritonitis in Children Who Receive Long-Term Peritoneal Dialysis: A Prospective Evaluation of Therapeutic Guidelines
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., July 1, 2007; 18(7): 2172 - 2179.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
A. Shukla, Z. Abreu, and J. M. Bargman
Streptococcal PD peritonitis--a 10-year review of one centre's experience
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., December 1, 2006; 21(12): 3545 - 3549.
[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.