Antonio Scalamogna1, Luca Nardelli2,3,4, Dalia Zubidat5, Giuseppe Castellano1,6. 1. Division of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 2. Division of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. lcn.nardelli@gmail.com. 3. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. lcn.nardelli@gmail.com. 4. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. lcn.nardelli@gmail.com. 5. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In tunnel infection (TI) refractory to medical therapy or in case of TI that occurs simultaneously with peritonitis, the removal of the peritoneal catheter has been proposed. This approach requires the interruption of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and the creation of a temporary vascular access. However, simultaneous removal and reinsertion of the PD catheter (SCR) represents another possible therapeutic approach. METHODS: We analysed the outcome of 20 patients (10 men and 10 women, mean age 65.5 ± 16.3 years) treated by CAPD for a mean period of 24.3 ± 14.2 months who underwent to SCR for the treatment of TI unresponsive to medical therapy or TI that occurred simultaneously with peritonitis at Fondazione Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico. All the patients restarted CAPD exchanges within 24 h from catheter placement. RESULTS: SCR was successful in 80% (16/20) of the cases. In particular, SCR was effective in 100% (11/11) of the TI with or without associated peritonitis sustained by S. aureus. However, SCR failed in 57% (4/7) of TI associated with relapsing peritonitis and in one patient with TI secondary to Enterobacter. No early mechanical complications (within 3 months after SCR) occurred when CAPD was restarted. CONCLUSIONS: SCR of the PD catheter through double-purse string technique represents an effective treatment for TI without or with simultaneously peritonitis sustained by S. aureus avoiding the patient the need for temporary hemodialysis and second surgical procedure. However, SCR could be contraindicated in case of relapsing peritonitis.
BACKGROUND: In tunnel infection (TI) refractory to medical therapy or in case of TI that occurs simultaneously with peritonitis, the removal of the peritoneal catheter has been proposed. This approach requires the interruption of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and the creation of a temporary vascular access. However, simultaneous removal and reinsertion of the PD catheter (SCR) represents another possible therapeutic approach. METHODS: We analysed the outcome of 20 patients (10 men and 10 women, mean age 65.5 ± 16.3 years) treated by CAPD for a mean period of 24.3 ± 14.2 months who underwent to SCR for the treatment of TI unresponsive to medical therapy or TI that occurred simultaneously with peritonitis at Fondazione Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico. All the patients restarted CAPD exchanges within 24 h from catheter placement. RESULTS: SCR was successful in 80% (16/20) of the cases. In particular, SCR was effective in 100% (11/11) of the TI with or without associated peritonitis sustained by S. aureus. However, SCR failed in 57% (4/7) of TI associated with relapsing peritonitis and in one patient with TI secondary to Enterobacter. No early mechanical complications (within 3 months after SCR) occurred when CAPD was restarted. CONCLUSIONS: SCR of the PD catheter through double-purse string technique represents an effective treatment for TI without or with simultaneously peritonitis sustained by S. aureus avoiding the patient the need for temporary hemodialysis and second surgical procedure. However, SCR could be contraindicated in case of relapsing peritonitis.