SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.34 número1New Nephrology Departments: Challenges of the FutureTherapeutic plasma exchange in patients in a portuguese ICU índice de autoresíndice de assuntosPesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados




Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO


Portuguese Journal of Nephrology & Hypertension

versão impressa ISSN 0872-0169


FIEL, David et al. Predictors of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: experience during 3 decades. Port J Nephrol Hypert [online]. 2020, vol.34, n.1, pp.14-20. ISSN 0872-0169.

Introduction: Peritonitis is a common complication in peritoneal dialysis patients and a major cause for dropout. Systematic report and frequent trend analysis are thought to be major drivers for improvement in this area. The authors analysed peritonitis outcomes dating back over 20 years in a peritoneal dialysis unit of a central hospital. Methods: Retrospective study from 1993 to 2018: assessment of demographic, clinical and microbiological profiles of patients with peritonitis. We performed univariate and multivariate analysis (multiple logistic regression) to predict peritonitis risk factors, and survival analysis (Cox proportional hazards model) to determine the impact on outcomes (mortality and technique survival). Results: We included 225 patients, average age of 48.3±14.7 years, average time of follow-up of 38±25 months, with a total of 221 episodes of peritonitis (0.31 peritonitis/patient.year), 76% resulting in cure. Most frequent agents were Staphylococci: Coagulase-Negative (23%) and Staphylococcus aureus (19%, of which 24% were methicillin-resistant). Gram-negative infections led to higher rate of catheter removal, transfer to hemodialysis or death (49% of cases vs. 17% in Gram-positive). Primary end-point was death or transfer to hemodialysis, with a median time of 94 (min 4, max 94) and 66 (min 3, max 105) months, respectively. The occurrence of at least one peritonitis was the major variable that influenced transfer to hemodialysis (OR 3.94 [2.12 - 7.58], p < 0.001*], whereas an event in the first year also negatively affected the time to dialysis technique switch (median time 38.7 [26.2 - 58.4] vs. 67.8 [59.5 - 80.3] months, log-rank = 0.02*), but without impact on mortality. Only the peritoneal dialysis modality (OR: automated peritoneal dialysis vs. continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis 0.38 [0.19-0.74]) was predictive of peritonitis in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: In this single-center long-term analysis, where the rate of peritonitis was within recommended values, automated peritoneal dialysis seemed to have a protective impact. The number of peritonitis and peritonitis occurrence during the first year worsened technique survival, emphasizing early peritonitis prevention.

Palavras-chave : Automated Peritoneal Dialysis; Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis.

        · texto em Inglês     · Inglês ( pdf )


Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons