복막 투석 환자에서 도관 관련 감염 및 복막염에 대한 Mupirocin과 도관 전환술(Catheter Revision)의 효과 (The Effects of Catheter Revision and Mupirocin on Exit Site Infection/Peritonitis in CAPD Patients)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 영남대학교 의과대학
· 수록지 정보 : Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science / 16권 / 2호 / 347 ~ 356페이지
· 저자명 : 박준범, 김정미, 최준혁, 조규향, 정항재, 김영진, 도준영, 윤경우

초록

BACKGROUND: Exit site/tunnel infection causes cosiderable morbidity and technique failure in CAPD patients. We presently use a unique revision method for the treatment of refractory ESI/TI in CAPD patients and mupirocin prophylaxis for high risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 139 CAPD patients about the ESI/TI from October 1993 to February 1999 at Yeungnam University Hospital. At the beginning of the ESI, we usually started medications with rifampicin and ciprofloxacin and then changed the antibiotics according to the sensitivity test. If the ESI had persisted and there were T1 symptoms(purulent discharge, abscess lesion around exit site), we performed catheter revision(external cuff shaving, disinfection around tunnel and new exit site on opposit direction) with a combination of proper antibiotics. We applied local mupirocin ointment at the exit site three times per week to the 34 patients who had the risk of ESI starting from October 1998. RESULTS: The total follow-up was 2401 patient months(pt. mon). ESI occurred on 105 occasions in 36 out of 139 patients, and peritonitis occurred on 112 occasions in 67 out of 139 patients. The total number of incidences of ESI and peritonitis was 1 per 23.0 pt.mon and 0 per 21.6 pt.mon. The most common organism responsible for ESI was Staphylococcus aureus(26 of 54 isolated cases, 48%), followed by the Methicillin resistant S. auresu(MRSA) (13 cases, 24%). Seven patients(5: MRSA, 2: Pseudomonas) had to be treated with a revision to control infection. Three patients experienced ESI relapse after revision. One of them improved with antibiotics, while another needed a second revision and the remaining required catheter removal due to persistent MRSA infection with re-insertion at the same time. But, there was no more ESI in these 3 patients who were received management to relapse (The mean duration: 14.0 months). The rates of ESI were significantly reduced after using mupirocin than before(1 per 12.7 vs 34.0 pt.mon, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: In summary, revision technique can be regarded as an effective method for refractory ESI/T1 before catheter removal. Also local mupirocin ointment can play a significant role in the prevention of ESI.

영어초록

BACKGROUND: Exit site/tunnel infection causes cosiderable morbidity and technique failure in CAPD patients. We presently use a unique revision method for the treatment of refractory ESI/TI in CAPD patients and mupirocin prophylaxis for high risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 139 CAPD patients about the ESI/TI from October 1993 to February 1999 at Yeungnam University Hospital. At the beginning of the ESI, we usually started medications with rifampicin and ciprofloxacin and then changed the antibiotics according to the sensitivity test. If the ESI had persisted and there were T1 symptoms(purulent discharge, abscess lesion around exit site), we performed catheter revision(external cuff shaving, disinfection around tunnel and new exit site on opposit direction) with a combination of proper antibiotics. We applied local mupirocin ointment at the exit site three times per week to the 34 patients who had the risk of ESI starting from October 1998. RESULTS: The total follow-up was 2401 patient months(pt. mon). ESI occurred on 105 occasions in 36 out of 139 patients, and peritonitis occurred on 112 occasions in 67 out of 139 patients. The total number of incidences of ESI and peritonitis was 1 per 23.0 pt.mon and 0 per 21.6 pt.mon. The most common organism responsible for ESI was Staphylococcus aureus(26 of 54 isolated cases, 48%), followed by the Methicillin resistant S. auresu(MRSA) (13 cases, 24%). Seven patients(5: MRSA, 2: Pseudomonas) had to be treated with a revision to control infection. Three patients experienced ESI relapse after revision. One of them improved with antibiotics, while another needed a second revision and the remaining required catheter removal due to persistent MRSA infection with re-insertion at the same time. But, there was no more ESI in these 3 patients who were received management to relapse (The mean duration: 14.0 months). The rates of ESI were significantly reduced after using mupirocin than before(1 per 12.7 vs 34.0 pt.mon, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: In summary, revision technique can be regarded as an effective method for refractory ESI/T1 before catheter removal. Also local mupirocin ointment can play a significant role in the prevention of ESI.

참고자료

· 없음