Cefazolin Plus Ceftazidime versus Cefazolin Monotherapy in the Treatment of Culture-Negative Peritonitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 2.1 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Krit Kovitangkoon, Eakalak Lukkanalikitkul, Pongsai Wiangnon, Theenatchar Chunghom, Sirirat Anutrakulchai, Judith Blaine, Pantipa Tonsawan
{"title":"Cefazolin Plus Ceftazidime versus Cefazolin Monotherapy in the Treatment of Culture-Negative Peritonitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Krit Kovitangkoon,&nbsp;Eakalak Lukkanalikitkul,&nbsp;Pongsai Wiangnon,&nbsp;Theenatchar Chunghom,&nbsp;Sirirat Anutrakulchai,&nbsp;Judith Blaine,&nbsp;Pantipa Tonsawan","doi":"10.2147/IJNRD.S346427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Based on current ISPD guidelines, it is unclear as to whether ceftazidime should be discontinued in subsequent management of culture-negative peritonitis if it is used as empirical gram-negative coverage. Herein, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes of cefazolin plus ceftazidime versus cefazolin alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study. Adult peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients who were diagnosed with culture-negative peritonitis between 2014 and 2020 were included. Patients were categorized into two groups according to treatment regimen. Primary response rate, peritonitis relapse rate, and time to primary response were compared. Factors that predicted primary response were determined using Cox regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 58 patients were included in the study. Of these, 42 received cefazolin plus ceftazidime and 16 received cefazolin monotherapy. Overall, the mean age was 65.7±10.4 years. Most of the patients (81.3%) were prescribed continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Initial effluent WBC was 4211±10357 in the combination group and 3833±6931 cell/mm<sup>3</sup> in the monotherapy group (p=0.89). There was no significant difference in primary response at day 5 between the two groups (95.2% in the combination group vs93.7% in the monotherapy group, p=0.82). However, cumulative probability of primary response by the Kaplan-Meier analysis in the combination group was higher than in the monotherapy group (p=0.02). Adjusted HR of serum potassium level to predict a primary response was 1.83 according to multivariate analysis (p=0.03). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of peritonitis relapse or catheter removal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first study to compare clinical outcomes between cefazolin plus ceftazidime versus cefazolin monotherapy in culture-negative peritonitis. Our results suggest that if peritonitis is resolving at day 3, discontinuation of ceftazidime could yield favorable treatment outcomes and might be appropriate for subsequent management. However, the risk of not having gram-negative coverage should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":14181,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ab/3d/ijnrd-15-17.PMC8846620.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IJNRD.S346427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Based on current ISPD guidelines, it is unclear as to whether ceftazidime should be discontinued in subsequent management of culture-negative peritonitis if it is used as empirical gram-negative coverage. Herein, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes of cefazolin plus ceftazidime versus cefazolin alone.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Adult peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients who were diagnosed with culture-negative peritonitis between 2014 and 2020 were included. Patients were categorized into two groups according to treatment regimen. Primary response rate, peritonitis relapse rate, and time to primary response were compared. Factors that predicted primary response were determined using Cox regression analysis.

Results: A total of 58 patients were included in the study. Of these, 42 received cefazolin plus ceftazidime and 16 received cefazolin monotherapy. Overall, the mean age was 65.7±10.4 years. Most of the patients (81.3%) were prescribed continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Initial effluent WBC was 4211±10357 in the combination group and 3833±6931 cell/mm3 in the monotherapy group (p=0.89). There was no significant difference in primary response at day 5 between the two groups (95.2% in the combination group vs93.7% in the monotherapy group, p=0.82). However, cumulative probability of primary response by the Kaplan-Meier analysis in the combination group was higher than in the monotherapy group (p=0.02). Adjusted HR of serum potassium level to predict a primary response was 1.83 according to multivariate analysis (p=0.03). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of peritonitis relapse or catheter removal.

Conclusion: This is the first study to compare clinical outcomes between cefazolin plus ceftazidime versus cefazolin monotherapy in culture-negative peritonitis. Our results suggest that if peritonitis is resolving at day 3, discontinuation of ceftazidime could yield favorable treatment outcomes and might be appropriate for subsequent management. However, the risk of not having gram-negative coverage should be considered.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

头孢唑林加头孢他啶与头孢唑林单药治疗培养阴性腹膜炎的回顾性队列研究
背景:根据目前的ISPD指南,如果将头孢他啶作为经验革兰氏阴性覆盖,那么在培养阴性腹膜炎的后续治疗中是否应该停用头孢他啶尚不清楚。在此,我们的目的是比较头孢唑林加头孢他啶与头孢唑林单独使用的临床结果。方法:回顾性队列研究。纳入2014年至2020年间诊断为培养阴性腹膜炎的成人腹膜透析(PD)患者。根据治疗方案将患者分为两组。比较原发性有效率、腹膜炎复发率及至原发性有效率的时间。预测主要反应的因素采用Cox回归分析确定。结果:共纳入58例患者。其中42人接受头孢唑林加头孢他啶治疗,16人接受头孢唑林单药治疗。总体而言,平均年龄为65.7±10.4岁。大多数患者(81.3%)接受持续动态腹膜透析。联合治疗组初始出水WBC为4211±10357,单药治疗组为3833±6931 cells /mm3 (p=0.89)。两组在第5天的主要缓解率无显著差异(联合组为95.2%,单药组为93.7%,p=0.82)。然而,Kaplan-Meier分析显示,联合治疗组的累积初次缓解概率高于单药治疗组(p=0.02)。多因素分析显示,血清钾水平预测原发性反应的校正HR为1.83 (p=0.03)。两组在腹膜炎复发和导管拔除方面没有差异。结论:这是第一个比较头孢唑林加头孢他啶与头孢唑林单药治疗培养阴性腹膜炎的临床结果的研究。我们的研究结果表明,如果腹膜炎在第3天消退,停用头孢他啶可能会产生良好的治疗效果,并且可能适合后续治疗。然而,应该考虑到没有革兰氏阴性覆盖的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the pathophysiology of the kidney and vascular supply. Epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and treatment interventions are covered as well as basic science, biochemical and immunological studies. In particular, emphasis will be given to: -Chronic kidney disease- Complications of renovascular disease- Imaging techniques- Renal hypertension- Renal cancer- Treatment including pharmacological and transplantation- Dialysis and treatment of complications of dialysis and renal disease- Quality of Life- Patient satisfaction and preference- Health economic evaluations. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, basic science, clinical studies, reviews & evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports and extended reports. The main focus of the journal will be to publish research and clinical results in humans but preclinical, animal and in vitro studies will be published where they shed light on disease processes and potential new therapies and interventions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信