Wiggins Kathryn J, Johnson David W, Craig Jonathan C, Strippoli Giovanni F M
Department of Nephrology, University of Queensland at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2007 Dec;50(6):967-88. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.08.015.
Peritonitis frequently complicates peritoneal dialysis. Appropriate treatment is essential to reduce adverse outcomes. Available trial evidence about peritoneal dialysis peritonitis treatment was evaluated.
The Cochrane CENTRAL Registry (2005 issue), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1985 to February 2006), and reference lists were searched to identify randomized trials of treatments for patients with peritoneal dialysis peritonitis.
Trials of antibiotics (comparisons of routes, agents, and dosing regimens), fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage, and intraperitoneal immunoglobulin.
Treatment failure, relapse, catheter removal, microbiological eradication, hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse reactions.
36 eligible trials were identified: 30 trials (1,800 patients) of antibiotics; 4 trials (229 patients) of urokinase; 1 trial of peritoneal lavage (36 patients); and 1 trial of intraperitoneal immunoglobulin (24 patients). No superior antimicrobial class was identified. In particular, glycopeptides and first-generation cephalosporins were equivalent (3 trials, 387 patients; relative risk [RR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 3.58). Simultaneous catheter removal/replacement was superior to urokinase at decreasing treatment failures (1 trial, 37 patients; RR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.91). Continuous and intermittent intraperitoneal antibiotic dosing were equivalent regarding treatment failure (4 trials, 338 patients; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.30) and relapse (4 trials, 324 patients; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.39). One trial showed superiority of intraperitoneal antibiotics over intravenous therapy.
The method quality of trials generally was suboptimal and outcome definitions were inconsistent. Small patient numbers led to inadequate power to show an effect. Interventions, such as optimal duration of antibiotic therapy, were not evaluated.
Trials did not identify superior antibiotic regimens. Intermittent and continuous antibiotic dosing are equivalent treatment strategies.
腹膜炎常使腹膜透析出现并发症。恰当的治疗对于降低不良后果至关重要。对现有的关于腹膜透析腹膜炎治疗的试验证据进行了评估。
检索考克兰中央对照试验注册库(2005年第1期)、医学索引数据库(1966年至2006年2月)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(1985年至2006年2月)以及参考文献列表,以确定针对腹膜透析腹膜炎患者治疗的随机试验。
抗生素试验(给药途径、药物及给药方案的比较)、纤维蛋白溶解剂、腹膜灌洗以及腹腔内注射免疫球蛋白。
治疗失败、复发、拔除导管、微生物清除、住院、全因死亡率以及不良反应。
确定了36项符合条件的试验:30项抗生素试验(1800例患者);4项尿激酶试验(229例患者);1项腹膜灌洗试验(36例患者);以及1项腹腔内注射免疫球蛋白试验(24例患者)。未发现更优的抗菌药物类别。具体而言,糖肽类和第一代头孢菌素相当(3项试验,387例患者;相对危险度[RR],1.84;95%可信区间[CI],0.95至3.58)。在减少治疗失败方面,同时拔除/更换导管优于尿激酶(1项试验,37例患者;RR,2.35;95%CI,1.13至4.91)。就治疗失败(4项试验,338例患者;RR,0.69;95%CI,0.37至1.30)和复发(4项试验,324例患者;RR,0.93;95%CI,0.63至1.39)而言,持续性和间歇性腹腔内给予抗生素相当。1项试验显示腹腔内给予抗生素优于静脉治疗。
试验的方法质量总体欠佳,结果定义不一致。患者数量较少导致显示疗效的效能不足。未评估诸如抗生素治疗的最佳疗程等干预措施。
试验未发现更优的抗生素方案。间歇性和持续性抗生素给药是等效的治疗策略。