Journal Information
Vol. 36. Issue. 4.July - August 2016
Pages 333-464
Vol. 36. Issue. 4.July - August 2016
Pages 333-464
Letter to the Editor
DOI: 10.1016/j.nefroe.2016.09.010
Open Access
Effectiveness of the scheme reimpregnation maintenance schedule vs. ceftazidime/cephalothin in dialysis patients with peritonitis
Eficacia del esquema de impregnación vs. esquema de mantenimiento con ceftazidima/cefalotina en pacientes con peritonitis por diálisis
Julia Monzerrath Carranza-Torresa,b, Emma Rosa Vargas-Dazaa, Enrique Villarreal-Ríosa,c,
Corresponding author
, Liliana Galicia-Rodrígueza, Lidia Martínez-Gonzáleza
a Unidad de Investigación Epidemiológica y en Servicios de Salud Querétaro, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Querétaro, Querétaro de Arteaga, Mexico
b Residencia de Geriatría, Hospital General Regional N.° 1 Querétaro, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Querétaro, Querétaro de Arteaga, Mexico
c Escuela de Medicina, División de Ciencias de la Salud, Campus Querétaro, Universidad del Valle de México, Querétaro, Querétaro de Arteaga, Mexico
Article information
Full Text
Download PDF
Tables (2)
Table 1. Time in dialysis and CKD by permeation (PERM) group and maintenance (MAIN) group in peritonitis. Mean (SD).
Table 2. Efficacy of permeation and maintenance by start time of treatment in peritonitis.
Show moreShow less
Full Text
Dear Editor:

Peritoneal dialysis is a type of renal replacement therapy that uses the physical and chemical properties of the peritoneal membrane to perform ultrafiltration and clearance processes.1–3 One complication of this procedure is peritonitis,4,5 which is diagnosed with the presence of at least two out of the three following criteria: a leukocyte count higher than 100mm−3, a corresponding clinical picture and microorganisms on a Gram stain.4,5

The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis recommends management with first-generation cephalosporins for Gram-positive microorganisms and third-generation cephalosporins for Gram-negative microorganisms.6

It also recommends starting treatment with third-generation cephalosporins (ceftazidime) and first-generation cephalosporins (cefalotin) by the intraperitoneal route, with permeation doses of one gram and maintenance doses of 250mg every 6h; however, the response is uncertain.7

Against this background, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the permeation regime and the maintenance regime in patients with peritonitis due to dialysis.

A cohort study was conducted in patients with end-stage renal disease and peritonitis. The exposure group included patients treated with a permeation regimen (one gram of ceftazidime/cefalotin q 24h); the unexposed group included patients with a maintenance regimen (one gram initially and 250mg of ceftazidime/cefalotin q 6h thereafter).

Patients with a diagnosis made by cell count were included; patients with refractory peritonitis, recurrent peritonitis or cephalosporin allergy were excluded.

The sample (31 per group) was calculated using a percentage formula for 2 populations, assuming that the efficacy of ceftazidime/cefalotin was 60% in the permeation group and 35% in the maintenance group.

Their sociodemographic characteristics, concomitant diseases, modality of dialysis, time on peritoneal dialysis and time of progression of chronic kidney disease were studied.

Therapeutic efficacy was established through cell counts, using 99 cells per field as a cut-off point, evaluated at 24, 48, 72 and 96h.

Analysis included percentages, averages, standard deviations, Student's t-test for independent populations and the chi-squared test.

Age and gender were similar in the permeation group and the maintenance group: 48.06±17.79 years and 55.07±12.64 years (p=0.84); male gender with 65.6% and 62.1%, respectively (p=0.77). In these groups the prevalence of hypertension (p=1.00), diabetes mellitus (p=0.62) and drug immunosuppression (p=0.35) were similar.

In both groups there was a predominance of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (59.4% and 69.0%, respectively; p=0.51). Time in dialysis (p=0.19) and time of progression of chronic kidney disease (p=0.18) were similar in the groups (Table 1).

Table 1.

Time in dialysis and CKD by permeation (PERM) group and maintenance (MAIN) group in peritonitis. Mean (SD).

  Antibiotic therapy   
  PERM  MAIN  t  p 
Years in PD  21.1 (16.6)  16.1 (12.3)  1.3  0.19 
Years of CKD  23.5 (17.0)  18.2 (13.0)  1.3  0.18 

Seventy two hours after initiation of therapy, efficacy was 50.0% in the permeation group and 41.4% in the maintenance group; however, they were not statistically different (p=0.50). At 96h, a statistical difference was found: in the permeation modality 65.6% showed efficacy and in the maintenance modality 41.4% showed efficacy (p=0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Efficacy of permeation and maintenance by start time of treatment in peritonitis.

Start time of treatmentEfficacyapRM
Permeation  Maintenance 
At 240.0  0.0  1.00  0.0 
At 4821.9  13.8  0.4  1.7 
At 7250.0  41.4  0.5  1.4 
At 9665.6  41.4  0.05  2.7 

Efficacy was considered to be a cell count lower than or equal to 99 cells per field.

In the management of bacterial peritonitis associated with dialysis, the antimicrobial regimens and dosage regimens proposed in clinical practice guidelines have shown to produce ineffective results, hence the importance of this study analysing the prolonged stay of the antibiotic in the abdominal cavity and the decrease in the manipulation of the peritoneal cavity.8

It was ensured that the 2 groups were statistically similar with respect to disease history, type of dialysis, time of progression of chronic kidney disease and time in dialysis as these were significant benchmarks that made comparison between the different management regimens more reliable.

Similarly, the same antibiotic was used in the 2 groups as this made it possible to be certain that what was being compared was the number of drug administrations (one administration vs 4 administrations). The pathophysiological substrate was the drug's cumulative capacity in the peritoneum and its half-life, as well as the peritoneum's lower exposure to the introduction of microorganisms in each drug administration. To date, this matter has not received enough attention.8,9

Cephalosporins are first-line antibiotics in the treatment of peritonitis in dialysis: as they are administered by the intraperitoneal route, they penetrate the tissue wall and achieve a half-life of 48–72h. However, it will be necessary to clarify whether the efficacy achieved in the permeation regimen is due to the fact of exposing the peritoneum to a high dose of antibiotic, or to the fact of decreasing the events that penetrate the peritoneal cavity and therefore the potential for keeping from introducing germs into the cavity.6

In conclusion, the permeation regimen has a greater efficacy than the maintenance regimen in the management of peritonitis secondary to peritoneal dialysis.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

L.A. Inker, C.H. Schmid, H. Tighiouart, J.H. Eckfeldt, H.I. Feldman, T. Greene, et al.
Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C.
N Engl J Med, 367 (2012), pp. 20-29
V. Nicanor.
Aspectos relevantes de la diálisis peritoneal automática.
Dial Traspl, 32 (2011), pp. 17-20
Doñate. Guías de diálisis peritoneal y la práctica diaria. Nefrología. vol. 25. Suplemento 2. 2005. [consulted 10 December 2015]. Available in:
F. Brown, W. Liu, D. Kotsanas, T. Korman, R. Atkins.
A quarter of a century of adult peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis at an Australian medical center.
Perit Dial Int, 27 (2007), pp. 565-574
G.F.M. Strippoli, A. Tong, D. Johnson, F.P. Schena, J.C. Craig.
Catheter-related interventions to prevent peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials.
J Am Soc Nephrol, 1 (2004), pp. 5
J.M. Bargman.
Noninfectious complications of peritoneal dialysis.
Nolph and Gokal's textbook of peritoneal dialysis, 3rd ed., pp. 571-609
L. Sisterhen, C. Stowe, H. Farrar, C. Blaszak, R. Blaszak.
Disposition of ceftazidime after intraperitoneal administration in adolescent patients receiving continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis.
Am J Kidney Dis, 47 (2006), pp. 503-508
A.E. Ballinger, S.C. Palmer, K.J. Wiggins, J.C. Craiq, D.W. Johnson, N.B. Cross, et al.
Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 26 (2014), pp. 4
O. Nikitidou, V.I. Peppa, K. Leivaditis, T. Eleftheriadis, S.G. Zarogiannis, V. Liakopoulos, et al.
Animal models in peritoneal dialysis.
Front Physiol, 6 (2015), pp. 244

Please cite this article as: Carranza-Torres JM, Vargas-Daza ER, Villarreal-Ríos E, Galicia-Rodríguez L, Martínez-González L. Eficacia del esquema de impregnación vs. esquema de mantenimiento con ceftazidima/cefalotina en pacientes con peritonitis por diálisis. Nefrologia. 2016;36:448–450.

Copyright © 2016. Sociedad Española de Nefrología
Nefrología (English Edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

es en
Política de cookies Cookies policy
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.