Q J Med 2002; 95: 405-410
© 2002 Association of Physicians
Commentaries |
Preventing Staphylococcus aureus infection in the renal unit
From the Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford and 1 Department of Microbiology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
Introduction
Staphylococcus aureus is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the renal unit setting. It is the leading cause of haemodialysis-related bacteraemia and peritoneal dialysis catheter exit-site infection,1–4 and an important cause of peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis.5 Since many such infections are potentially preventable, the institution of strategies that reduce infection rates represents an important element in the care of this patient group. This review examines the basis of prevention, together with its likely benefits and possible disadvantages.
Carriage of S. aureus is an important risk factor for infection
S. aureus carriage has been described as falling into three patterns in healthy adult populations, with approximately 20% of individuals being persistent carriers, about 60% intermittent carriers and 20% persistent non-carriers (reviewed in reference 6). Carriage rates are considered to be higher in the renal unit setting, although reported rates vary between centres from 37.5% to 57% for those on CAPD,7–10 and 37%–62% for those on haemodialysis.8,11–13 Possible explanations for this variation include sensitivity of swabbing and microbial culture techniques, the number of swabs taken over time and the number of body sites sampled. Why renal unit patients should have higher carriage rates than the healthy population is not clearly understood, although probable contributors include immunodeficiency, the presence of prosthetic material and frequent breaches of the skin associated with venepuncture.
Carriage of S. aureus is an important risk factor for infection with this organism. Carriers undergoing haemodialysis have higher rates of S. aureus bacteraemia, and those receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) have higher rates of exit-site infection and peritonitis, compared with non-carriers.7,8,14–22 Comparison of carriage and infecting S. aureus isolates indicates that individuals are commonly infected with their own carriage isolate,8,16,18,23,24 an observation that underpins prevention strategies.
A second factor that is likely to influence both carriage and disease is host genetic susceptibility. However, the genes involved have not been identified, and it is unclear whether susceptibility is to carriage alone with its inherent risks for infection, or whether additional genes influence the likelihood of sepsis once carriage is established.
Acquired risk factors for S. aureus infection
Acquired factors also influence the likelihood of S. aureus infection and fall into two broad categories. The first is immune dysfunction: patients undergoing haemodialysis have decreased granulocytic chemotaxis,25,26 and lower immunoglobulin, complement and T cell levels.27,28 The second is the presence of prosthetic devices that not only breach the normal host defences and give direct access to normally sterile body sites, but provide a site of colonization to which staphylococci are well adapted. The importance of prosthetic material as a determinant of infection is reflected in the variable rates of sepsis associated with different types of haemodialysis vascular access. Endogenous arteriovenous fistulae are less prone to infection than prosthetic shunts,29 while intravenous haemodialysis catheters have the greatest associated risk and are a leading cause of S. aureus bacteraemia.30
How can S. aureus infection be prevented?
Infection control measures
Good hospital infection control measures are central to the prevention of S. aureus infection. The evidence for this is two-fold. First, hand washing reduces transmission of pathogens between individuals, and from the hands of a given individual to their dialysis site. Second, improvement in infection control measures can lead to a reduction in the rate of infection. For example, one observational study introduced a package of measures including improved aseptic operative technique, provision of intensive training for nursing staff and patients in stringent aseptic care of the exit site, and avoidance of contact of the exit site with non-sterile water.31 These combined measures were associated with an overall 10-fold reduction in exit-site infection, a 2-fold reduction in peritonitis and 4.5-fold reduction in catheter loss from infection in patients undergoing CAPD.31 However, the use of face masks during manipulation of the peritoneal dialysis system makes no difference to the time to first episode of all-cause peritonitis.32 Asepsis during dialysis line insertion is also essential. The placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters and formation of fistulae are often performed in a theatre environment, ensuring high standards of aseptic technique. However, intravenous haemodialysis lines, particularly those that are intended to provide temporary access, may be inserted in a ward or radiology department setting. The importance of good asepsis during this procedure is exemplified by a study by Raad et al. which clearly demonstrated that maximal sterile barrier precautions during the insertion of non-tunnelled catheters (mask, cap, sterile gloves, gown and a large drape) reduced the risk of catheter infection, compared with the use of sterile gloves and small drape alone.33 The role of prophylactic antibiotics for procedures to create haemodialysis access has not been studied at length. A single randomized study of 206 patients undergoing 408 permanent vascular access procedures compared infection rates following a single intravenous dose of vancomycin 6–12 h pre-operatively with no drug.34 Access infection rates were reported to be 1% in the vancomycin group and 6% in the controls, all of which were related to prosthetic grafts. Balanced against this practice is the likely selection of vancomycin-resistant bacteria in the host flora such as vancomycin-resistant enterococci. The risks and benefits of prophylactic antibiotics during the insertion of temporary haemodialysis catheters are currently unknown, but this approach is rendered less important by the treatment of S. aureus carriers with nasal mupirocin, as discussed below.
The role of antiseptics
CAPD
The reported effectiveness of antiseptics such as povidone-iodine present in dressings applied to the peritoneal dialysis catheter exit site has varied between studies. Povidone-iodine and non-occlusive dressings changed 2 or 3 times weekly were associated with a lower rate of exit-site infection compared with cleansing of the exit site with soap and water, although rates of peritonitis were not different.35 A second study reported that regular application of povidone-iodine delayed infectious complications (exit-site infections and peritonitis),36 while a third found that the number of S. aureus infections were reduced but those caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa were increased.37 Thus, povidone-iodine appears to reduce S. aureus exit-site infections, but may not influence the overall rate at this site.
Haemodialysis
The application of povidone-iodine to the haemodialysis subclavian vein catheter exit site has been reported to reduce the risk of exit-site infections and incidence of septicaemia.38,39
Eradication of S. aureus carriage
The dominant ecological niche for S. aureus carriage is the anterior portion of the nose. Organisms may also be found on the skin but elimination of nasal carriage by topical antibiotics generally leads to loss of carriage in other body sites.40 These observations have resulted in eradication strategies that focus predominantly on S. aureus eradication from the nose. Some individuals appear to have positive skin swabs and negative nose swabs, although this is the exception rather than the rule.8 It is unclear whether this represents true absence of nasal carriage or a low bacterial count in the nose that lies below the level of detection. Topical mupirocin is effective in temporary eradication of nasal carriage,9,12,40–45 is the most commonly used agent for this purpose, and will be the focus for the remainder of this review.
Infection rates following eradication of S. aureus carriage in the nose
Haemodialysis patients
Eradication of nasal carriage in haemodialysis patients by the application of topical mupirocin to the nose reduces the number of episodes of S. aureus infection per patient year.12,41,42,44 In a double-blind controlled trial in which the treatment arm received nasal mupirocin three times daily for 2 weeks, and then three times weekly for 9 months, the rate of S. aureus infection was 1 per 104 patient-months, compared with 6/147 patient months in the placebo arm.41 The same investigators have since described results for 7 years mupirocin use in S. aureus carriers in the same unit, reporting a 2.85-fold drop in the S. aureus bacteraemia year-incidence in all haemodialysis patients.46 A further study over 21 months of 226 patients, of which 67 were identified as carriers and treated with mupirocin, found a bacteraemia rate of 0.04 per patient year compared with 0.25 in a historical control group.12 In addition to reducing the burden of disease, this strategy has is cost-effective.47
CAPD patients
A randomized, double-blind trial of placebo vs. mupirocin (twice daily for 5 days every 4 weeks) in S. aureus carriers reported that there was a significant reduction in S. aureus exit-site infection in the mupirocin arm, but all-cause exit-site infections were not significantly different between the two groups. In addition, there were no differences in the rate of tunnel infection or peritonitis.45 A further publication using the same data set reported that total antibiotic costs (including mupirocin) were significantly higher in the mupirocin group, and concluded that cost savings were unlikely to be sufficient to offset the cost of mupirocin and screening for nasal carriage of S. aureus.48 Similar outcomes were reported in a study of nasal mupirocin that used historical controls, in which there was a reduction in S. aureus peritonitis and exit-site infections but a simultaneous increase in the incidence of infections by other Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.9 A recent study, again using historical controls, reported a reduction in peritonitis but no difference in S. aureus exit-site infections or tunnel infection.49 Overall, therefore, evidence for the efficacy of nasal mupirocin in preventing morbidity in CAPD patients is less convincing than that for haemodialysis patients.
Topical application of mupirocin to the dialysis catheter exit site
Mupirocin ointment applied to the intravenous catheter insertion site at the end of each dialysis session has been shown to be superior to povidone-iodine, being associated with a significant reduction in the risk of S. aureus skin and catheter colonization, exit site infection and bacteraemia.50 The peritoneal dialysis catheter exit site has been reported to be the most frequent colonizing site of strains causing peritonitis,51 and two studies have shown that topical application of mupirocin to the exit site was associated with a reduction in exit-site infection and peritonitis.52,53 However, the routine application of mupirocin to the exit site of all patients has potentially important implications for the emergence of drug resistance.
The practicalities of minimizing S. aureus infection
A range of non-antibiotic-related measures should be in place as part of an infection control programme. These include: (i) protocols for line insertion and line care; (ii) good mechanisms for recording line insertion, removal, and infective complications to facilitate audit; (iii) training and education of staff regarding line insertion, and of staff and patients in care of lines; and (iv) minimizing the time patients receive renal replacement therapy via temporary intravenous devices by good liaison with surgeons and timely fistula formation.
The institution of nasal mupirocin therapy requires that the following questions be addressed: (i) Which patient groups should be treated? The evidence for efficacy is good in haemodialysis patients and has been recommended for carriers who need intravenous access.54 The evidence for efficacy of nasal mupirocin is less convincing for CAPD patients, and carriers in this patient group may be better served by topical mupirocin. (ii) Should mupirocin treatment be given to those with nasal swabs positive for S. aureus or to all patients? Identifying and treating carriers alone will result in lower mupirocin costs and is likely to exert less pressure on bacteria to develop mupirocin resistance. Conversely, blanket treatment could reduce the costs associated with screening for carriage but may shorten time to the emergence of resistance. (iii) When should mupirocin be commenced, and how often should it be repeated? Mupirocin should ideally be commenced prior to the insertion of lines, or otherwise as soon as feasible. Nasal re-colonization over time by S. aureus can be reduced by maintenance therapy, for example once per week after an initial eradication regimen of twice daily for 5 days.46
Conclusion
The emergence of mupirocin resistance in the renal unit setting is reported to be low. For example, 7 years of follow-up in a unit that routinely uses mupirocin in haemodialysis S. aureus carriers found two isolates with high-level resistance.46 However, it seems inevitable that resistance will ultimately occur, and strategies to reduce the speed with which this happens should be implemented at the same time as mupirocin is introduced. Measures include good infection control, reliable laboratory screening for resistance, good prescribing practices within a framework driven by protocol and audit, and the avoidance of blanket treatment, since a ‘treat-all’ policy represents a trade-off between short-term benefits and long-term emergence of resistance. Individual units will be required to develop tailored strategies for mupirocin use, a guiding principle of which must include informed and considered use of this valuable agent.
Notes
Address correspondence to Dr S.J. Peacock, Department of Microbiology, Level 7, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU. e-mail: sharon.peacock{at}ndcls.ox.ac.uk 
References
1. Lentino JR, Baddour LM, Wray M, Wong ES, Yu VL. Staphylococcus aureus and other bacteremias in hemodialysis patients: antibiotic therapy and surgical removal of access site. Infection2000; 28:355–60.[ISI][Medline]
2.
Kairaitis LK, Gottlieb T. Outcome and complications of temporary haemodialysis catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant1999; 14:1710–14.
3. Scalamogna A, Castelnovo C, De Vecchi A, Ponticelli C. Exit-site and tunnel infections in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis1991; 18:674–7.[ISI][Medline]
4. Holley JL, Bernardini J, Piraino B. Risk factors for tunnel infections in continuous peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis1991; 18:344–8.[ISI][Medline]
5. Zelenitsky S, Barns L, Findlay I, Alfa M, Ariano R, Fine A, Harding G. Analysis of microbiological trends in peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis from 1991 to 1998. Am J Kidney Dis2000; 36:1009–13.[ISI][Medline]
6. Kluytmans J, van Belkum A, Verbrugh H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev1997; 10:505–20.[Abstract]
7.
Wanten GJ, van Oost P, Schneeberger PM, Koolen MI. Nasal carriage and peritonitis by Staphylococcus aureus in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a prospective study. Perit Dial Int1996; 16:352–6.
8. Zimakoff J, Bangsgaard Pedersen F, Bergen L, Baago-Nielsen J, Daldorph B, Espersen F, Gahrn Hansen B, Hoiby N, Jepsen OB, Joffe P, Kolmos HJ, Klausen M, Kristoffersen K, Ladefoged J, Olesen-Larsen S, Rosdahl VT, Scheibel J, Storm B, Tofte-Jensen P. Staphylococcus aureus carriage and infections among patients in four haemo- and peritoneal-dialysis centres in Denmark. Danish Study Group of Peritonitis in Dialysis (DASPID). J Hosp Infect1996; 33:289–300.[ISI][Medline]
9. Perez-Fontan M, Garcia-Falcon T, Rosales M, Rodriguez-Carmona A, Adeva M, Rodriguez-Lozano I, Moncalian J. Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriers in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis with mupirocin: long-term results. Am J Kidney Dis1993; 22:708–12.[ISI][Medline]
10.
Bistrup C, Jensen KT, Kabel B, Pedersen RS. Staphylococcus aureus carriage in adult peritoneal dialysis patients and their spouses. Perit Dial Int1997; 17:480–5.
11. Kirmani N, Tuazon CU, Murray HW, Parrish AE, Sheagren JN. Staphylococcus aureus carriage rate of patients receiving long-term hemodialysis. Arch Intern Med1978; 138:1657–9.[Abstract]
12. Kluytmans JA, Manders MJ, van Bommel E, Verbrugh H. Elimination of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus in hemodialysis patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol1996; 17:793–7.[ISI][Medline]
13.
Wanten GJ, Schneeberger PM, Bevers A, van Ginneken E, Koolen MI. Optimizing screening procedures for Staphylococccus aureus nasal carriage in patients on haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant1998; 13:1256–8.
14. Yu VL, Goetz A, Wagener M, Smith PB, Rihs JD, Hanchett J, Zuravleff JJ. Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and infection in patients on hemodialysis. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis. N Engl J Med1986; 315:91–6.[Abstract]
15. Sewell CM, Clarridge J, Lacke C, Weinman EJ, Young EJ. Staphylococcal nasal carriage and subsequent infection in peritoneal dialysis patients. JAMA1982; 248:1493–5.[Abstract]
16. Davies SJ, Ogg CS, Cameron JS, Poston S, Noble WC. Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage, exit-site infection and catheter loss in patients treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Perit Dial Int1989; 9:61–4.
17. Sesso R, Draibe S, Castelo A, Sato I, Leme I, Barbosa D, Ramos O. Staphylococcus aureus skin carriage and development of peritonitis in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Clin Nephrol1989; 31:264–8.[ISI][Medline]
18. Luzar MA, Coles GA, Faller B, Slingeneyer A, Dah GD, Briat C, Wone C, Knefati Y, Kessler M, Peluso F. Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and infection in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. N Engl J Med1990; 322:505–9.[Abstract]
19. Piraino B, Perlmutter JA, Holley JL, Bernardini J. Staphylococcus aureus peritonitis is associated with Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage in peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int1993; 13(Suppl. 2):S332–4.
20. Oxton LL, Zimmerman SW, Roecker EB, Wakeen M. Risk factors for peritoneal dialysis-related infections. Perit Dial Int1994; 14:137–44.
21. Lye WC, Leong SO, van der Straaten J, Lee EJ. Staphylococcus aureus CAPD-related infections are associated with nasal carriage. Adv Perit Dial1994; 10:163–5.[Medline]
22.
Turner K, Uttley L, Scrimgeour A, McKewan A, Gokal R. Natural history of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and its relationship to exit-site infection. Perit Dial Int1998; 18:271–3.
23.
Pignatari A, Pfaller M, Hollis R, Sesso R, Leme I, Herwaldt L. Staphylococcus aureus colonization and infection in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. J Clin Microbiol1990; 28:1898–902.
24. Ena J, Boelaert JR, Boyken LD, Van Landuyt HW, Godard CA, Herwaldt LA. Epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus infections in patients on hemodialysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol1994; 15:78–81.[ISI][Medline]
25. Greene WH, Ray C, Mauer SM, Quie PG. The effect of hemodialysis on neutrophil chemotactic responsiveness. J Lab Clin Med1976; 88:971–4.[ISI][Medline]
26. Waterlot Y, Cantinieaux B, Hariga-Muller C, De Maertelaere-Laurent E, Vanherweghem JL, Fondu P. Impaired phagocytic activity of neutrophils in patients receiving haemodialysis: the critical role of iron overload. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)1985; 291:501–4.
27. Dobbelstein H. Immune system to uremia. Nephron1976; 17:409–14.[ISI][Medline]
28. Raska K Jr, Raskova J, Shea SM, Frankel RM, Wood RH, Lifter J, Ghobrial I, Eisinger RP, Homer L. T cell subsets and cellular immunity in end-stage renal disease. Am J Med1983; 75:734–40.[ISI][Medline]
29. Bonomo RA, Rice D, Whalen C, Linn D, Eckstein E, Shlaes DM. Risk factors associated with permanent access-site infections in chronic hemodialysis patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol1997; 18:757–61.[ISI][Medline]
30. Hoen B, Paul-Dauphin A, Hestin D, Kessler M. EPIBACDIAL: a multicenter prospective study of risk factors for bacteremia in chronic hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol1998; 9:869–76.[Abstract]
31. Dryden MS, Ludlam HA, Wing AJ, Phillips I. Active intervention dramatically reduces CAPD-associated infection. Adv Perit Dial1991; 7:125–8.[Medline]
32.
Figueiredo AE, de Figueiredo CE, d'Avila DO. Peritonitis prevention in CAPD: to mask or not? Perit Dial Int2000; 20:354–8.
33. Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, Suleiman N, Hill LA, Bruso PA, Marts K, Mansfield PF, Bodey GP. Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol1994; 15:231–8.[ISI][Medline]
34. Zibari GB, Gadallah MF, Landreneau M, McMillan R, Bridges RM, Costley K, Work J, McDonald JC. Preoperative vancomycin prophylaxis decreases incidence of postoperative hemodialysis vascular access infections. Am J Kidney Dis1997; 30:343–8.[ISI][Medline]
35. Luzar MA, Brown CB, Balf D, Hill L, Issad B, Monnier B, Moulart J, Sabatier JC, Wauquier JP, Peluso F. Exit-site care and exit-site infection in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD): results of a randomized multicenter trial. Perit Dial Int1990; 10:25–9.
36. Waite NM, Webster N, Laurel M, Johnson M, Fong IW. The efficacy of exit site povidone-iodine ointment in the prevention of early peritoneal dialysis-related infections. Am J Kidney Dis1997; 29:763–8.[ISI][Medline]
37. Wilson AP, Lewis C, O'Sullivan H, Shetty N, Neild GH, Mansell M. The use of povidone iodine in exit site care for patients undergoing continuous peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). J Hosp Infect1997; 35:287–93.[ISI][Medline]
38. Levin A, Mason AJ, Jindal KK, Fong IW, Goldstein MB. Prevention of hemodialysis subclavian vein catheter infections by topical povidone-iodine. Kidney Int1991; 40:934–8.[ISI][Medline]
39. Fong IW. Prevention of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis catheter related infection by topical povidone-iodine. Postgrad Med J1993; 69(Suppl. 3):S15–7.
40. Reagan DR, Doebbeling BN, Pfaller MA, Sheetz CT, Houston AK, Hollis RJ, Wenzel RP. Elimination of coincident Staphylococcus aureus nasal and hand carriage with intranasal application of mupirocin calcium ointment. Ann Intern Med1991; 114:101–6.
41.
Boelaert JR, De Smedt RA, De Baere YA, Godard CA, Matthys EG, Schurgers ML, Daneels RF, Gordts BZ, Van Landuyt HW. The influence of calcium mupirocin nasal ointment on the incidence of Staphylococcus aureus infections in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant1989; 4:278–81.
42. Holton DL, Nicolle LE, Diley D, Bernstein K. Efficacy of mupirocin nasal ointment in eradicating Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage in chronic haemodialysis patients. J Hosp Infect1991; 17:133–7.[ISI][Medline]
43. Watanakunakorn C, Brandt J, Durkin P, Santore S, Bota B, Stahl CJ. The efficacy of mupirocin ointment and chlorhexidine body scrubs in the eradication of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus among patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis. Am J Infect Control1992; 20:138–41.[ISI][Medline]
44.
Boelaert JR, Van Landuyt HW, Godard CA, Daneels RF, Schurgers ML, Matthys EG, De Baere YA, Gheyle DW, Gordts BZ, Herwaldt LA. Nasal mupirocin ointment decreases the incidence of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemias in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant1993; 8:235–9.
45. Nasal mupirocin prevents Staphylococcus aureus exit-site infection during peritoneal dialysis. Mupirocin Study Group. J Am Soc Nephrol1996; 7:2403–8.[Abstract]
46. Boelaert JR, de Baere Y, Deruyter M, Godts B, van Landuyt H, Herwaldt L. Long-term evaluation of chemoprophylaxis of S. aureus bacteraemia in haemodialysis by nasal mupirocin. J Hosp Infect1998, 40(Suppl. B):S47.
47. Bloom BS, Fendrick AM, Chernew ME, Patel P. Clinical and economic effects of mupirocin calcium on preventing Staphylococcus aureus infection in hemodialysis patients: a decision analysis. Am J Kidney Dis1996; 27:687–94.[ISI][Medline]
48.
Davey P, Craig AM, Hau C, Malek M. Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic nasal mupirocin in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis based on a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother1999; 43:105–12.
49. Crabtree JH, Hadnott LL, Burchette RJ, Siddiqi RA. Outcome and clinical implications of a surveillance and treatment program for Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage in peritoneal dialysis patients. Adv Perit Dial2000; 16:271–5.[Medline]
50. Sesso R, Barbosa D, Leme IL, Sader H, Canziani ME, Manfredi S, Draibe S, Pignatari AC. Staphylococcus aureus prophylaxis in hemodialysis patients using central venous catheter: effect of mupirocin ointment. J Am Soc Nephrol1998; 9:1085–92.[Abstract]
51. Amato D, de Jesus Ventura M, Miranda G, Leanos B, Alcantara G, Hurtado ME, Paniagua R. Staphylococcal peritonitis in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: colonization with identical strains at exit site, nose, and hands. Am J Kidney Dis2001; 37:43–8.[ISI][Medline]
52.
Thodis E, Bhaskaran S, Pasadakis P, Bargman JM, Vas SI, Oreopoulos DG. Decrease in Staphylococcus aureus exit-site infections and peritonitis in CAPD patients by local application of mupirocin ointment at the catheter exit site. Perit Dial Int1998; 18:261–70.
53. Bernardini J, Piraino B, Holley J, Johnston JR, Lutes R. A randomized trial of Staphylococcus aureus prophylaxis in peritoneal dialysis patients: mupirocin calcium ointment 2% applied to the exit site versus cyclic oral rifampin. Am J Kidney Dis1996; 27:695–700.[ISI][Medline]
54. Mermel LA, Farr BM, Sherertz RJ, Raad II, O'Grady N, Harris JS, Craven DE. Guidelines for the management of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis2001; 32:1249–72.[Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. G. Gemmell, D. I. Edwards, A. P. Fraise, F. K. Gould, G. L. Ridgway, R. E. Warren, and on behalf of the Joint Working Party of the Britis Guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the UK J. Antimicrob. Chemother., April 1, 2006; 57(4): 589 - 608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||