Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1996 May;27(5):695-700.
doi: 10.1016/s0272-6386(96)90105-5.

A randomized trial of Staphylococcus aureus prophylaxis in peritoneal dialysis patients: mupirocin calcium ointment 2% applied to the exit site versus cyclic oral rifampin

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A randomized trial of Staphylococcus aureus prophylaxis in peritoneal dialysis patients: mupirocin calcium ointment 2% applied to the exit site versus cyclic oral rifampin

J Bernardini et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 1996 May.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare prophylaxis for Staphylococcus aureus infections in peritoneal dialysis patients using 600 mg cyclic oral rifampin for 5 days every 3 months versus mupirocin calcium ointment 2% applied daily to the exit site. The study design was a prospective randomized trial, controlling for S aureus nasal carriage. Eighty-two continuous ambulatory and continuous cyclic peritoneal dialysis patients (54% male, 71 % white, 34% insulin-dependent, mean prestudy time on peritoneal dialysis 1.2 years) were randomly assigned to cyclic rifampin (n = 41 patients) or daily exit site mupirocin prophylaxis (n = 41 patients). Mean follow-up was 1 year. S aureus catheter infection rates were 0.13/yr with mupirocin and 0.15/yr with rifampin (P = NS). Both rates were significantly lower than the center's historical rate (the period between 1983 and 1992) of 0.46/yr prior to the study (P < 0.001). S aureus peritonitis rates were 0.04/yr with mupirocin and 0.02/yr with rifampin (P = NS), both significantly lower than the center's historical rate of 0.16/yr (P < 0.02). Catheter loss due to S aureus infections was 0.02/yr with mupirocin and 0/yr with rifampin (P = NS), both significantly lower than the center's historical rate of 0.12/yr (P < 0.001). There were no side effects in patients using mupirocin, but 12% were unable to continue rifampin due to side effects. We conclude that mupirocin ointment at the exit site and cyclic oral rifampin are equally effective in reducing S aureus catheter infections. In addition, rifampin or mupirocin significantly reduced S aureus peritonitis and catheter loss due to S aureus infections. Mupirocin at the exit site provides an excellent alternative prophylaxis for S aureus infections, particularly in patients who cannot tolerate oral rifampin therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources