Gastric Acid Suppression and the Risk of Enteric Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Peritonitis caused by enteric organisms in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients is associated with greater morbidity and mortality than peritonitis with non-enteric organisms. One reported risk factor for enteric peritonitis (EP) is gastric acid suppression, with two small studies providing conflicting results. The objective of this study was to determine, using a larger patient population, whether gastric acid suppressants are associated with an increased risk of EP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a single-center case-control design, information on episodes of EP occurring between 2003 and 2006 was collected. Control episodes were all non-enteric episodes of peritonitis that occurred during the same time interval. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or H(2)-blocker (H(2)B) use prior to development of peritonitis was documented. RESULTS: A total of 228 peritonitis episodes among 137 patients met inclusion criteria. In 32% of episodes, the causative organism was enteric. Gastric acid suppressant use was documented in 46% of episodes, with the majority on PPIs. Overall, gastric acid suppression was not associated with a higher EP risk (p = 0.17). In a post hoc analysis, PPIs were not associated with EP [odds ratio (OR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-2.4; p = 0.42], whereas H(2)Bs were associated with a higher risk of EP (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1-7.7; p = 0.04), although the number of patients on H(2)Bs was small. CONCLUSION: Overall, gastric acid suppression was not associated with an increased risk of peritonitis with enteric organisms. While PPI use appears to be safe for PD patients with appropriate indications, the potential risk of EP with H(2)Bs requires further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".