Evaluation of intraperitoneal vancomycin in peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intraperitoneal (IP) vancomycin is recommended as one of the treatment options for gram-positive coverage in the management of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-associated peritonitis. There is a lack of literature supporting the optimal dose and approach to vancomycin therapeutic drug-level monitoring. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted using the BC Renal Agency PROMIS Database and our hospital records from 1 June 2011 to 1 July 2019. Adult patients with PD-associated peritonitis who received IP vancomycin and had at least one serum vancomycin level drawn were included. All patients received a loading dose of 30 mg/kg, which was repeated every 3–5 days depending on PD modality. Serum vancomycin levels were drawn prior to the second vancomycin dose, then at the discretion of the prescriber. The primary end point was the rate of therapeutic serum vancomycin levels ≥15 mg/L. Results: Twenty-three episodes of PD-associated peritonitis in 20 patients met the eligibility criteria. Only 15/23 serum vancomycin levels were drawn appropriately after the first dose. Sixty per cent of these levels were subtherapeutic at <15 mg/L. All subsequent serum vancomycin levels were above the therapeutic target. Most peritonitis episodes (78%) achieved resolution of infection. Residual kidney function was not significantly correlated with serum vancomycin levels ( p = 0.19). Conclusions: An IP vancomycin regimen of 30 mg/kg every 3–5 days resulted in subtherapeutic serum vancomycin levels in most patients following the loading dose but therapeutic levels thereafter. A large percentage of vancomycin levels were drawn inappropriately due to misalignment of outpatient follow-up visits and timing of blood work.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".