Peritoneal Dialysis-associated PeritonitisNCT00801775
Improved Diagnosis of Peritoneal Dialysis Peritonitis by Calorimetry
An observational study of Peritoneal Dialysis-associated Peritonitis, run by University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to analyze whether calorimetry compared to conventional methods (i.e.blood culture systems)is superior to diagnose peritoneal dialysis related peritonitis. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Peritoneal Dialysis-associated Peritonitis
- How many people
- 8 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- Aug 2008to Mar 2009
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients on peritoneal dialysis
Who may be able to join
- all patients on peritoneal dialysis
Who cannot join
- none
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The purpose of this study is to analyze whether calorimetry compared to conventional methods (i.e.blood culture systems)is superior to diagnose peritoneal dialysis related peritonitis.
Read the detailed description
Background:
Peritonitis is still considered the most important complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) associated with high mortality, therapy failure, and healthcare expenses. We have recently demonstrated that peritonitis continuous to be the most common reason for technical failure in PD contributing equally to early and late failure; 12 of 279 patients died as a consequence of PD associated peritonitis. The diagnosis of peritonitis is typically based on clinical symptoms, which reflects an already advanced state of inflammation and disease. Since the implementation of the blood culture system for detection of bacterial growth in PD effluent more than ten years ago, no considerable progress has been made to improve diagnosis of PD associated peritonitis. In our own PD population 36 out of 219 (16%) infectious peritonitis episodes were culture-negative. Usually, detection time of microorganisms requires at least 12 hours and time to pathogen identification more than 48 hours. Rapidly dividing cells such as bacteria produce heat, which can be measured by calorimetry. As recently shown, by our research group, calorimetry allows rapid and accurate diagnosis of bacterial growth in cases of meningitis and in contaminated platelets. In pilot experiments, we could show the potential and the feasibility of calorimetry for early and accurate detection of microorganisms in PD fluid.
Hypothesis and aims:
We hypothesize that calorimetry of PD effluent can significantly improve the diagnosis of PD associated peritonitis by early and accurate detection of pathogens. As compared to traditional culture methods, calorimetry may (i) have a shorter time to positivity and (ii) a higher sensitivity without loss of specificity. Specific aims are to evaluate if calorimetry: (i) is more rapid in detection of microorganisms compared to conventional blood cultures, (ii) is superior, regarding sensitivity and specificity, in detection of PD associated peritonitis compared to the standard blood culture system and (iii) is a valuable tool for pathogen identification by specific heat signal "signatures" received by calorimetry. The Primary endpoint is the time to positivity of bacterial growth by calorimetry and conventional blood cultures. The secondary endpoints are the accuracy (i.e. sensitivity and specificity) of detection rates of microorganism in PD fluid and the rate of consistency of pathogen identification between calorimetry curves and conventional microbiological method.
Research plan:
After obtaining informed consent, we will prospectively include in this open-labeled comparative study all patients aged 16 years or older, who are performing PD at the University Hospital in the time period from January 2009 through December 2011. PD fluid will be submitted for conventional screening examination (cell count and differential) and calorimetry (sterile MonovetteR tube) during routine visit. If PD peritonitis is suspected, PD fluid will be also inoculated in aerobic and anaerobic culture bottles at bedside under sterile conditions, each bottle with 10 ml of PD fluid. For calorimetry, 1 ml PD fluid will be cultivated at 37°C in the calorimeter tubes, containing 2 ml of trypticase soy broth (TSB). Conventional culture bottles and calorimeter tubes are incubated for a total of 6 days, after which culture and/or calorimetry are regarded negative. Medical records will be prospectively abstracted for demographic characteristics, clinical, radiographic, laboratory and microbiological data using a standardized case report form. The sample size calculation was performed separately for primary and secondary endpoints on the following settings: 0.05, power 80%, two-sided test. To reach statistical significant differences for the primary endpoint, 286 samples are required for the study. For the secondary endpoint with p0 = 80% (sensitivity of conventional blood cultures), p1 = 95% (sensitivity of calorimetry cultures), 255 samples are required. With an expected drop-out rate of 5%, approximately 300 samples will be needed. With expected 120-180 samples/year study duration of approximately 2.5 to 3 years is needed.
Expected outcome:
We anticipate that calorimetry will significantly improve the diagnosis of PD-associated peritonitis. First (primary endpoint), we predict an earlier pathogen detection by calorimetry; second (secondary endpoint), we expect to increase the sensitivity by 15% without loss of specificity (>90%). Furthermore, we assume that the most important pathogens, seen in our PD population (i.e. S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, streptococci, enterobacteriaceae) may be identified within 12 hours (compared to > 48 hours by conventional microbiological methods) with an accuracy of 80%. The ultra-sensitive calorimetry technique may diagnose PD associated peritonitis in an early disease stage with high accuracy. This would be the basis of a rapid and targeted antibiotic therapy, which may significantly influence the outcome of these patients.
- Keywords
- calorimetry
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
First (primary endpoint), we predict an earlier pathogen detection by calorimetry (<6 hours versus >24 hours)
Measured: two years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Dec 2008 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2008
- Primary completionMar 2009
- Study completionMar 2009
Why it stopped: The study was stopped march 2009 due to recruitment problems.
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Peritoneal Dialysis-associated PeritonitisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Hospital, Basel, SwitzerlandThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 8 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Michael Mayr, MD, Principal investigator, University Hospital Basel, Transplantation Immunology and Nephrology
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00801775
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Mayr-PD-01
- Status last verified
- Jun 2011
- First submitted
- 3 Dec 2008
- Last updated
- 13 Jun 2011
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Jun 2011. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Improved Diagnosis of Peritoneal Dialysis Peritonitis by Calorimetry
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00801775
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Mayr-PD-01
- Keywords
- calorimetry
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- TerminatedReason stopped: The study was stopped march 2009 due to recruitment problems.
- Enrolment
- 8 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Basel, SwitzerlandUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2008
- Primary completion
- Mar 2009 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2009 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Dec 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to analyze whether calorimetry compared to conventional methods (i.e.blood culture systems)is superior to diagnose peritoneal dialysis related peritonitis.
Detailed description
Background:
Peritonitis is still considered the most important complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) associated with high mortality, therapy failure, and healthcare expenses. We have recently demonstrated that peritonitis continuous to be the most common reason for technical failure in PD contributing equally to early and late failure; 12 of 279 patients died as a consequence of PD associated peritonitis. The diagnosis of peritonitis is typically based on clinical symptoms, which reflects an already advanced state of inflammation and disease. Since the implementation of the blood culture system for detection of bacterial growth in PD effluent more than ten years ago, no considerable progress has been made to improve diagnosis of PD associated peritonitis. In our own PD population 36 out of 219 (16%) infectious peritonitis episodes were culture-negative. Usually, detection time of microorganisms requires at least 12 hours and time to pathogen identification more than 48 hours. Rapidly dividing cells such as bacteria produce heat, which can be measured by calorimetry. As recently shown, by our research group, calorimetry allows rapid and accurate diagnosis of bacterial growth in cases of meningitis and in contaminated platelets. In pilot experiments, we could show the potential and the feasibility of calorimetry for early and accurate detection of microorganisms in PD fluid.
Hypothesis and aims:
We hypothesize that calorimetry of PD effluent can significantly improve the diagnosis of PD associated peritonitis by early and accurate detection of pathogens. As compared to traditional culture methods, calorimetry may (i) have a shorter time to positivity and (ii) a higher sensitivity without loss of specificity. Specific aims are to evaluate if calorimetry: (i) is more rapid in detection of microorganisms compared to conventional blood cultures, (ii) is superior, regarding sensitivity and specificity, in detection of PD associated peritonitis compared to the standard blood culture system and (iii) is a valuable tool for pathogen identification by specific heat signal "signatures" received by calorimetry. The Primary endpoint is the time to positivity of bacterial growth by calorimetry and conventional blood cultures. The secondary endpoints are the accuracy (i.e. sensitivity and specificity) of detection rates of microorganism in PD fluid and the rate of consistency of pathogen identification between calorimetry curves and conventional microbiological method.
Research plan:
After obtaining informed consent, we will prospectively include in this open-labeled comparative study all patients aged 16 years or older, who are performing PD at the University Hospital in the time period from January 2009 through December 2011. PD fluid will be submitted for conventional screening examination (cell count and differential) and calorimetry (sterile MonovetteR tube) during routine visit. If PD peritonitis is suspected, PD fluid will be also inoculated in aerobic and anaerobic culture bottles at bedside under sterile conditions, each bottle with 10 ml of PD fluid. For calorimetry, 1 ml PD fluid will be cultivated at 37°C in the calorimeter tubes, containing 2 ml of trypticase soy broth (TSB). Conventional culture bottles and calorimeter tubes are incubated for a total of 6 days, after which culture and/or calorimetry are regarded negative. Medical records will be prospectively abstracted for demographic characteristics, clinical, radiographic, laboratory and microbiological data using a standardized case report form. The sample size calculation was performed separately for primary and secondary endpoints on the following settings: 0.05, power 80%, two-sided test. To reach statistical significant differences for the primary endpoint, 286 samples are required for the study. For the secondary endpoint with p0 = 80% (sensitivity of conventional blood cultures), p1 = 95% (sensitivity of calorimetry cultures), 255 samples are required. With an expected drop-out rate of 5%, approximately 300 samples will be needed. With expected 120-180 samples/year study duration of approximately 2.5 to 3 years is needed.
Expected outcome:
We anticipate that calorimetry will significantly improve the diagnosis of PD-associated peritonitis. First (primary endpoint), we predict an earlier pathogen detection by calorimetry; second (secondary endpoint), we expect to increase the sensitivity by 15% without loss of specificity (>90%). Furthermore, we assume that the most important pathogens, seen in our PD population (i.e. S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, streptococci, enterobacteriaceae) may be identified within 12 hours (compared to > 48 hours by conventional microbiological methods) with an accuracy of 80%. The ultra-sensitive calorimetry technique may diagnose PD associated peritonitis in an early disease stage with high accuracy. This would be the basis of a rapid and targeted antibiotic therapy, which may significantly influence the outcome of these patients.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients on peritoneal dialysis
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- all patients on peritoneal dialysis
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- none
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
First (primary endpoint), we predict an earlier pathogen detection by calorimetry (<6 hours versus >24 hours)
Time frame: two years
Results and safety
The study was stopped early (reason given: The study was stopped march 2009 due to recruitment problems.). Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Jun 2011.
Related trials for Peritoneal Dialysis-associated Peritonitis
RecruitingObservational study
Peritoneal Dialysis Registration System (PERSIST)
ESRD, Disorders Associated With Peritoneal Dialysis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Michael Mayr, MD principal investigator
University Hospital Basel, Transplantation Immunology and Nephrology
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Peritoneal Dialysis-associated Peritonitis, run by University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Jun 2011. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was stopped early (reason given: The study was stopped march 2009 due to recruitment problems.). Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
First (primary endpoint), we predict an earlier pathogen detection by calorimetry (<6 hours versus >24 hours) (time frame: two years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Jun 2011.