Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis: A Rare Incidence by Achromobacter xylosidans.

Liver cirrhosis results from progressive hepatic fibrosis and is generally considered irreversible. One of the many consequences of cirrhosis is spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. This typically presents in patients with decompensated cirrhosis due to bacterial translocation, most commonly from the intestinal bacterial flora seeding into the ascitic fluid. We present a rare case of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis caused by Achromobacter xylosidans. This bacterium is mostly associated with nosocomial infections, and due to its multidrug-resistant nature, treatment options are often limited. This case highlights a rare cause of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis to consider in the setting of recent hospitalization, and the importance of recognizing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis versus secondary bacterial peritonitis.

Diagnosis and treatment of bacterial peritonitis in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: an observational multicenter study.

Background: Bacterial peritonitis (BP) in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer has been poorly described, and its prevalence is unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate in patients with both GI cancer and ascites the prevalence of BP, associated features, mechanisms, prognosis, and the diagnostic performance of neutrophil count in ascites. Design: A retrospective, multicenter, observational study. Methods: All patients with GI cancer and ascites who underwent at least one paracentesis sample analyzed for bacteriology over a 1-year period were included. BP was defined by a positive ascites culture combined with clinical and/or biological signs compatible with infection. Secondary BP was defined as BP related to a direct intra-abdominal infectious source. Results: Five hundred fifty-seven ascites from 208 patients included were analyzed. Twenty-eight patients had at least one episode of BP and the annual prevalence rate of BP was 14%. Among the 28 patients with BP, 19 (65%) patients had proven secondary BP and 17 (59%) patients had multi-microbial BP, mainly due to Enterobacterales. A neutrophil count greater than 110/mm3 in ascites had negative and positive predictive values of 96% and 39%, respectively, for the diagnosis of BP. The median survival of patients with BP was 10 days (interquartile range 6-40) after the diagnosis. Conclusion: BP is not rare in patients with GI cancer and is associated with a poor short-term prognosis. When a patient with GI cancer is diagnosed with BP, a secondary cause should be sought. Further studies are needed to better define the best management of these patients.

Infected ascites: Distinguishing secondary peritonitis from spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in a cirrhotic patient with classic symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis can be differentiated from secondary bacterial peritonitis by the absence of a surgically treatable intra-abdominal source of infection. However, oftentimes this is unapparent and other clinical clues need to be sought after to make the right diagnosis. CASE: A 64-year-old woman was admitted because of three days of worsening diffuse abdominal pain and distention. She was morbidly obese and had a history of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis. She was febrile at 38.2 °C. Her abdomen was soft, diffusely tender and distended with a reducible umbilical hernia. Laboratory exam showed a white blood cell count 6700/mcl. Ascitic fluid analysis showed a yellow cloudy fluid with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 720 cells/m3, a total protein of 1.1 g/dl and a lactate dehydrogenase of 242 IU\l. She was given ceftriaxone and albumin. The ascitic fluid culture grew pansensitive Viridans streptococcus. The following days she continued to have fever and abdominal pain and a repeat paracentesis was done which showed improvement in her ANC. Abdominal computed tomography scan was done which showed hernia inflammation with a rim-enhancing fluid collection. Surgery was consulted who did a primary repair of the umbilical hernia and over the next few days the patient improved and was discharged stable. CONCLUSION: Persistence of signs and symptoms of peritonitis despite improvement in ascitic fluid analysis in cirrhotic patients treated for or early relapse of peritonitis with the same organism should prompt the physician to evaluate for secondary peritonitis and surgical management should be considered for potentially correctable sources.

Sistemas de puntuación en sepsis / Scoring systems in sepsis

Introducción: el paciente quirúrgico se enfrenta inexorablemente al reto de la infección posoperatoria. Los sistemas de puntuación en sepsis resultan herramientas de utilidad para la toma de decisiones con estos pacientes de difícil evaluación. Objetivo: exponer algunos conceptos relacionados con la fisiopatología del paciente quirúrgico y con la sepsis posoperatoria, así como las ventajas y limitaciones de los principales sistemas de puntuación desarrollados para la valoración de este paciente en las salas de terapia intensiva. Métodos: se realizó una revisión narrativa de los principales aspectos relacionados con la respuesta del paciente quirúrgico a la infección apoyado en una búsqueda en la base de datos Pubmed/MEDLINE y LILACS con los términos del Mesh: peritonitis, sepsis, scores entre otros, mediante búsqueda manual, se identificaron revistas médicas relevantes y artículos derivados de conferencias internacionales. Resultados: se entregan definiciones y conceptos esenciales acerca del paciente séptico así como elementos relacionados con la fisiopatología de la sepsis del paciente quirúrgico y su respuesta inmune. Se describen los principales sistemas de puntuación en sepsis utilizados en salas de terapia intensiva, sus bondades y limitaciones. Conclusiones: los sistemas de puntuación son herramientas de indudable valor en apoyo al método clínico, su integración a la práctica médica asistencial permite disminuir los errores y optimizar el proceso de toma de decisiones en situaciones de gran estrés organizacional, además, mejoran la calidad y la seguridad del paciente(AU)

Introduction: the surgical patient inevitably faces the challenge of postoperative infection. Scoring systems in sepsis are useful tools for decision-making with patients who are difficult to evaluate. Objective: to present some concepts related to the pathophysiology of surgical patients, and postoperative sepsis, as well as the advantages and limitations of the main scoring systems developed for assessing this patient in intensive care units. Methods: A narrative review of the main aspects of the surgical patient response to infection was conducted supported by a search in Pubmed/MEDLINE, and LILACS with MeSH terms: peritonitis, sepsis, and scores, among others, by manual search. Relevant medical journals and articles from international conferences were identified. Results: Definitions and key concepts are given about the septic patient as well as elements related to the pathophysiology of surgical patient sepsis and their immune response. The main sepsis scoring systems used in intensive care units, their advantages and limitations were described. Conclusions: scoring systems are tools of great value in supporting clinical method, its integration into the medical assistance can reduce errors and optimize the process of decision-making in situations of major organizational stress; it also improves the quality and patient safety(AU)

Sistemas de puntuación en sepsis / Scoring systems in sepsis

Introducción: el paciente quirúrgico se enfrenta inexorablemente al reto de la infección posoperatoria. Los sistemas de puntuación en sepsis resultan herramientas de utilidad para la toma de decisiones con estos pacientes de difícil evaluación. Objetivo: exponer algunos conceptos relacionados con la fisiopatología del paciente quirúrgico y con la sepsis posoperatoria, así como las ventajas y limitaciones de los principales sistemas de puntuación desarrollados para la valoración de este paciente en las salas de terapia intensiva. Métodos: se realizó una revisión narrativa de los principales aspectos relacionados con la respuesta del paciente quirúrgico a la infección apoyado en una búsqueda en la base de datos Pubmed/MEDLINE y LILACS con los términos del Mesh: peritonitis, sepsis, scores entre otros, mediante búsqueda manual, se identificaron revistas médicas relevantes y artículos derivados de conferencias internacionales. Resultados: se entregan definiciones y conceptos esenciales acerca del paciente séptico así como elementos relacionados con la fisiopatología de la sepsis del paciente quirúrgico y su respuesta inmune. Se describen los principales sistemas de puntuación en sepsis utilizados en salas de terapia intensiva, sus bondades y limitaciones. Conclusiones: los sistemas de puntuación son herramientas de indudable valor en apoyo al método clínico, su integración a la práctica médica asistencial permite disminuir los errores y optimizar el proceso de toma de decisiones en situaciones de gran estrés organizacional, además, mejoran la calidad y la seguridad del paciente.

Introduction: the surgical patient inevitably faces the challenge of postoperative infection. Scoring systems in sepsis are useful tools for decision-making with patients who are difficult to evaluate. Objective: to present some concepts related to the pathophysiology of surgical patients, and postoperative sepsis, as well as the advantages and limitations of the main scoring systems developed for assessing this patient in intensive care units. Methods: A narrative review of the main aspects of the surgical patient response to infection was conducted supported by a search in Pubmed/MEDLINE, and LILACS with MeSH terms: peritonitis, sepsis, and scores, among others, by manual search. Relevant medical journals and articles from international conferences were identified. Results: Definitions and key concepts are given about the septic patient as well as elements related to the pathophysiology of surgical patient sepsis and their immune response. The main sepsis scoring systems used in intensive care units, their advantages and limitations were described. Conclusions: scoring systems are tools of great value in supporting clinical method, its integration into the medical assistance can reduce errors and optimize the process of decision-making in situations of major organizational stress; it also improves the quality and patient safety.