Journal of Hepatology
Volume 32, Issue 1 , Pages 142-153, January 2000

Diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a consensus document

  • Antoni Rimola

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAntoni Rimola, Liver Unit, Hospital Clinic, Villarroel 170, 08036 Barcelona, Spain. Tel: 34 93 227 5499. Fax: 34 93 451 5522.
    • Liver Unit, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
    • ,
  • Guadalupe García-Tsao

      Affiliations

    • Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
    • ,
  • Miquel Navasa

      Affiliations

    • Liver Unit, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
    • ,
  • Laura J.V. Piddock

      Affiliations

    • Department of Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    • ,
  • Ramon Planas

      Affiliations

    • Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain
    • ,
  • Brigitte Bernard

      Affiliations

    • Service d'Hépato-Gastro-Entérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France
    • ,
  • John M. Inadomi

      Affiliations

    • Veterans Administration Medical Center, Albuquerque, USA
    • ,
  • the International Ascites Club

Article Outline

 

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a frequent and severe complication of cirrhotic patients with ascites. Much information regarding SBP has appeared during recent years, particularly on aspects involving the management of this complication. Therefore, the International Ascites Club (IAC) commissioned a panel of experts to prepare a consensus on the diagnosis, therapy and prophylaxis of SBP. A draft consensus document, drawn up by the panel members, was presented and discussed at the regular Meeting of the IAC held during the 33rd Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, in Lisbon in April 1998, after which a final consensus was reached.

This article represents the final consensus document and is divided into three separate sectionsconcerning the diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis of SBP. Specific recommendationsare formulated and each recommendation is rated on the basis of strength and quality according to guidelines from the Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, with some modifications(1). The rating system is summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Rating appraisal of the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence for recommendation (adapted from the Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, with some modifications; ref. 1)
Strength of recommendation:
A: Survival benefit
B: Improved diagnosis
C: Improvement in quality of life
D: Relevant improvement in pathophysiological knowledge
E: Impact on health care cost

Quality of evidence for recommendation:
I: Evidence from at least one properly randomized, controlled trial
II: Evidence from at least one:
Well-designed clinical trial without randomization
Cohort or case-control study
Well-designed meta-analysis
III: Evidence from:
Clinical experience
Descriptive studies
Reports of expert committees
IV: No rating

Back to Article Outline

Diagnosis of SBP 

Diagnostic paracentesis: in whom and when 

Background 

All cirrhotic patients with ascites can develop SBP. The prevalence of SBP in unselected cirrhotic patients with ascites admitted to a hospital ranges between 10 and 30% 2., 3., 4., 5., 6.. Approximately half the episodes of SBP are present at the time of hospital admission and the remainder are acquired during hospitalization 7., 8., 9..

Most patients with SBP have symptoms and/or signs clearly suggestive of peritoneal infection, especially abdominal pain, fever and alterationsin gastrointestinal motility. In other patients the development of SBP may be clinically manifested by impairment of liver function (e.g. development of hepatic encephalopathy) or renal failure as the predominant or only features 7., 8., 10., 11., 12., 13., 14., 15.. However, SBP may be asymptomatic or there may be minor symptoms only. This is particularly so when the diagnosis of the infection is made at hospital admission 7., 8., 10., 11., 12., 13., 14., 15..

Recommendations(Table 2)
TABLE 2. Recommendationson diagnosis of SBP
RecommendationRating
Diagnosis of SBP:
1. Diagnostic paracentesis in cirrhotics with ascites:
At hospital admissionAB, III
Whenever patients develop any of the following:AB, III
• Local signs of peritonitis (pain, vomiting, diarrhea, ileus)
• Systemic signs of infection (fever, leukocytosis, septic shock)
• Hepatic encephalopathy without any clear precipitating factor
• Rapid renal function impairment without an apparent cause
Prior to antibiotic prophylaxis, if gastrointestinal bleedingB, II
2. Diagnosis of SBP based on ascitic fluid PMN count >250/mm3; in patients with bloody ascites: substract 1 PMN per 250 RBCB, III
3. Cultures:
Ascitic fluid culture: bedside inoculation into blood culture bottles; minimum amount: 10 mlB, I
Blood cultures simultaneous to ascitic fluid culturesB, III

Special conditions:
1. Bacterascites:
Definition criteria: positive ascitic fluid culture, ascites PMN <250/mm3, and no evidence of local or systemic infectionB, III
Once bacterascites is diagnosed, repeat paracentesis; if:BE, III
• Ascites PMN >250/mm3: initiate antibiotic treatment
• Ascites PMN <250/mm3, but culture continues to be positive: initiate antibiotic treatment
• Ascites PMN <250/mm3 and negative culture: bacterascites is resolved, no more action is required
In patients with positive ascitic fluid culture, ascites PMN <250/mm3 and evidence of local or systemic infection: initiate antibiotic treatmentA, IV
2. Secondary peritonitis:
Suspected when any of the following:AB, III
• Lack of response to antibiotic treatment
• Two or more organisms isolated (particularly anaerobes or fungi)
• At least two of the following findings in ascitic fluid:
Glucose <50 mg/dl
Protein >10 g/l
Lactic dehydrogenase >normal serum levels
Once secondary peritonitis is suspected:AB, III
• Initiate appropriate radiological investigation
• Add antibiotics against anaerobes and enterococci
 

A diagnostic paracentesis should be performedon hospital admission in all cirrhotic patients with ascites to investigate the presence of SBP, even in patients admitted for reasons other than ascites.

A diagnostic tap should also be performed in hospitalized patients with ascites if and when they develop any of the following: a) local symptoms or signs suggestive of peritoneal infection, such as abdominal pain, rebound tenderness or clinically relevant alterationsof gastrointestinal motility (i.e. vomiting, diarrhea, ileus); b) systemic signs of infection, such as fever, leukocytosis or septic shock, and c) hepatic encephalopathy or rapid impairment in renal function without any clear precipitating factor.

Paracentesis should also be performed routinely in patients with ascites and gastrointestinal hemorrhage before the administration of prophylactic antibiotics (see below, Prophylaxis of SBP).

Ascitic fluid cell count 

Background 

Peritoneal infection causes an inflammatory reaction that results in an increased number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMN) in ascitic fluid. Despite the use of sensitive methods, ascites culture is negative in approximately 40% of patients with clinical manifestationssuggestive of SBP and increased ascites PMN 15., 16., 17., 18., 19., 20., 21.. Moreover, treatment cannot be delayed until microbiological results are available. Therefore, empirical antibiotic treatment for SBP is started when objective evidence of a local inflammatory reaction is present, i.e. an elevated ascites PMN count. On the basis of currently available data, the greatest sensitivity for the diagnosis of SBP is reached with a cutoff PMN count of 250/ mm3, although the greatest specificity is reached with a cutoff of 500 PMN/mm3 3., 22., 23., 24., 25., 26., 27., 28., 29., 30.. In patients with bloody ascitic fluid (i.e. ascites red blood cell count >10 000/mm3, as the result of a traumatic tap or conditionscausing hemorrhage into ascites, such as concomitant neoplasm or severe coagulopathy) (31), a correction factor of 1 PMN per 250 red blood cells (RBC) has been proposed, since this is the maximum expected ratio of PMN to RBCs normally present in peripheral blood 31., 32..

Although some physicians still establish the diagnosis of SBP on the basis of both the ascites total leukocyte count and the percentage of PMNs, there is no rationale for the use of this criterion in the diagnosis of SBP 3., 33., 34..

Recommendations (Table 2) 

Diagnosis of SBP must be based on the PMN cell count in ascitic fluid. A PMN count of more than 250/mm3 is highly suspicious of SBP and constitutes an indication to empirically initiate antibiotic treatment. Although an ascitic fluid PMN count greater than 500/mm3 is more specific for the diagnosis of SBP, the risk of not treating the few patients with SBP who have an ascites PMN count between 250 and 500/mm3 is unacceptable. An ascitic fluid PMN count of less than 250/mm3 excludes the diagnosis of SBP.

In patients with hemorrhagic ascites (i.e. ascites RBC count >10 000/mm3), a subtraction of one PMN per 250 RBC should be made to adjust for the presence of blood in ascites.

A diagnosis of SBP established on the basis of symptoms and signs is not acceptable.

Ascitic fluid culture 

Background 

Using conventional culture techniques, ascitic fluid cultures are negative in up to 60% of patients with clinical manifestationssuggestive of SBP and an increased ascites PMN count 18., 19., 20., 21.. The low proportion of positive ascitic fluid cultures is probably due to the relatively low concentration of bacteria in ascitic fluid compared to infectionsin other organic fluids (e.g. urine). Prospective comparative trials have shown that culture of ascitic fluid directly into blood culture bottles (aerobic and anaerobic media) at the bedside increases the yield of bacteria up to 90% 18., 19., 20., 21.. However, outside of these trials that were specifically designed to investigate different culture methods, and even using the method of inoculating ascites into blood culture bottles, cultures are still negative in approximately 30–50% of patients with an increased ascites PMN count 8., 9., 15.. The condition of increased PMN count in ascites and negative culture has been known as“culture-negative neutrocytic ascites”, which is considered as a variant of SBP, since the short- and longterm course of patients with either condition is the same 16., 17., 35.. In a significant proportion of patients with SBP, blood cultures are positive 3., 16.; in these cases, bacteria isolated from peripheral blood are presumably the same bacteria causing SBP.

At present, the Gram stain of a smear of sediment obtained after centrifugation of ascitic fluid is positive in only a few cases, probably because SBP is usually diagnosed at very early stages of the infection, when the concentration of organisms in ascites is very low (19).

Recommendations (Table 2) 

Culture of ascitic fluid should be performed at the bedside using blood culture bottles, including both aerobic and anaerobic media. The minimum amount of ascitic fluid inoculated in each bottle should be 10 ml.

Since blood cultures increase the possibility of identifying the infecting organisms, blood cultures should also be obtained in patients with increased ascitic fluid PMN count before initiating antibiotic administration.

Despite negative ascitic fluid and blood cultures, patients with increased ascites PMN count should be considered as having SBP. It is proposed to use the term“culture-negative SBP” or simply “SBP” for this condition, similarly to other types of infection, such as meningitis, arthritis or pneumonia, in which a proportion of cultures are also negative but the name of the infection is not changed for this reason.

Bacterascites 

Background 

The term “bacterascites” refers to the colonization of ascitic fluid by bacteria, in the absence of an inflammatory reaction in the peritoneal fluid. Therefore, the diagnosis of bacterascites is currently made when there is a positive ascitic fluid culture in the setting of an ascitic fluid PMN count <250/mm3 11., 12., 36., 37., 38.. However, patients with bacterascites so defined do not constitute a homogeneous population. In some patients bacterascites is the result of secondary bacterial colonization of ascites from a concomitant extraperitoneal infection (e.g. pneumonia or urinary tract infection) 36., 37., 38.. These patients usually present with general and local (extraperitoneal) symptoms and signs of infection. In other patients, the growth of bacteria from the ascitic fluid corresponds to the spontaneous colonization of ascites, and they can either be clinically asymptomatic or have abdominal pain or fever 11., 12., 36., 37., 38.. The course of untreated bacterascites is also variable. While in some patients, particularly in those who are asymptomatic, bacterascites represents a transient and spontaneously reversible colonization of ascites, in other patients, mainly those who are symptomatic, bacterascites is the first step in the development of SBP 36., 37., 38., 39..

Recommendations (Table 2) 

The term“bacterascites” should be reserved for patients fulfilling the following criteria: positive ascitic fluid culture, ascites PMN count <250 cells/mm3 and absence of any evidence of systemic or local infection.

Once the diagnosis of bacterascites is made (usually 2–3 days after the paracentesis, when the microbiological results are available), it is recommended that paracentesis for PMN count and culture be repeated and treated accordingly. Three possible scenarios are then possible: a) ascites PMN >250/mm3: antibiotic therapy should be initiated as bacterascites has probably evolved into SBP; b) ascitic fluid PMN <250/mm3 and ascitic fluid culture continues to be positive: initiation of antibiotic therapy appears to be the most judicious option, although further investigationsare necessary to properly assess this recommendation, and c) ascitic fluid PMN <250/mm3 and ascitic fluid culture is now negative: no further action is required as bacterascites has spontaneously resolved.

Patients with positive ascitic fluid culture and ascitic fluid PMN count <250/mm3, but with symptoms and signs of an extraperitoneal infection (e.g. pneumonia, urinary tract infection), should receive antibiotic treatment according to the in vitro susceptibility of the organism(s) isolated in ascites since it is likely that this organism(s) is also responsible for the extraperitoneal infection. Similarly, because most patients with positive ascitic fluid culture, ascitic PMN count <250/mm3 and clinical signs of peritoneal infection develop SBP within a few days, these patients should also receive appropriate antibiotic therapy.

Spontaneous versus secondary bacterial peritonitis 

Background 

The vast majority of cirrhotic patients with ascites and peritoneal infection have SBP. However, a small group of patients have bacterial peritonitis secondary to perforation or acute inflammation of intra-abdominal organs, abdominal wall infectionsor previous abdominal surgical procedures 11., 40., 41.. With the exception of peritonitis secondary to the two latter conditions, in which the precise nature of peritoneal infection can easily be established, the differential diagnosis between spontaneous (primary) and secondary peritonitis can occasionally be difficult. The differentiation is important because secondary peritonitis usually does not resolve unless patients are treated surgically. Conversely, surgical therapy may be accompanied by significant deterioration in the clinical status of cirrhotic patients with spontaneous peritoneal infection (42).

Although clinical and laboratory characteristics of secondary peritonitis have been reported in only a small number of patients, it has been suggested that secondary peritonitis should be suspected when at least one of the following features is present 41., 43.:

a) No response to antibiotic therapy, that is, lack of a significant decrease (or even an increase) in ascitic fluid PMN cell count in follow-up paracenteses performed during therapy (see below, Treatment of SBP).

b) More than one organism isolated from ascites (particularly when the growth of anaerobic bacteria or fungi is observed).

c) At least two of the following findings in the ascitic fluid: glucose levels <50 mg/dl, protein concentration >10 g/l, lactic dehydrogenase concentration >normal serum levels.

These criteria seem to be very sensitive in the detection of secondary peritonitis but their specificity is low (44). Studies involving large series of patients are necessary to improve the clinical approach to the differential diagnosis between spontaneous and secondary peritonitis.

Recommendations (Table 2) 

Secondary peritonitis should be suspected when there is a lack of response to antibiotic treatment and/or in the presence of the aforementioned ascitic fluid alterations.

When secondary peritonitis is suspected, antibiotic treatment should include antimicrobial agents against anaerobic organisms and enterococci, and the presence of secondary peritonitis should be properly investigated.

Back to Article Outline

Treatment of SBP 

Empirical antibiotic therapy 

Background 

Empirical antibiotic therapy must be initiated immediately after the diagnosis of the infection is made, without prior knowledge of the causative organisms and their in vitro susceptibility. Since Gram-negative aerobic bacteria from the family of Enterobacteriaceae and non-enterococcal Streptococcus spp. are the most common causative organisms 2., 3., 5., 12., the initial empirical antibiotic therapy of SBP should cover these organisms. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetic properties of the antibiotics selected should be adequate to treat peritoneal infection (i.e. antibiotic concentrationsin ascitic fluid >MIC90 of causative microorganisms). The efficacy and safety of different antimicrobial agents as initial empirical antibiotic therapy in SBP have been investigated with the following results.

a) Cefotaxime: This antibiotic has been the most extensively investigated in patients with SBP. In the first randomized, comparative study (45), cefotaxime was more effective in achieving the resolution of SBP and other infectionsthan ampicillin plus tobramycin and, whereas no patient treated with cefotaxime developed nephrotoxicity and superinfections, these two complicationsoccurred in more than 10% of the patients treated with ampicillin plus tobramycin. Two other randomized, controlled trials assessing the optimal duration of therapy and dosage of cefotaxime in cirrhotic patients with SBP have been reported. One of these trials showed that 5-day therapy with cefotaxime (2 g/8 h) was as effective as 10-day therapy in relation to the rate of resolution of the infection, recurrence of SBP during hospitalization, and hospital mortality (46). The other trial reported similar rates of SBP resolution and patient survival in patients with SBP receiving cefotaxime at a dose of either 2 g/6 h or 2 g/12 h (15). The results of these two studies suggest that the high efficacy of cefotaxime in SBP can be maintained with short-course administration of this antimicrobial agent and with doses lower than those formerly used, with a significant reduction in the cost of the antibiotic. Cefotaxime at the above doses achieves adequate concentrationsin ascitic fluid in patients with SBP 15., 47., 48.. The cost of cefotaxime therapy in SBP is moderate, particularly if low doses are used. As an example, in Spain the market price of 2 g cefotaxime b.i.d is ε32.56 per day.

b) Other cephalosporins: The rate of SBP resolution and patient survival has been found to be very high with the use of other cephalosporins, including cefonicid, ceftriaxone, ceftizoxime and ceftazidime 49., 50., 51., 52., 53., with no significant differences as compared to that reported with the use of cefotaxime.

c) Combinationsof aminoglycosides and beta-lactam antibiotics: As mentioned above, the usefulness of the association of ampicillin and tobramycin has been assessed in cirrhotic patients with severe infections(45). Other combinationsincluded cephalothin with either gentamicin or tobramycin (54), and mezlocillin with netilmicin (53). The efficacy of these combinationsis only moderate and, importantly, they are associated with a high incidence of nephrotoxicity. Therefore, these antibiotic associationsare not recommended as initial empirical antibiotic therapy in cirrhotic patients with SBP.

d) Aztreonam: Aztreonam is a monocyclic beta-lactam antibiotic with efficacy against enterobacteria but not against Gram-positive cocci. In a comparative study, aztreonam (associated with other antibiotics active against Gram-positive bacteria) was less effective than cefotaxime in the treatment of SBP (55). This study concluded that aztreonam was not adequate for the empirical treatment of SBP.

e) Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid: In a pilot study, the administration of 1 g of amoxicillin associated with 200 mg of clavulanic acid, q.i.d., was effective in 85% of 27 episodes of SBP (56). In a recent comparative trial, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was as effective as cefotaxime in the treatment of SBP (57). In both studies, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid therapy was not associated with relevant adverse effects. The low cost is one important advantage of this antibiotic regimen (market price of 1 g iv, q.i.d.: ε17.64 per day).

f) Oral antibiotics: In most cases, patients with SBP are in relatively good clinical condition and may be treated orally. This has been assessed in two studies. In one of these studies (58), the oral administration of pefloxacin (alone or in combination with other oral antibiotics: cotrimoxazole, amoxicillin, cefadroxil, and cotrimoxazole plus metronidazole) achieved the following results: 87% rate of resolution of SBP, 13% incidence of superinfections, and 60% survival rate. The second study (9) consisted of a randomized, controlled trial involving patients with uncomplicated SBP (no shock, ileus, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, profound hepatic encephalopathy or serum creatinine >3 mg/dl). It compared oral ofloxacin (400 mg/12 h) versus intravenous cefotaxime (2 g every 6 h). The rate of infection resolution, length of antibiotic treatment and patient survival were similar in the two groups. No adverse effects related to oral ofloxacin administration were observed, and the cost of ofloxacin treatment was very much lower than the cost of cefotaxime treatment (market price of oral ofloxacin, 400 mg/12 h: ε4.44 per day).

At present, some patients developing SBP are receiving prophylaxis with quinolones (see below, Prophylaxis of SBP). In these patients, SBP is commonly caused by Gram-positive cocci or quinolone-resistant Gram-negative bacilli 59., 60.. Cefotaxime is very effective in these cases 60., 61..

Recommendations (Table 3)
TABLE 3. Recommendationson treatment of SBP
RecommendationRating
1. Antibiotic therapy must be empirically initiated in patients with ascitic fluid PMN count >250/mm3A, II
2. Recommended antibiotics for initial empirical therapy:
Cefotaxime; minimum dose 2 g/12 h, minimum duration 5 daysA, I
Other: ceftizoxime, cefonicid, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid; standard dosageAE, II
In patients with uncomplicated SBP and not under quinolone prophylaxis: oral ofloxacin is another optionE, I
In patients under quinolone prophylaxis: cefotaximeA, III
In patients with beta-lactam hypersensitivity: quinolonesA, IV
Aminoglycosides should be avoidedA, I
3. Assessment of response to antibiotic therapy:
Periodical clinical evaluation and, at least, one follow-up paracentesis (i.e. after 2 days of antibiotic therapy) to determine ascitic fluid PMN countAB, III
Treatment failure when one of the following:A, IV
• Deterioration of clinical condition within the first hours of antibiotic therapy
• Less than 25% decrease in ascitic fluid PMN in follow-up paracentesis as compared to pre-treatment value
If treatment failure:A, III
• Modify antibiotic therapy according to in vitro susceptibility of isolated organisms or empirically
• Consider the possibility of secondary peritonitis
 

Antibiotic therapy must be empirically initiated in cirrhotic patients with an ascitic fluid PMN cell count >250/mm3.

Several antibiotics can be used for the initial empirical therapy of SBP with similar efficacy: cefotaxime, other cephalosporins (cefonicid, ceftizoxime, ceftriaxone and ceftazidime), or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. The optimal cost-effective dosage has only been investigated for cefotaxime. For this antibiotic, a minimum dose of 2 g/12 h should be administered. In addition, a minimum duration of 5 days of cefotaxime therapy is recommended. For the remaining antibiotic agents, standard dosage for severe infectionsis recommended. Since most of these antibiotic agents are predominantly excreted in the urine, dose adjustments are necessary in patients with severe renal impairment.

Patients with uncomplicated SBP and not receiving prophylaxis with quinolones can be treated orally with ofloxacin, at a minimum dose of 400 mg/12 h.

For patients developing SBP while under quinolone prophylaxis, cefotaxime administration appears as the most adequate antibiotic regimen.

There are no studies in patients with beta-lactam antibiotic hypersensitivity. Nevertheless, the administration of quinolones seems an adequate therapeutic alternative in these cases.

Aminoglycosides should be avoided as initial empirical antibiotic therapy.

Assessment of response to antibiotic therapy 

Background 

Resolution of SBP is achieved in approximately 90% of patients with the above regimens. The resolution of the infection is associated with the disappearance of all systemic and local symptoms and signs of infection, reduction of the PMN count in ascitic fluid below 250/mm3, normal WBC count and negative ascitic fluid culture 7., 15., 62., 63.. However, for those patients who do not improve the mortality rate is very high, even when antibiotic treatment is appropriately modified 7., 15.. Therefore, assessing the course of the infection is important to recognize treatment failure as early as possible. It has been suggested that the changes in the PMN count in ascitic fluid after 2 days of antibiotic therapy in relation to the pre-treatment values constitute the best marker of the therapeutic response in patients with SBP. In a prospective investigation the drop in the ascitic fluid PMN count during this time was 92±9% in patients who survived at the end of hospitalization and 66±38% in those who did not (62).

Recommendations (Table 3) 

The response to treatment should be assessed by periodically evaluating the symptoms and signs of infection and at least one follow-up paracentesis after 2 days of antibiotic therapy to determine the PMN count in ascitic fluid. Treatment failure can be established when the condition of the patients rapidly deteriorates within the first hours of antibiotic therapy (i.e. with development of shock) or no significant decrease in ascitic PMN count is observed in the follow-up paracentesis. Although no specific cutoff has been established, a reduction in the PMN count of less than 25% in relation to the pre-treatment value may reasonably be considered as suggestive of failure of the antibiotic treatment.

In case of treatment failure, antibiotic therapy should be rapidly modified either according to the in vitro susceptibility of isolated bacteria in patients with culture-positive SBP or empirically in patients with culture-negative SBP (according to the physician or center experience). Furthermore, the possibility of secondary peritonitis should be considered and appropriate investigationsinitiated.

Since despite these measures mortality remains high in patients with failure to respond to the initial antibiotic treatment, methods for more rapidly and accurately assessing therapeutic response should be further investigated.

Back to Article Outline

Prophylaxis of SBP 

The efficacy and safety of prophylaxis for SBP (and other infections) has been investigated in two populationsof cirrhotic patients: a) hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and b) non-bleeding cirrhotic patients with ascites.

Cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage 

Background 

All cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, independent of the presence or absence of ascites, are at a high risk of developing severe bacterial infections, including SBP, within the first days of the hemorrhagic episode 64., 65., 66., 67., 68., 69., 70.. Approximately 20% of these patients are already infected at admission, and 50% develop an infection during hospitalization.

Because most microorganisms causing infection in cirrhotic patients are of enteric origin, the initial investigationsaddressed the effectiveness of prophylactic intestinal decontamination in these patients. Two randomized, controlled studies have demonstrated that selective intestinal decontamination with oral administration of antibiotics is effective in preventing bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. In the first study (64) the administration of different combinationsof oral, non-absorbable antibiotics (either gentamicin, vancomycin and nystatin, or neomycin, colistin and nystatin) significantly reduced the incidence of infection from 35% in the control group to 16% in the treated group (incidence of spontaneous bacteremia and/or SBP reduced from 21% to 9%). In the second controlled trial (65), treated patients received oral norfloxacin, a quinolone partially absorbed after oral administration and very active in vitro against bacteria commonly causing infection in cirrhotic patients. Patients who received norfloxacin, 400 mg twice daily for 7 days, developed less infectionsthan controls: 10% versus 37%, respectively. The incidence of bacteremia and/or SBP was 3% in the treated group and 17% in the control group. In these two studies there was a marked reduction of infectionscaused by enteric bacteria, without any significant change in the incidence of infectionscaused by bacteria of a probable extraintestinal source.

The usefulness of systemic administration of prophylactic antibiotic agents in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage has also been investigated in three more recent controlled studies. In these studies the treated groups received ofloxacin (initially intravenously and then orally) plus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (iv, before each endoscopy), ciplofloxacin plus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (first intravenously and then orally once the bleeding was controlled), and oral ciprofloxacin, respectively 66., 68., 70.. The incidence of bacterial infectionswas significantly lower in the treated groups (10–20%) than in the corresponding control groups (45–66%).

No serious adverse events were associated with any of the above prophylactic regimes and there was no increase in the incidence of infection caused by resistant organisms. A recent meta-analysis has also reported that antibiotic prophylaxis was significantly effective in improving survival in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage (71). In this meta-analysis no differences were found between orally-administered versus intravenously-administered antibiotics.

A relative limitation in these studies was the inability to assess the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis specifically on SBP since the incidences of both SBP and bacteremia were analyzed together. This was mainly due to the small number of patients with ascites included in these studies, which precluded an analysis of the incidence of SBP alone. Nevertheless, the marked decrease in the rate of overall infections(SBP and other infectious complications) and the improvement of survival in the groups receiving antibiotic prophylaxis support such prophylaxis being strongly recommended in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage independently of their specific risk of SBP. Furthermore, the meta-analysis by Bernard et al. (71) included only SBP cases and showed a significant benefit in this subset of patients: 95% of patients were free of SBP in the treated group versus 87% in the control group.

Recommendations (Table 4)
TABLE 4. Recommendationson prophylaxis of SBP
RecommendationRating
In cirrhotics with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage:
1. Oral administration of norfloxacin, 400 mg/12 h, over a minimum period of 7 daysAE, I
2.Alternative regimes: combinationsof systemic antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid)A, II
3. Exclusion of SBP and other infectionsbefore starting prophylaxisA, III

In non-bleeding cirrhotic patients with ascites:
1. In patients recovering from an SBP episode:
Continuous oral administration of norfloxacin, 400 mg/dayAE, I
Consider liver transplantationAC, III
2. In patients without past history of SBP and with:
High ascitic fluid protein (i.e. >10 g/l): prophylaxis unnecessaryE, III
Low ascitic fluid protein (i.e.<10 g/l):no consensus on the necessity of prophylaxisIV
 

Antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered to cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, independently of the presence or absence of ascites, because this measure is effective in preventing bacterial infectionsand improving survival.

Although several antibiotic regimens are useful in these patients, oral administration (per os or through a nasogastric tube) of norfloxacin, 400 mg/12 h, appears to be the first-choice antibiotic prophylaxis due to its simpler administration and lower cost. This prophylaxis should be administered over a minimum period of 7 days.

Since most cirrhotic patients are infected at the time of the hemorrhagic episode, the possible existence of SBP or other infectionsshould be excluded before starting prophylactic antibiotic administration.

Non-bleeding cirrhotic patients with ascites 

Background 
Risk of SBP in different subgroups of non-bleeding cirrhotic patients with ascites: 

Increased risk of SBP has been found in the following subsets:

a) Patients with previous episodes of SBP. These patients have a 1-year probability of SBP recurrence of 40–70% 72., 73..

b) Patients who have never had SBP and have increased serum bilirubin and/or low total ascitic fluid protein concentration. In one study, the 1-year probability of the first episode of SBP in patients with serum bilirubin >2.5 mg/dl was 43% (74). However, this incidence may have been an overestimate since antibiotic prophylaxis was not administered during episodes of gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurring during the study. In another investigation, 15% of patients admitted with low ascitic fluid protein content (<10 g/l)developed SBP during hospitalization (75). Other studies have reported 1-year probabilities of SBP of 20% (in patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis if and when they develop gastrointestinal hemorrhage) (76) and of 40% (in patients who did not receive this prophylaxis) (74). The risk of SBP in patients without a previous history of SBP and high ascitic fluid protein concentration is negligible, provided antibiotic prophylaxis is administered during episodes of gastrointestinal bleeding, with 1-year and 3-year probabilities of 0% and 3%, respectively (76).

Prophylaxis of SBP in non-bleeding cirrhotic patients with ascites: 

a) Selective intestinal decontamination by oral administration of norfloxacin: Three randomized, controlled studies have investigated the usefulness of norfloxacin prophylaxis in several populationsof non-bleeding cirrhotic patients with ascites. In the first study, which involved patients who had had a previous episode of SBP, the continuous administration of norfloxacin, at a dose of 400 mg/day, reduced the 1-year probability of SBP recurrence from 68% in the placebo-treated group to 20% in the norfloxacin-treated group, with a reduction of the probability of recurrent SBP caused by aerobic Gram-negative bacilli from 60% to 3% (59).

The second study included cirrhotic patients with a protein concentration in ascitic fluid <15 g/l, some of whom had had a previous episode of SBP. In this inhomogeneous population, the administration ofnorfloxacin, 400 mg/day throughout the hospitalization period, decreased the in-hospital incidence of SBP from 22% in the control group to 0% in the treated group (77).

The third controlled study included cirrhotic patients with ascitic fluid protein concentration <15 g/l and no previous episodes of SBP. In this study the 6-month incidence of SBP was 0% in the group of patients prophylactically treated with norfloxacin, 400 mg/day for 6 months, compared to 9% in patients treated with placebo (78). Nevertheless, the incidence of SBP caused by Gram-negative organisms (the only one which theoretically can be prevented by norfloxacin prophylaxis) in the two groups was not statistically significant: 0% in the norfloxacin-treated group and 5% in the placebo-treated group. The relatively short period of study, the narrow difference between the treated and the placebo groups and, more importantly, the low rate of SBP by Gram-negative bacteria in the control group casts some doubts on the convenience of norfloxacin prophylaxis in this specific group of patients.

b) Other antibiotic regimes: A placebo-controlled study demonstrated that 6-month prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin, 750 mg weekly, was effective in reducing the incidence of SBP in cirrhotic patients with low ascitic fluid protein concentration: 4% in the treated group and 22% in the placebo-control group (79). In this study, patients with and without a prior history of SBP were included together and no attempt was made to evaluate the development of SBP in these two subgroups of patients separately.

The efficacy of continuous administration of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (one double-strength tablet, 5 days a week) in cirrhotic patients with ascites was investigated in another controlled study (80). The incidence of SBP during the study period was 3% in the treated group and 27% in the control group. Nevertheless, the relatively small number of patients studied (30 in each arm) and the fact that patients with different risks for SBP were analyzed together (patients with low and high ascitic fluid protein, and patients who did and did not have had previous SBP episodes) make the interpretation of these results difficult and their applicability questionable.

c) Other investigations: A recent meta-analysis, which grouped four randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of long-term administration of quinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole in cirrhosis with ascites, indicated that antibiotic prophylaxis against SBP in these patients is associated with increased survival (81). After a mean follow-up period of 5 months, survival in patients who did and did not receive prophylaxis was 82% and 73%, respectively. However, in this meta-analysis patients with and without prior SBP were also included together. On the other hand, two recent economic analyses have calculated that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with ascites is associated with a reduced cost compared with the“diagnosis and treat” strategy, suggesting that prophylaxis in patients with a high risk of developing SBP in fact reduces the total antibiotic burden for these patients 82., 83..

A concern with the use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is that it will lead to selection of antibioticresistant bacteria which can be disseminated within the general community, and in particular hospital environments 84., 85., 86., 87., 88., 89., 90.. These bacteria may then go on to cause infection in susceptible populationsand may not be amenable to treatment. Although fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in a variety of indicationshas been shown to reduce the carriage of aerobic Gram-negative bacteria within the gut, it can also increase the number of Gram-positive bacteria, particularly Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci, and select fluoroquinolone-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, such as organisms from the Enterobacteriaceae family and P. aeruginosa 59., 78., 91., 92., 93., 94., 95., 96., 97.. In countries and institutionswhere the prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria is high, prophylaxis with quinolones should be questioned, as fluoroquinolone-resistant organisms may already be present in the fecal flora of those individuals for whom prophylaxis is proposed. With specific regard to SBP, emergence of fecal quinolone-resistant bacteria in cirrhotic patients receiving long-term norfloxacin prophylaxis has been increasingly reported 78., 92., 95., 97.. Although the development of SBP or other infectionscaused by quinolone-resistant organisms, mainly Pseudomonas spp. and Gram-positive bacteria, in cirrhotic patients on quinolone prophylaxis was scarcely reported in initial controlled trials (i.e. the incidence of these infectionsin norfloxacin-treated patients was similar to that found in control patients) 59., 77., 79., the frequency of such infectionshas been found to be increased more recently 61., 98.. One recent study (98) showed clear differences in the type of bacteria causing infectionsin cirrhotic patients on chronic quinolone prophylaxis; while 67% of infectionsin untreated cirrhotic patients were due to Gram-negative organisms, infectionsthat developed in patients receiving prophylaxis were mostly due to Gram-positive organisms (79%), with special mention for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. This concern about the safety of this prophylaxis reinforces the necessity of restricting the administration of prophylactic antibiotics to those patients at the greatest risk of SBP. Knowledge of the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the clinical environment is required so that clinical judgment can be made as to whether norfloxacin prophylaxis is appropriate in that country or institution. It is also suggested that the carriage and/or development of fluoroquinolone-resistant fecal bacteria should be monitored in studies investigating the effect of quinolone prophylaxis.

Survival after SBP: 

Survival expectancy after one episode of SBP has been reported to be very short, with a 1-year and 2-year probability of survival of 30–50% and 25–30%, respectively 72., 73., 99., 100.. Since survival expectancy after liver transplantation is currently much higher 101., 102., patients recovering from an episode of SBP should be considered as potential candidates for liver transplantation.

Recommendations (Table 4) 

Continuous oral administration of norfloxacin, 400 mg/day, is recommended in cirrhotic patients recovering from an episode of SBP.

Since survival probability is very much reduced after SBP, cirrhotic patients who have recovered from an episode of SBP should be evaluated for liver transplantation.

In cirrhotic patients without a past history of SBP and with a high ascites protein content (i.e. >10 g/l), long-term prophylactic administration of antibiotics is not necessary since the risk of SBP in these patients is negligible provided adequate prophylaxis is administered if and when gastrointestinal hemorrhage develops in the course of the disease.

For cirrhotic patients who have never had SBP and in whom ascitic fluid protein concentration is low (i.e. <10 g/l),no consensus was reached by the panel of experts and IAC members on the necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis, during either hospitalization or as an outpatient regimen. The main reason for the lack of consensus was that, despite the positive results of all the studies investigating different antibiotics in the prophylaxis of SBP in patients with cirrhosis, they have been unable to identify the subsets of patients that clearly benefit from this therapy.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Runyon BA. Management of adult patients with ascites caused by cirrhosis. Hepatology. 1998;27:264–272
  2. Rimola A. Infectionsin liver disease. In:  McIntyre N,  Benhamou JP,  Bircher J,  Rizzetto M,  Rodés J editor. Oxford Textbook of Clinical Hepatology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991;p. 1272–1284
  3. Garcia-Tsao G. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 1992;21:257–275
  4. Caly WR, Strauss E. A prospective study of bacterial infectionsin patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 1993;18:353–358
  5. Pinzello G, Simonetti R, Camma C, Dino O, Milazzo G, Pagliaro L, et al.  Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: an update. Gastroenterol Int. 1993;6:54–60
  6. Bac D-J, Siersema PD, Mulder PGH, DeMarie S, Wilson JHP. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: outcome and predictive factors. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1993;5:635–640
  7. Toledo C, Salmerón JM, Rimola A, Navasa M, Arroyo V, Llach J, et al.  Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis: predictive factors of infection resolution and survival in patients treated with cefotaxime. Hepatology. 1993;17:251–257
  8. Llovet JM, Planas R, Morillas R, Quer JC, Cabré E, Boix J, et al.  Short-term prognosis of cirrhotics with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: multivariate study. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88:388–392
  9. Navasa M, Follo A, Llovet JM, Clemente G, Vargas V, Rimola A, et al.  Randomized, comparative study of oral ofloxacin versus intravenous cefotaxime in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:1011–1017
  10. Hoefs JC, Canawati HN, Sapico FL, Hopkins RR, Weiner J, Montgomerie JZ. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hepatology. 1982;2:399–407
  11. Pinzello G, Simonetti RG, Craxi A, DiPiazza S, Spanò C, Pagliaro L. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a prospective investigation in predominantly nonalcoholic cirrhotic patients. Hepatology. 1983;3:545–549
  12. Hoefs JC, Runyon BA. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Disease-a-month. 1985;31:1–48
  13. Almdal TP, Skinhøj P. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis. Incidence, diagnosis, and prognosis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1987;22:295–300
  14. Lafond P, Viallon A, Zéni F, Tardy B, DaCosta A, Page Y, et al.  Justification de la ponction d'ascite systématique chez le patient cirrhotique admis aux urgences. Presse Méd. 1995;24:531–533
  15. Rimola A, Salmerón JM, Clemente G, Rodrigo L, Obrador A, Miranda ML, et al.  Two different dosages of cefotaxime in the treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis: results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Hepatology. 1995;21:674–679
  16. Runyon BA, Hoefs JC. Culture-negative neutrocytic ascites: a variant of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hepatology. 1984;4:1209–1211
  17. Terg R, Levi D, Lopez P, Rafaelli C, Rojter S, Abecasis R, et al.  Analysis of clinical course and prognosis of culture-positive spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and neutrocytic ascites. Evidence of the same disease. Dig Dis Sci. 1992;37:1499–1504
  18. Kammerer J, Dupeyron C, Vuillemin N, Leluan G, Fouet P. Apport des examens cytologiques et bacteriologiques du liquide d'ascite cirrhotique au diagnostic de peritonite bacterienne. Med Chir Dig. 1982;11:243–251
  19. Runyon BA, Canawati HN, Akriviadis EA. Optimization of ascitic fluid culture technique. Gastroenterology. 1988;95:1351–1355
  20. Bobadilla M, Sifuentes J, Garcia-Tsao G. Improved method for bacteriological diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. J Clin Microbiol. 1989;27:2145–2147
  21. Castellote J, Xiol X, Verdaguer R, Ribes J, Guardiola J, Gimenez A, et al.  Comparison of two ascitic fluid culture methods in cirrhotic patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85:1605–1608
  22. Bar-Meir A, Lerner E, Conn HO. Analysis of ascitic fluid in cirrhosis. Am J Dig Dis. 1979;24:136–144
  23. Scemama-Clergue J, Doutrellot-Phillippon C, Metreau J-M, Teisseire B, Capron D, Dhumeaux D. Ascitic fluid pH in alcoholic cirrhosis: a reevaluation of its use in the diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gut. 1985;26:332–335
  24. Garcia-Tsao G, Conn HO, Lerner E. The diagnosis of bacterial peritonitis: comparison of pH, lactate concentration and leukocyte count. Hepatology. 1985;5:91–96
  25. Yang C-Y, Liaw Y-F, Chu C-M, Sheen I-S. White count, pH and lactate in ascites in the diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hepatology. 1985;5:85–90
  26. Stassen WN, McCullough AJ, Bacon BR, Gutnick SH, Wadiwala IM, McLaren C, et al.  Immediate diagnostic criteria for bacterial infection of ascitic fluid: evaluation of ascitic fluid polymorphonuclear leukocyte count, pH and lactate concentration, alone or in combination. Gastroenterology. 1986;90:1247–1254
  27. Pinzello G, Virdone R, Lojacono F, Ciambra M, Dardanoni G, Fiorentino G, et al.  Is the acidity of ascitic fluid a reliable index in making the presumptive diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis?. Hepatology. 1986;6:244–247
  28. Attali P, Turner K, Pelletier G, Ink O, Etienne JP. pH of ascitic fluid: diagnostic and prognostic value in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients. Gastroenterology. 1986;90:1255–1260
  29. Albillos A, Cuervas-Mons V, Millán I, Cantón T, Montes J, Barrios C, et al.  Ascitic fluid polymorphonuclear cell count and serum to ascites albumin gradient in the diagnosis of bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 1990;98:134–140
  30. Runyon BA, Antillon MR. Ascitic fluid pH and lactate: insensitivity and nonspecific tests in detecting ascitic fluid infection. Hepatology. 1991;13:929–935
  31. Runyon BA. Ascites and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. In:  Feldman M,  Scharschmidt BF,  Sleisenger MH editor. Sleisenger & Fordtran's Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease. Pathophysiology/Diagnosis/Management, 6th ed, vol 2. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co; 1998;p. 1310–1313
  32. Hoefs JC. Increase in ascites WBC and protein concentrationsduring diuresis in patients with chronic liver disease. Hepatology. 1981;1:249
  33. Kline MK, McCallum RW, Guth PH. The clinical value of ascitic fluid culture and leukocyte count studies in alcoholic cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 1976;70:408–412
  34. Wilson JAP, Suguitan EA, Cassidy WA, Parker RH, Chan CH. Characteristics of ascitic fluid in the alcoholic cirrhotic. Dig Dis Sci. 1979;24:645–648
  35. Pelletier G, Salmon D, Ink O, Hannoun S, Attali P, Buffet C, et al.  Culture-negative neutrocytic ascites: a less severe variant of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. J Hepatol. 1990;10:327–331
  36. Runyon BA. Monomicrobial non-neutrocytic bacterascites: a variant of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hepatology. 1990;12:710–715
  37. Pelletier G, Lesur G, Ink O, Hagege H, Attali P, Buffet C, et al.  Asymptomatic bacterascites: is it spontaneous bacterial peritonitis?. Hepatology. 1991;14:112–115
  38. Chu C-M, Chang K-Y, Liaw Y-F. Prevalence and prognostic significance of bacterascites in cirrhosis with ascites. Dig Dis Sci. 1995;40:561–565
  39. Forné M, Bory F, Sánchez C, Viver JM. Bacterascitis asintomática. Evolución favorable de un caso no tratado. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1986;9:351–353
  40. Rimola A, Bory F, Planas R, Xaubet A, Bruguera M, Rodés J. Infecciones bacterianas agudas en la cirrosis hepática. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1981;9:453–459
  41. Runyon BA, Hoefs JC. Ascitic fluid analysis in the differentiation of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis from gastrointestinal tract perforation into ascitic fluid. Hepatology. 1984;4:447–450
  42. Garrison RN, Cryer HM, Howard DA, Polk HC. Clarification of risk factors for abdominal operationsin patients with hepatic cirrhosis. Ann Surg. 1984;199:648–655
  43. Runyon BA, Hoefs JC. Spontaneous vs. secondary bacterial peritonitis. Differentiation by response of ascitic fluid neutrophil count to antimicrobial therapy. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:1563–1565
  44. Akriviadis EA, Runyon BA. Utility of an algorithm in differentiating spontaneous from secondary bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 1990;98:127–133
  45. Felisart J, Rimola A, Arroyo V, Perez-Ayuso RM, Quintero E, Ginés P, et al.  Cefotaxime is more effective than is ampicillintobramycin in cirrhotics with severe infections. Hepatology. 1985;5:457–462
  46. Runyon BA, McHutchison JG, Antillon MR, Akriviadis EA, Montano AA. Short-course versus long-course antibiotic treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 1991;100:1737–1742
  47. Moreau L, Durand H, Biclet P. Cefotaxime concentrationsin ascites. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1980;6(suppl A):121–122
  48. Runyon BA, Akriviadis EA, Sattler FR, Cohen J. Ascitic fluid and serum cefotaxime and desacetyl cefotaxime levels in patients treated for bacterial peritonitis. Dig Dis Sci. 1991;12:1782–1786
  49. Mercader J, Gomez J, Ruiz J, Garre MC, Valdes M. Use of ceftriaxone in the treatment of bacterial infectionsin cirrhotic patients. Chemotherapy. 1989;35(suppl 2):23–26
  50. Rimola A, Titó L, Llach J, Salmerón JM, Marqués F, Badalamenti S, et al.  Efficacy of ceftizoxime in the treatment of severe bacterial infectionsin patients with cirrhosis. Drug Invest. 1992;4(suppl 1):35–37
  51. Gómez-Jiménez J, Ribera E, Gasser J, Artaza MA, DelValle O, Pahissa A, et al.  Randomized trial comparing ceftriaxone with cefonicid for treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993;37:1587–1592
  52. Mesquita MA, Balbino EPS, Albuquerque RS, Carmona CA, Okubo BT, Lorena SLS, et al.  Ceftriaxone in the treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: ascitic fluid polymorphonuclear count response and short-term prognosis. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 1997;44:1276–1280
  53. McCormick PA, Greenslade L, Kibbler CC, Chin JK, Burroughs AK, McIntyre N. A prospective randomized trial of ceftazidime versus nethylmicin plus mezlocillin in the empirical therapy of presumed sepsis in cirrhotic patients. Hepatology. 1997;25:833–836
  54. Cabrera J, Arroyo V, Ballesta AM, Rimola A, Gual J, Elena M, et al.  Aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity in cirrhosis. Value of urinary B2-microglobulin to discriminate functional renal failure from acute tubular damage. Gastroenterology. 1982;82:97–105
  55. Ariza J, Xiol X, Esteve M, Fernández-Bañeres F, Liñares J, Alonso T, et al.  Aztreonam vs. cefotaxime in the treatment of Gram-negative spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. Hepatology. 1991;14:91–98
  56. Grange JD, Amiot X, Grange V, Gutmann L, Biour M, Bodin F, et al.  Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid therapy of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a prospective study of twenty-seven cases in cirrhotic patients. Hepatology. 1990;11:360–364
  57. Ricart E, Soriano G, Novella MT, Sabat M, Kolle L, Ortiz J, et al.  Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid versus cefotaxime in the therapy of bacterial infectionsin cirrhotic patients. J Hepatol. 2000;32: in press
  58. Silvain C, Breux JP, Grollier G, Rouffineau J, Becq-Giraudon B, Beauchant M. Les septicémies et les infectionsdu liquide d'ascite du cirrhotique peuvent-elles être traitées exclusivement par voie orale?. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1989;13:335–339
  59. Ginés P, Rimola A, Planas R, Vargas V, Marco F, Almela M, et al.  Norfloxacin prevents spontaneous bacterial peritonitis recurrence in cirrhosis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Hepatology. 1990;12:716–724
  60. Llovet JM, Rodríguez-Iglesias P, Moitinho E, Planas R, Bataller R, Navasa M, et al.  Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis undergoing selective intestinal decontamination. A retrospective study of 229 spontaneous bacterial peritonitis episodes. J Hepatol. 1997;26:88–95
  61. Novella M, Solà R, Soriano G, Andreu M, Gana J, Ortiz J, et al.  Continuous versus inpatient prophylaxis of the first episode of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis with norfloxacin. Hepatology. 1997;25:532–536
  62. Fong T-L, Akriviadis EA, Runyon BA, Reynolds TB. Polymorphonuclear cell count response and duration of antibiotic therapy in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hepatology. 1989;9:423–426
  63. Follo A, Llovet JM, Navasa M, Planas R, Forns X, Francitorra A, et al.  Renal impairment after spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis: incidence, clinical course, predictive factors and prognosis. Hepatology. 1994;20:1495–1501
  64. Rimola A, Bory F, Teres J, Perez-Ayuso RM, Arroyo V, Rodes J. Oral, nonabsorbable antibiotics prevent infection in cirrhotics with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Hepatology. 1985;5:463–467
  65. Bleichner G, Boulanger R, Squara P, Sollet JP, Parent A. Frequency of infectionsin cirrhotic patients presenting acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Br J Surg. 1986;73:724–726
  66. Soriano G, Guarner C, Tomás A, Villanueva C, Torras X, González D, et al.  Norfloxacin prevents bacterial infection in cirrhotics with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Gastroenterology. 1992;103:1267–1272
  67. Blaise M, Peteron D, Trinchet J-C, Levacher S, Beaugrand M, Pourriat J-L. Systemic antibiotic therapy prevents bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Hepatology. 1994;20:34–38
  68. Bernard B, Cadranel J-F, Valla D, Escolano S, Jarlier V, Opolon P. Prognostic significance of bacterial infection in bleeding cirrhotic patients: a prospective study. Gastroenterology. 1995;108:1828–1834
  69. Pauwels A, Mostefa-Kara N, Debenes B, Degoutte E, Lévy V-G. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis after gastrointestinal hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with a high risk of infection. Hepatology. 1996;24:802–806
  70. Hsieh W-J, Lin H-C, Hwang S-J, Hou M-C, Lee F-Y, Chang F-Y, et al.  The effect of ciprofloxacin in the prevention of bacterial infection in patients with cirrhosis after upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:962–966
  71. Bernard B, Grangé JD, Nguyen Khac E, Amiot X, Opolon P, Poynard T. Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of bacterial infectionsin cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis. Hepatology. 1999;29:1655–1661
  72. Titó L, Rimola A, Ginès P, Llach J, Arroyo V, Rodés J. Recurrence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis: frequency and predictive factors. Hepatology. 1988;8:27–31
  73. Silvain C, Mannant P-R, Ingrand P, Fort E, Besson I, Beauchant M. Récidive de l'infection spontanée du liquide d'ascite au cours de la cirrhose. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1991;15:106–109
  74. Andreu M, Sola R, Sitges-Serra A, Alia C, Gallen M, Vila MC, et al.  Risk factors for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients with ascites. Gastroenterology. 1993;104:1133–1138
  75. Runyon BA. Low-protein-concentration ascitic fluid is predisposed to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 1986;91:1343–1346
  76. Llach J, Rimola A, Navasa M, Ginès P, Salmerón JM, Ginès A, et al.  Incidence and predictive factors of first episode of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis with ascites: relevance of ascitic fluid protein concentration. Hepatology. 1992;16:724–727
  77. Soriano G, Guarner C, Teixidó M, Such J, Barrios J, Enríquez J, et al.  Selective intestìnal decontamination prevents spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 1991;100:477–481
  78. Grangé J-D, Roulot D, Pelletier G, Pariente E-A, Denis J, Ink O, et al.  Norfloxacin primary prophylaxis of bacterial infectionsin cirrhotic patients with ascites: a double-blind randomized trial. J Hepatol. 1998;29:430–436
  79. Rolachon A, Cordier L, Bacq Y, Nousbaum J-B, Franza A, Paris J-C, et al.  Ciprofloxacin and long-term prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: results of a prospective controlled trial. Hepatology. 1995;22:1171–1174
  80. Singh N, Gayowski T, Yu VL, Wagener MM. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for the prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:595–598
  81. Bernard B, Grangé JD, Nguyen Khac E, Amiot X, Opolon P, Poynard T. Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of bacterial infectionsin cirrhotic patients with ascites: a meta-analysis. Digestion. 1998;59(suppl 2):54–57
  82. Inadomi J, Sonnenberg A. Cost-analysis of prophylactic antibiotics in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 1997;113:1289–1294
  83. Younossi ZM, McHutchison JG, Ganiats TG. An economic analysis of norfloxacin prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. J Hepatol. 1997;27:295–298
  84. Alarcón T, Pita J, López-Brea M, Piddock LJV. High-level quinolone resistance amongst clinical isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, from Spain. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;32:605–609
  85. Richard P, Delangle M-H, Merrien D, Barrillé S, Reynaud A, Minozzi C, et al.  Fluoroquinolone use and fluoroquinolone resistance: is there an association?. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;19:54–59
  86. Peña C, Albareda JM, Pallares R, Pujol M, Tubau F, Ariza J. Relationship between quinolone use and emergence of ciprofloxacin-resistant Escherichia coli in bloodstream infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:520–524
  87. Piddock LJV. Mechanisms of resistance to fluoroquinolones: state-of-the-art 1992-1994. Drugs. 1995;49(suppl 2):29–35
  88. Acar JF, Goldstein FW. Trends in bacterial resistance to fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;24(suppl 1):S67–S73
  89. Ena J, Lopez-Perezagua MM, Martinez-Peinado C, Cia-Barrio MA, Ruiz-Lopez I. Emergence of ciprofloxacin resistance in Escherichia coli isolates after widespread use of fluoroquinolones. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998;30:103–107
  90. Piddock LJV. Fluoroquinolone resistance. Overuse of fluoroquinolones in human and veterinary medicine can breed resistance. Br Med J. 1998;317:1029–1030
  91. D'Antonio D, Piccolomini R, Iacone A, Fioritoni G, Parruti G, Betti S, et al.  Comparison of ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin and pefloxacin for the prevention of the bacterial infection in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1994;33:837–844
  92. Dupeyron C, Mangeney N, Sedrati L, Campillo B, Fouet P, Leluan G. Rapid emergence of quinolone resistance in cirrhotic patients treated with norfloxacin to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38:340–344
  93. Nord CE. Effect of quinolones on the human intestinal flora. Drugs. 1995;49(suppl 2):81–85
  94. Carratala J, Fernandez-Sevilla A, Tubau F, Dominguez MA, Gudiol F. Emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli in fecal flora of cancer patients receiving norfloxacin prophylaxis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;40:503–505
  95. Borzio M, Salerno F, Saudelli M, Galvagno D, Piantoni L, Fragiacomo L. Efficacy of oral ciprofloxacin as selective intestinal decontaminant in cirrhosis. Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1997;29:262–266
  96. Oethinger M, Jellen-Ritter AS, Conrad S, Marre R, Kern WV. Colonization and infection with fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli among cancer patients: clonal analysis. Infection. 1998;26:379–384
  97. Terg R, Llano K, Cobas SM, Brotto C, Barrios A, Levi D, et al.  Effects of oral ciprofloxacin on aerobic gram-negative fecal flora in patients with cirrhosis: results of short- and long-term administration with daily and weekly dosages. J Hepatol. 1998;29:437–442
  98. Campillo B, Dupeyron C, Richardet J-P, Mangeney N, Leluan G. Epidemiology of severe hospital-acquired infectionsin patients with liver cirrhosis: effect of long-term administration of norfloxacin. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26:1066–1070
  99. Altman C, Grange JD, Amiot X, Pelletier G, Lacaine F, Bodin F, et al.  Survival after a first episode of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Prognosis of potential candidates for orthotopic liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1995;10:47–50
  100. Bac DJ. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: an indication for liver transplantation?. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1996;218(suppl.):38–42
  101. Kilpe VE, Krakahuer H, Wren RE. An analysis of liver transplant experience from 37 transplant centers as reported to Medicare. Transplantation. 1993;56:554–561
  102. European Liver Transplant Registry Data analysis 05/1968-06/1997 Hospital Paul Brousse Villejuif France

PII: S0168-8278(00)80201-9

Journal of Hepatology
Volume 32, Issue 1 , Pages 142-153, January 2000

Article Tools