BackgroundPeritoneal dialysis (PD)-associated infection caused by Mycobacterium spp. is rare. Mycobacterium abscessus is one of the most resistant acid-fast bacteria, and treatment is also the most difficult and refractory. Thus, we report a case of PD-associated peritonitis caused by Mycobacterium abscessus that was difficult to treat and led to PD failure.Case presentationWe recently encountered a 56-year-old man who developed PD-associated infection. We initially suspected exit-site infection (ESI) and tunnel infection (TI) caused by methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. However, antibiotic therapy did not provide any significant improvement. Thus, we performed simultaneous removal and reinsertion of a PD catheter at a new exit site. The patient subsequently developed peritonitis and Mycobacterium abscessus was detected in the peritoneal effluent. Thus, the reinserted catheter was removed, hemodialysis was started, and the patient was eventually discharged.ConclusionsIn cases of refractory ESI or TI, it is important to consider non-tuberculous mycobacteria as the potentially causative organism. Even if acid-fast bacterial staining is negative or not performed, detection of Gram-negative bacillus may lead to suspicion and early identification of Mycobacterium spp. In PD-associated infection by Mycobacterium abscessus, catheter removal is necessary in many cases. Simultaneous removal and reinsertion of the catheter is not recommended, even in cases of ESI or TI. Reinsertion should only be attempted after complete resolution of peritoneal symptoms. After removal of the catheter, careful follow-up is necessary, paying attention to complications such as wound infection, peritonitis, and ileus. In addition, the selection and treatment period of antibiotics in PD-associated infection by Mycobacterium abscessus remains unclear, and it is an important topic for future discussion.

Background Acute pericarditis causes acute inflammation of the pericardium. Although most cases of pericarditis are idiopathic with no identifiable cause, its etiology can be infectious, such as viral, bacterial, mycotic, and tuberculous infections, or non-infectious, including post-pericardiotomy, metastatic malignant tumor, connective tissue disease, or uremia. However, there has been no report of pericarditis caused by adenoviral infection in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). Herein, we report a case of pericarditis and pericardial effusion caused by adenoviral infection in a patient undergoing PD. Case presentation A 59-year-old man who had been undergoing PD in our department for 3 years had a bout of acute enteritis. He was later admitted to the emergency department of our hospital because of malaise and loss of consciousness due to pericardial effusion. Testing after admission revealed elevated adenovirus antibody titers. Pericardial effusion improved although no changes in his PD prescription were made. The patient was hospitalized and admitted to maintain hemodynamics and prevent hypotension. Since insufficient dialysis volume was ruled out by peritoneal equilibrium tests and dialysis volume assessment, the patient was kept under observation, and no changes were made regarding the method of dialysis. Pericardial effusion and the C-reactive protein level both gradually declined, and the patient’s weight remained steady. The adenovirus antibody titer alone increased to 1:64 at approximately 2 weeks after hospitalization. The final diagnosis was acute pericarditis due to adenoviral infection rather than uremia or dialysis-associated pericarditis. Conclusions We treated a patient with a rare case of pericardial effusion caused by viral (adenoviral) pericarditis in a patient undergoing PD. In addition to testing for the usual causes, uremic and dialysis-associated pericarditis must always be ruled out in patients receiving dialysis. In cases of pericarditis with a viral origin, diagnosis and treatment must be comprehensive.