Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Medicine, Charles University, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové and University Hospital Hradec Králové, Sokolská 581, 50005, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
Department of Surgery, University Hospital Hradec Králové, Sokolská 581, 50005, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
Crit Care. 2021 Jul 17;25(1):251. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03680-9.
Meropenem dosing for septic critically patients is difficult due to pathophysiological changes associated with sepsis as well as supportive symptomatic therapies. A prospective single-center study assessed whether fluid retention alters meropenem pharmacokinetics and the achievement of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) targets for efficacy.
Twenty-five septic ICU patients (19 m, 6f) aged 32-86 years with the mean APACHE II score of 20.2 (range 11-33), suffering mainly from perioperative intra-abdominal or respiratory infections and septic shock (n = 18), were investigated over three days after the start of extended 3-h i.v. infusions of meropenem q8h. Urinary creatinine clearance (CL) and cumulative fluid balance (CFB) were measured daily. Plasma meropenem was measured, and Bayesian estimates of PK parameters were calculated.
Eleven patients (9 with peritonitis) were classified as fluid overload (FO) based on a positive day 1 CFB of more than 10% body weight. Compared to NoFO patients (n = 14, 11 with pneumonia), the FO patients had a lower meropenem clearance (CL 8.5 ± 3.2 vs 11.5 ± 3.5 L/h), higher volume of distribution (V 14.9 ± 3.5 vs 13.5 ± 4.1 L) and longer half-life (t 1.4 ± 0.63 vs 0.92 ± 0.54 h) (p < 0.05). Over three days, the CFB of the FO patients decreased (11.7 ± 3.3 vs 6.7 ± 4.3 L, p < 0.05) and the PK parameters reached the values comparable with NoFO patients (CL 12.4 ± 3.8 vs 11.5 ± 2.0 L/h, V 13.7 ± 2.0 vs 14.0 ± 5.1 L, t 0.81 ± 0.23 vs 0.87 ± 0.40 h). The CL and Cockroft-Gault CL were stable in time and comparable. The correlation with CL was weak to moderate (CL, day 3 CGCL) or absent (day 1 and 2 CGCL). Dosing with 2 g meropenem q8h ensured adequate concentrations to treat infections with sensitive pathogens (MIC 2 mg/L). The proportion of pre-dose concentrations exceeding the MIC 8 mg/L and the fraction time with a target-exceeding concentration were higher in the FO group (day 1-3 f C > MIC: 67 vs 27%, p < 0.001; day 1%f T > MIC: 79 ± 17 vs 58 ± 17, p < 0.05).
These findings emphasize the importance of TDM and a cautious approach to augmented maintenance dosing of meropenem to patients with FO infected with less susceptible pathogens, if guided by population covariate relationships between CL and creatinine clearance.
由于脓毒症相关的病理生理变化以及支持性对症治疗,对脓毒症危重症患者进行美罗培南给药较为困难。一项前瞻性单中心研究评估了液体潴留是否会改变美罗培南的药代动力学,以及是否能达到疗效的药代动力学/药效学(PK/PD)目标。
对 25 例年龄 32-86 岁的脓毒症 ICU 患者(19 例男性,6 例女性)进行了研究,这些患者的平均急性生理与慢性健康状况评分 II (APACHE II)为 20.2(范围 11-33),主要患有围手术期腹腔内或呼吸道感染和脓毒性休克(n=18)。在开始每 8 小时静脉输注美罗培南 3 小时的扩展治疗后,连续 3 天每天测量尿肌酐清除率(CL)和累积液体平衡(CFB)。每天测量美罗培南的血药浓度,并计算贝叶斯估计的 PK 参数。
根据第 1 天 CFB 超过体重的 10%,11 例患者(9 例腹膜炎患者)被归类为液体超负荷(FO)。与非 FO 患者(n=14,11 例肺炎患者)相比,FO 患者的美罗培南清除率(CL 8.5±3.2 与 11.5±3.5 L/h)较低,分布容积(V)较高(V 14.9±3.5 与 13.5±4.1 L),半衰期(t 1.4±0.63 与 0.92±0.54 h)较长(p<0.05)。在 3 天内,FO 患者的 CFB 减少(11.7±3.3 与 6.7±4.3 L,p<0.05),PK 参数达到与非 FO 患者相当的值(CL 12.4±3.8 与 11.5±2.0 L/h,V 13.7±2.0 与 14.0±5.1 L,t 0.81±0.23 与 0.87±0.40 h)。CL 和 Cockroft-Gault CL 在时间上是稳定的,并且是可比的。与 CL 的相关性是弱到中度(CL,第 3 天 CGCL)或不存在(第 1 天和第 2 天 CGCL)。每天 2 克美罗培南 q8h 的给药剂量可确保治疗敏感病原体感染的足够浓度(MIC 2 毫克/升)。在 FO 组中,达到 MIC 8 毫克/升的预剂量浓度比例和目标浓度超过时间比例更高(第 1-3 天 f C > MIC:67%与 27%,p<0.001;第 1 天%f T > MIC:79±17 与 58±17,p<0.05)。
这些发现强调了在感染敏感性较低的病原体的 FO 患者中,进行美罗培南的 TDM 和谨慎的维持剂量调整的重要性,如果基于 CL 和肌酐清除率之间的群体协变量关系进行指导的话。