Personalised antibiotic therapy in a surgical intensive care unit − overview of current knowledge and the results of an observational kinetic study M. Kaska, J. Martinkova, E. Havel, J. Koci, A. Fouskova, D. Solichova, L. Kujovska, I. Selke-Krulichova, I. Praznovec, V. Salavec
Authors:
M. Kaška 1,2; J. Martinková 2; E. Havel 1,2; J. Kočí 1,2; A. Fousková 1,2; D. Solichová 1,3; L. Kujovská 3; I. Selke-Krulichová 1; I. Práznovec 1; V. Salavec 1
Authors place of work:
Katedra chirurgie LF UK, Hradec Králové, vedoucí: doc. MUDr. RNDr. M. Kaška, Ph. D.
1; Chirurgická klinika FN v Hradci Králové, přednosta: Prof. MUDr. A. Ferko, CSc.
2; III. interní gerontometabolická klinika FN v Hradci Králové, přednosta prof. MUDr. L. Sobotka, CSc.
3
Published in the journal:
Rozhl. Chir., 2014, roč. 93, č. 9, s. 456-462.
Category:
Original articles
Dedikováno IGA MZ – projekt NT14089-3/2013
Summary
Introduction:
The current efforts of intensivists focused on individual antibiotic treatment in patients suffering from sepsis has inspired us to conduct an open prospective clinical study to assess the relationship between body fluid retention (>10 L/24 hours) and the efficiency of hydrophilic time-dependent antibiotics used in critically ill patients. Polytrauma and abdominal catastrophes are the most frequent causes of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). Consequent body liquid retention is taken for a pathophysiological covariate modifying the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of hydrophilic time-dependent antibiotics (betalactams and carbapenems). Not only body fluid retention but also changes in renal clearance are thought to be responsible for failure in PK/PD target attainment necessary for effective antimicrobial activity. To describe the importance of the pathophysiological covariates for the individual kinetic variables of a representative antibiotic (piperacillin) is the primary goal of this kinetic observational study.
Material and methods:
Three patients with polytrauma and SIRS admitted at the ICU of the Surgical Department, Teaching Hospital Hradec Králové, whose condition was characterized by cumulative body fluid retention (>10 L), were eligible for enrolment. As per standard hospital protocol, the patients were administered with 4 g of piperacillin in combination with tazobactam 0.5 g intravenously by 1-hour (h) infusion every 8 h. A series of blood samples were taken 1, 2.5, and 5 h after the termination of the infusion. Urine was collected over each dosing interval and for 24 h. Piperacillin was detected using a previously validated HPLC method. Individual pharmacokinetic variables were estimated using non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis. Cumulative body fluid retention was calculated as the difference between fluid intake and output. Creatinine clearance (Cl) was used for renal function evaluation. PK/PD target attainment was analysed according to Carlier (2013).
Results:
In three patients with polytrauma and SIRS, great interindividual and intraindividual differences in extravascular volume expansion, i.e. cumulative body fluid retention 20−30 L and changes in renal function, were recorded. In 2/3 patients these pathophysiological changes as well as the clinical interventions administered resulted in augmented piperacillin clearance and an increase in distribution volume (Vd) (>20 L) with a maximum at Day 2−8 after initiation of therapy. In such patients treated with a standard dose of piperacillin, only minimum PK/PD target attainment (50% Ft >MIC) was obtained. In contrast, a patient suffering from renal dysfunction attained both minimum (50% ft >MIC) and maximum PK/PD target (100% ft >MIC).
Conclusions:
In three critically ill patients with polytrauma and SIRS, pathophysiological changes (covariates) had a profound effect on the key determinants of the pharmacokinetics (Cl and Vd), resulting in significant intraindividual variability in pharmacodynamic /pharmacokinetic target attainment necessary for therapeutic time-dependent antibacterial activity of piperacillin. Consequently, patients with augmented clearance of piperacillin may be at risk for treatment failure, and/or bacterial resistance without dose up-titration. A subsequent clinical study will be conducted to describe personalised kinetically guided antibiotic therapy.
Key words:
time-dependent antimicrobial action − personalised antibiotic management − body fluid retention – SIRS − target PK/PD attainment
Zdroje
1. O’Neill PA, Kirton OC, Dresner LS, et al. Analysis of 162 colon injuries in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma: concomitant stomach injury results in a higher rate of infection. J Trauma 2004;56:304−12.
2. Salim A, Teixeira PG, Inaba K, et al. Analysis of 178 penetrating stomach and small bowel injuries. World J Surg 2008;32:471−5.
3. Kim J, Mittal R, Konyalian V, et al. Outcome analysis of patients undergoing colorectal resection for emergent and elective indications. Am Surg 2007;73:991−3.
4. Velmahos GC, Vassiliu P, Demetriades D, et al. Wound management after colon injury: open or closed? A prospective randomized trial. Am Surg 2002;68:795−801.
5. Chinnery GE, Madiba TE. Pancreaticoduodenal injuries: re-evaluating current management approaches. S Afr J Surg 2010;48:10−4.
6. Steichen FM. The use of staplers in anatomical side-to-side and functional end-to-end enteroanastomoses. Surgery 1968;64:948−53.
7. Watanabe A, Kohnoe S, Shimabukuro R, et al. Risk factors associated with surgical site infection in upper and lower gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Today 2008;38:404−12.
8. Barie PS. Surviving sepsis. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2004;5:1−2.
9. Rovera F, Dionigi G, Boni L, et al. Infectious complications in colorectal surgery. Surg Oncol 2007;Suppl 1:S121−4.
10. Bokey EL, Chapuis PH, Fung C, et al. Postoperative morbidity and mortality following resection of the colon and rectum for cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:480−6.
11. McIntyre LK, Warner KJ, Nester TA, et al. The incidence of post-discharge surgical site infection in the injured patient. J Trauma 2009;66:407−10.
12. Czaja AS, Rivara FP, Wang J, et al. Late outcomes of trauma patients with infections during index hospitalization. J Trauma 2009;67:805−14.
13. Hedrick TL, Heckman JA, Smith RL, et al. Efficacy of protocol implementation on incidence of wound infection in colorectal operations. J Am Coll Surg 2007;205:432−8.
14. Uchino M, Ikeuchi H, Tsuchida T, et al. Surgical site infection following surgery for inflammatory bowel disease in patients with clean-contaminated wounds. World J Surg 2009;33:1042−8.
15. Lazarus HM, Fox J, Burke JP, et al. Trauma patient hospital-associated infections: risks and outcomes. J Trauma 2005;59:188−94.
16. Mahadeva S, Khoo BL, Khoo PS, et al. Clinical impact and risk factors for percutaneous gastrostomy wound infections due to resistant organisms. Int J Infect Dis 2008;12:e149−50.
17. Chambers HF. General principles of antimicrobial therapy. In Goodman & Gilman´s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics Eds. Brunton LL, Lazo JS, Parker KL. Eleventh ed. McGraw-Hill Medical publishing division 2007, Section VIII, Chapter 42:1095−1110.
18. Delacher S, Derendorf H, Hollenstein U, et al. A combined in vivo pharmacokinetic-in vitro pharmacodynamic approach to simulate target site pharmacodynamics of antibiotics in humans. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000;46:733−9.
19. Kusachi S, Sumiyama Y, Nagao J, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics given within 24 hours of surgery, compared with antibiotics given for 72 hours perioperatively, increased the rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from surgical site infections. J Infect Chemother 2008;14:44−50.
20. Kawecki D, Chmura A, Pacholczyk M, et al. Surgical site infections in liver recipients in the early posttransplantation period: etiological agents and susceptibility profiles. Transplant Proc 2007;39:2800−6.
21. Fuentes F, Martín MM, Izquierdo J, et al. In vivo and in vitro study of several pharmacodynamic effects of meropenem. Scand J Infect Dis 1995;27:469−74.
22. Mehrotra R, De Gaudio R, Palazzo M. Antibiotic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in critical illness.Intensive Care Med 2004;30:2145−56.
23. Chambers HF, Mills J, Drake TA, Sande MA. Failure of a once-daily regimen of cefonicid for treatment of endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus. Rev Infect Dis 1984;6 Suppl 4:S870−4.
24. Geli P. Modeling the mechanism of postantibiotic effect and determinig implications for dosing regimens. Math Biol 2009;59:717−28.
25. West MA, Moore EE, Shapiro MB, et al. Inflammation and the host response to injury, a large-scale collaborative project: patient-oriented research core--standard operating procedures for clinical care VII--Guidelines for antibiotic administration in severely injured patients. J Trauma 2008;65:1511−9.
26. De Waele JJ, Carrete S, Carlier M, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring-based dose optimisation of piperaicillin and propenem: a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2013;40:380−387.
27. Carlier M, Carrete S, Roberts JA, et al. Meronem and piperacillin/tazobactam prescribing in critically ill patients: does augmented renal clearence affect pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target attainment when extended infusions are used? Critical Care 2013;17:R84.
28. Conil JM, Georges B, Mimoz O, et al. Influence of renal function on trough serum concentrations of piperacillin in intensive care unit patients. Intensive Care Med 2006;32:2063−6.
29. Patanwala AE, Norris CJ, Nix DE, et al. Vancomycin dosing for pneumonia in critically ill trauma patients. J Trauma 2009;67:802−4.
30. Li C, Kuti JL, Nightingale CH, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;56:388−95.
31. Brunner M, Pernerstorfer T, Mayer BX, et al. Surgery and intensive care procedures affect the target site distribution of piperacillin. Crit Care Med 2000;28:1754−9.
32. Belzberg H, Zhu J, Cornwell EE 3rd, et al. Imipenem levels are not predictable in the critically ill patient. J Trauma 2004;56:111−7.
33. Lodise TP, Patel N, Lomaestro BM, et al. Relationship between initial vancomycin concentration-time profile and nephrotoxicity among hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:507−14.
34. Pillai SK, Wennersten C, Venkataraman L, et al. Development of reduced vancomycin susceptibility in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:1169−74.
35. Bone RC, Sibbald WJ, Sprung CL. The ACCP-SCCM consensus conference on sepsis and organ failure. Chest 1992;101:1481−1482.
36. Headya MA. Basic pharmacokinetics. CRC Press - Pharmacy education series, Taylor and Francis Group. Boca Raton 2007:300.
37. Gibaldi M. Perrier D. Pharmacokinetics.2nd ed., revised and expanded. Vol. 15 of Drugs and the pharmaceutical sciences. New York, Marcel Dekker 1982:489.
38. Hayashi Y, Roberts JA, Paterson DL, Lipman J. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of piperacillin-tazobactam. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2010;6:1017−31.
39. Martínková J, Pokorná P, Záhora J, et al. Tolerability and outcomes of kinetically guided therapy with gentamicin in critically ill neonates during the first week of life: an open-label, prospective study. Clin Ther 2010;32:2400−14.
Štítky
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Perspectives in Surgery
2014 Číslo 9
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Current Insights into the Antispasmodic and Analgesic Effects of Metamizole on the Gastrointestinal Tract
- Obstacle Called Vasospasm: Which Solution Is Most Effective in Microsurgery and How to Pharmacologically Assist It?
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Chylous mesenteric cyst
- Lymphangioma of the retroperitoneum treated laparoscopically J. Skach, M. Chrenko, P. Hromadka
- The role of drains in pancreatic surgery
- Fluid therapy and surgical outcomes after low anterior resection