4.7 Article

Intravenous colistin in a patient with serious burns and borderline syndrome: The benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.06.009

关键词

Colistin; Therapeutic drug monitoring; Sepsis; Severe burns; Amputation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colistin is a decades-old drug that fell out of favour due to its nephrotoxicity. Today, colistin is experiencing a renaissance as a treatment against multiresistant Gram-negative bacteria such as Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter in critically ill patients. The optimal dosing of colistin for most infections is unknown. Here we present the intravenous dosing, optimised by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), of a borderline patient with severe burns and a consecutive transfemoral amputation. A 32-year-old woman with severe burns (35% total body surface area) and sepsis exhibited normal serum creatinine (SCr) concentrations at the beginning of her intensive care unit (ICU) stay, but over the course of her ICU stay her SCr increased to 100 mu mol/L. With the colistin standard dose of 3 x 3 million units (MU) colistin/day after a loading dose of 9 MU, she failed to achieve effective plasma concentrations. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) via CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) revealed GFRs between 180 mL/min and 63 mL/min after correcting for body surface. The patient required a high daily dosage of colistin (3 x 6 MU) that exceeded the approved maximum dose. Most clinicians rely heavily on SCr concentrations as the primary biochemical marker of GFR. At most, the CKD-EPI formula is helpful in determining creatinine clearance. The pharmacokinetics of colistin are currently poorly understood. TDM of colistin methanesulfonate and colistin may represent an invaluable approach to optimise colistin drug exposure in ICU patients with fluctuating renal clearance. (C) 2013 Elsevier B. V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据