4.6 Article

Nebulized amphotericin B concentration and distribution in the respiratory tract of lung-transplanted patients

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 75, 期 9, 页码 1571-1574

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000054233.60100.7A

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. A criticism of using nebulized amphotericin B (nAB) as prophylaxis against Aspergillus infection after lung transplantation is the lack of knowledge of its pharmacokinetics and distribution in the lung. The aim of this study was to ascertain the concentrations and distribution of nAB in the respiratory tract of patients receiving lung transplantations. Methods. In the drug-concentration study, 120 bronchoscopies were performed in 39 patients receiving lung transplantions after administration of 6 mg of nAB once daily for a minimum of 7 days. Mean nAB concentration in bronchial aspirated secretions (BAS) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was determined at 4, 12, 24, and 48 hours postnebulization. In the distribution study, 17 patients inhaled 6 mg of 'technetium-labeled AB, and pulmonary distribution was measured using a gamma camera. Pulmonary perfusion was also measured. Both tests were quantitatively evaluated. Results. In the drug-concentration study, mean concentrations of 1.46 mug/mL in BAS and 15.75 mug/mL in BAL were reached at 4 hours. At 24 hours, concentrations were 0.37 mug/m and 11.02 mug/mL in BAS and BAL, respectively. In the distribution study, 'technetium-labeled AB distribution was uniform in 12 of 13 allografts without bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) and in 1 of 4 allografts with BOS. A close correlation was observed between regional drug distribution and regional perfusion (r=0.82, P<0.01). Conclusions. nAB concentrations remained high for the first 24 hours in BAL and for less time in BAS, with distribution of the drug being uniform in patients without BOS. Furthermore, lung-perfusion studies appear to be useful to ascertain nAB distribution in patients receiving lung transplantions.

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

4.6
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