4.7 Article

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Colistin-Associated Nephrotoxicity in a Large Academic Health System

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 53, 期 9, 页码 879-884

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cir611

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pfizer, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Colistin, originally abandoned due to high rates of nephrotoxicity, has been recently reintroduced due to activity against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms. Recent literature, largely obtained from outside the United States, suggests a lower rate of nephrotoxicity than historically reported. Methods. A retrospective cohort of all patients who received colistin for >= 48 hours at the Detroit Medical Center over a 5-year period was performed to determine the rate of colistin-associated nephrotoxicity as defined by the RIFLE criteria. Results. Fifty-four (43%) patients in the cohort developed nephrotoxicity. Patients who experienced nephrotoxicity after colistin administration were in the Risk (13%), Injury (17%), or Failure (13%) categories per RIFLE criteria. Patients who developed nephrotoxicity received significantly higher mean doses than those who did not (5.48 mg/kg per day vs 3.95 mg/kg per day; P < .001), and the toxicity occurred in a dose-dependent fashion. Independent predictors for nephrotoxicity were a colistin dose of >= 5.0 mg/kg per day of ideal body weight (odds ratio [OR], 23.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3-103.55), receipt of concomitant rifampin (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.42-10.2), and coadministration of >= 3 concomitant nephrotoxins (OR, 6.80; 95% CI, 1.42-32.49). Conclusions. In this retrospective cohort, nephrotoxicity (as defined by RIFLE criteria) occurred among 43% of treated patients in a dose-dependent manner. Higher colistin doses, similar to those commonly used in the United States, led to a relatively high rate of nephrotoxicity. These data raise important questions regarding the safe use of colistin in the treatment of multidrug-resistant pathogens.

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