Advertisement

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 39, Issue 8, pp 787–798 | Cite as

Pharmacokinetics of Imipenem in Critically Ill Patients with Life-threatening Severe Infections During Support with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

  • Sutep JaruratanasirikulEmail author
  • Veerapong Vattanavanit
  • Maseetoh Samaeng
  • Monchana Nawakitrangsan
  • Somchai Sriwiriyajan
Short Communication
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has become increasingly used for lifesaving respiratory and/or cardiac failure support in critically ill patients, including those with life-threatening severe infections. This cardiopulmonary bypass device has been shown to enhance the profound pathophysiological changes in this patient population, resulting in an alteration of the pharmacokinetics of antimicrobial agents.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of ECMO on the pharmacokinetics of imipenem in critically ill patients supported by this cardiopulmonary bypass device.

Methods

The study was conducted in critically ill patients with respiratory and/or cardiac failure and severe infections who were supported by ECMO. All patients received a 1-h infusion of 0.5 g of imipenem every 6 h and imipenem pharmacokinetics studies were carried out on the fourth dose of drug administration.

Results

Ten patients were enrolled in this study. The pharmacokinetics parameters of imipenem were found to be highly variable. The volume of distribution, total clearance, elimination half-life and the area under the concentration–time curve between 0 and 6 h were 33.38 ± 13.89 L, 9.99 ± 10.47 L/h, 12.01 ± 29.63 h and 88.93 ± 54.07 mg∙h/L, respectively.

Conclusions

Pathophysiological changes in critically ill patients with severe infections during support with ECMO had a greater impact on altered pharmacokinetic patterns of imipenem than those that occur in critically ill patients without ECMO support. Therefore, the largest licensed dose, 1 g every 6 h, of imipenem, may be required to maintain adequate drug concentrations to achieve the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets for effective antimicrobial therapy in this patient population.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr David Patterson for English proofreading of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand.

Conflicts of interest

Sutep Jaruratanasirikul, Veerapong Vattanavanit, Maseetoh Samaeng, Monchana Nawakitrangsan and Somchai Sriwiriyajan have no conflicts of interest that are relevant to the content of this paper.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the study protocol, the Ministerial Ordinance on GCP for Drugs, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study protocol (code EC-56-065-14-1-1) was approved by the IRB at Songklanagarind Hospital on 17 December 2012.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from each subject’s legally acceptable representative before enrollment.

References

  1. 1.
    Sherwin J, Heath T, Watt K. Pharmacokinetics and dosing of anti-infective drugs in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a review of the current literature. Clin Ther. 2016;38(9):1976–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Honoré PM, Jacobs R, Spapen HD. Antimicrobial dosing during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In: Vincent JL, editor. Annual update in intensive care and emergency medicine 2014. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shekar K, Fraser JF, Smith MT, Roberts JA. Pharmacokinetic changes in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Crit Care. 2012;27(6):741.e9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hahn J, Choi JH, Chang MJ. Pharmacokinetic changes of antibiotic, antiviral, antituberculosis and antifungal agents during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically ill adult patients. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42(6):661–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodloff AC, Goldstein EJC, Torres A. Two decades of imipenem therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;58(5):916–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balfour JA, Bryson HM, Brogden RN. Imipenem/Cilastatin: an update of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of serious infections. Drugs. 1996;51(1):99–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Craig WA. Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad spectrum cephalosporins. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;22(1–2):89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vogelman B, Gudmundsson S, Leggett J, Turnidge J, Ebert S, Craig WA. Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model. J Infect Dis. 1988;158(4):831–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Welsch C, Augustin P, Allyn J, Massias L, Montravers P, Allou N. Alveolar and serum concentrations of imipenem in two lung transplant recipients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Transpl Infect Dis. 2015;17(1):103–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia-Capdevila L, López-Calull C, Arroyo C, Moral MA, Mangues MA, Bonal J. Determination of imipenem in plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography for pharmacokinetic studies in patients. J Chromatogr B. 1997;692(1):127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swanson DJ, DeAngelis C, Smith IL, Schentag JJ. Degradation kinetics of imipenem in normal saline and in human serum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986;29(5):936–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    FDA. US department of health and human services. In: Draft guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation. 2013. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidance/UCM368107.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2013.
  13. 13.
    Jaruratanasirikul S, Sudsai T. Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of imipenem in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia following administration by 2 or 0.5 h infusion. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;63(3):560–3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaruratanasirikul S, Wongpoowarak W, Nawakitrangson M, Thengyai S, Samaeng M. Population pharmacokinetics and Monte Carlo dosing simulations of imipenem in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Lung Breath J. 2017;1(1):1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaruratanasirikul S, Wongpoowarak W, Jullangkoon M, Samaeng M. Population pharmacokinetics and dosing simulations of imipenem in serious bacteraemia in immunocompromised patients with febrile neutropenia. J Pharmacol Sci. 2015;127(2):164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jaruratanasirikul S, Raungsri N, Punyo J, Sriwiriyajan S. Pharmacokinetics of imipenem in healthy volunteers following administration by 2 h or 0.5 h infusion. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(6):1163–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robert S, Munford RS, Suffredini AF. Sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2015. p. 914–34.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taccone FS, Hites M, Beumier M, Scolletta S, Jacobs F. Appropriate antibiotic dosage levels in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2011;13(5):406–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varghese JM, Roberts JA, Lipman J. Antimicrobial pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic issues in the critically ill with severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Clin. 2011;27(1):19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shekar K, Roberts JA, Mcdonald C, Ghassabian S, Anstey C, Wallis SC, et al. Protein-bound drugs are prone to sequestration in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit: results from an ex vivo study. Crit Care. 2015;19:164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Donadello K, Antonucci E, Cristallini S, Roberts JA, Beumier M, Scolletta S, et al. β-Lactam pharmacokinetics during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy: a case-control study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;45(3):278–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shekar K, Fraser JF, Taccone FS, Welch S, Wallis SC, Mullany DV, et al. The combined effects of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and renal replacement therapy on meropenem pharmacokinetics: a matched cohort study. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Viaene E, Chanteux H, Servais H, Mingeot-Leclercq MP, Tulkens PM. Comparative stability studies of antipseudomonal beta-lactams for potential administration through portable elastomeric pumps (home therapy for cystic fibrosis patients) and motor-operated syringes (intensive care units). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46(8):2327–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drusano GL. Prevention of resistance: a goal for dose selection for antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(Suppl 1):S42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ariano RE, Nyhlén A, Donnelly JP, Sitar DS, Harding GKM, Zelenitsky SA. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of meropenem in febrile neutropenic patients with bacteremia. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(1):32–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mouton JW, Touw DJ, Horrevorts AM, Vinks AATMM. Comparative pharmacokinetics of the carbapenems: clinical implications. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;39(3):185–201.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turnidge JD. The pharmacodynamics of beta-lactams. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(1):10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sutep Jaruratanasirikul
    • 1
    Email author
  • Veerapong Vattanavanit
    • 1
  • Maseetoh Samaeng
    • 1
  • Monchana Nawakitrangsan
    • 1
  • Somchai Sriwiriyajan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Faculty of MedicinePrince of Songkla UniversityHat YaiThailand
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of SciencePrince of Songkla UniversityHat YaiThailand

Personalised recommendations