High Efficiency Removal of Cytokines and HMGB-1 by Continuous Hemofiltration With a Dual Layered Polyethersulfone Membrane: An Ex Vivo Study

UHPLC-MS/MS method for simultaneous quantification of doripenem, meropenem, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, pazufloxacin, linezolid, and tedizolid in filtrate during continuous renal replacement therapy

BACKGROUND

Since severe infections frequently cause acute kidney injury (AKI), continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is often initiated for regulation of inflammatory mediators and renal support. Thus, it is necessary to decide the antibiotic dosage considering the CRRT clearance in addition to residual renal function. Some of the hemofilters used in CRRT are known to adsorb antibiotics, and clearance of antibiotics may differ depending on the adsorptive characteristics of hemofilters. Although assay systems for blood and CRRT filtrate concentrations are required, no method for measuring antibiotics concentrations in filtrate has been reported. We developed a UHPLC-MS/MS method for simultaneous quantification of antibiotics commonly used in ICU, comprising carbapenems [doripenem (DRPM) and meropenem (MEPM)], quinolones [ciprofloxacin (CPFX), levofloxacin (LVFX) and pazufloxacin (PZFX)] and anti-MRSA agents [linezolid (LZD), and tedizolid (TZD)] in CRRT filtrate samples.

METHODS

Filtrate samples were pretreated by protein precipitation. The analytes were separated with an ACQUITY UHPLC CSH C18 column under a gradient mobile phase consisting of water and acetonitrile containing 0.1% formic acid and 2 mM ammonium formate.

RESULTS

The method showed good linearity over wide ranges. Within-batch and batch-to-batch accuracy and precision for each drug fulfilled the criteria of the US Food and Drug Administration guidance. The recovery rate was more than 87.20%. Matrix effect ranged from 99.57% to 115.60%. Recovery rate and matrix effect did not differ remarkably between quality control samples at different concentrations.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of a simultaneous quantification method of multiple antibiotics in filtrate of CRRT circuit.

Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration is Associated with Improved Survival in Burn Patients with Shock: A Subset Analysis of a Multicenter Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with high mortality in burn patients. Previously, we reported that timely initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) with an individualized preference toward continuous modes at relatively higher than recommended doses has become standard practice in critically ill burn patients with AKI and is associated with a historically low mortality. The purpose of this cohort analysis was to determine if modality choice impacted survival in burn patients.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval, a subset analysis was performed on de-identified data collected during a multicenter, observational study. All patients (n = 170) were 18 years or older, admitted with severe burn injuries and started on RRT. Comparisons were made utilizing χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier plots were utilized to assess survival. Sample size determinations to aid future research were calculated utilizing χ2 test with a Yates Correction Factor.

RESULTS

Demographics and revised Baux were similar between groups. When continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) was compared to all other modalities, there was no statistically significant difference in survival (56 vs. 43%, p = 0.124). However, survival was significantly improved (54 vs. 37%, p = 0.032) in the subset of patients requiring vasopressors (n = 77). There was no statistically significant survival difference in patients with inhalation injury (38 vs. 29%, p = 0.638) or acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (51 vs. 33%, p = 0.11).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Survival may be improved if CVVH is chosen as the preferred modality in burn patients with shock and requiring RRT. Differences in other subsets were promising, but analysis was underpowered. Further research should determine if modality choice provides survival benefit in any other subset of burn injury.