Search

Introduction: To assess the prevalence of dysnatremia, including borderline changes in serum sodium concentration, and to estimate the impact of these dysnatremia on mortality after adjustment for confounders., Methods: Observational study on a prospective database fed by 13 intensive care units (ICUs). Unselected patients with ICU stay longer than 48 h were enrolled over a 14-year period were included in this study. Mild to severe hyponatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration < 135, < 130, and < 125 mmol/L respectively. Mild to severe hypernatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration > 145, > 150, and > 155 mmol/L respectively. Borderline hyponatremia and hypernatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration between 135 and 137 mmol/L or 143 and 145 respectively., Results: A total of 11,125 patients were included in this study. Among these patients, 3,047 (27.4%) had mild to severe hyponatremia at ICU admission, 2,258 (20.3%) had borderline hyponatremia at ICU admission, 1,078 (9.7%) had borderline hypernatremia and 877 (7.9%) had mild to severe hypernatremia. After adjustment for confounder, both moderate and severe hyponatremia (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.002 to 1.395 and 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.60 respectively) were associated with day-30 mortality. Similarly, mild, moderate and severe hypernatremia (sHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.57; 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.99; and 2.64, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.81 respectively) were independently associated with day-30 mortality., Conclusions: One-third of critically ill patients had a mild to moderate dysnatremia at ICU admission. Dysnatremia, including mild changes in serum sodium concentration, is an independent risk factor for hospital mortality and should not be neglected.

Introduction: In seriously infected patients with acute renal failure and who require continuous renal replacement therapy, data on continuous infusion of ceftazidime are lacking. Here we analyzed the pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime administered by continuous infusion in critically ill patients during continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) in order to identify the optimal dosage in this setting., Method: Seven critically ill patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. CVVHDF was performed using a 0.6 m2 AN69 high-flux membrane and with blood, dialysate and ultrafiltration flow rates of 150 ml/min, 1 l/hour and 1.5 l/hour, respectively. Based on a predicted haemodiafiltration clearance of 32.5 ml/min, all patients received a 2 g loading dose of ceftazidime, followed by a 3 g/day continuous infusion for 72 hours. Serum samples were collected at 0, 3, 15 and 30 minutes and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours; dialysate/ultrafiltrate samples were taken at 2, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours. Ceftazidime concentrations in serum and dialysate/ultrafiltrate were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography., Results: The mean (+/- standard deviation) elimination half-life, volume of distribution, area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 72 hours, and total clearance of ceftazidime were 4 +/- 1 hours, 19 +/- 6 l, 2514 +/- 212 mg/h per l, and 62 +/- 5 ml/min, respectively. The mean serum ceftazidime steady-state concentration was 33.5 mg/l (range 28.8-36.3 mg/l). CVVHDF effectively removed continuously infused ceftazidime, with a sieving coefficient and haemodiafiltration clearance of 0.81 +/- 0.11 and 33.6 +/- 4 mg/l, respectively., Conclusion: We conclude that a dosing regimen of 3 g/day ceftazidime, by continuous infusion, following a 2 g loading dose, results in serum concentrations more than four times the minimum inhibitory concentration for all susceptible pathogens, and we recommend this regimen in critically ill patients undergoing CVVHDF.