Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25888449›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2015

Protein-bound drugs are prone to sequestration in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit: results from an ex vivo study.

Kiran Shekar, Jason A Roberts, Charles I Mcdonald, Sussan Ghassabian, Chris Anstey, Steven C Wallis, Daniel V Mullany, Yoke L Fung, John F Fraser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

107 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 238 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Impact of extracorporeal circuits on systemic drug levels - a scoping review.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kiran ShekarCritical Care Research Group, Adult Intensive Care Services, The Prince Charles Hospital and The University of Queensland, Rode Road, Chermside, 4032, Australia. Kiran.shekar@health.qld.gov.au.
Jason A RobertsBurns Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Chermside, 4029, Australia. j.roberts2@uq.edu.au.
Charles I McdonaldCritical Care Research Group, Adult Intensive Care Services, The Prince Charles Hospital and The University of Queensland, Rode Road, Chermside, 4032, Australia. charles.mcdonald@health.qld.gov.au.
Sussan GhassabianCentre for Integrated Preclinical Drug Development, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, 4029, Australia. s.ghassabian@uq.edu.au.
Chris AnsteyDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Nambour General Hospital, Nambour, 4560, Queensland, Australia. chris.anstey@health.qld.gov.au.
Steven C WallisBurns Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Chermside, 4029, Australia. s.wallis@uq.edu.au.
Daniel V MullanyCritical Care Research Group, Adult Intensive Care Services, The Prince Charles Hospital and The University of Queensland, Rode Road, Chermside, 4032, Australia. dan.mulany@health.qld.gov.au.
Yoke L FungInflammation and Healing Research Cluster, School of Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, 4556, Australia. ylfung@usc.edu.au.
John F FraserCritical Care Research Group, Adult Intensive Care Services, The Prince Charles Hospital and The University of Queensland, Rode Road, Chermside, 4032, Australia. fraserjohn001@gmail.com.
University of Queensland · AUNambour General Hospital · AUPrince Charles Hospital · AUUniversity of the Sunshine Coast · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionVital drugs may be degraded or sequestered in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuits, with lipophilic drugs considered to be particularly vulnerable. However, the circuit effects on protein-bound drugs have not been fully elucidated. The aim of this experimental study was to investigate the influence of plasma protein binding on drug disposition in ex vivo ECMO circuits.

methodsFour identical ECMO circuits comprising centrifugal pumps and polymethylpentene oxygenators and were used. The circuits were primed with crystalloid, albumin and fresh human whole blood and maintained at a physiological pH and temperature for 24 hours. After baseline sampling, known quantities of study drugs (ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, linezolid, fluconazole, caspofungin and thiopentone) were injected into the circuit to achieve therapeutic concentrations. Equivalent doses of these drugs were also injected into four polypropylene jars containing fresh human whole blood for drug stability testing. Serial blood samples were collected from the controls and the ECMO circuits over 24 hours, and the concentrations of the study drugs were quantified using validated chromatographic assays. A regression model was constructed to examine the relationship between circuit drug recovery as the dependent variable and protein binding and partition coefficient (a measure of lipophilicity) as explanatory variables.

resultsFour hundred eighty samples were analysed. There was no significant loss of any study drugs in the controls over 24 hours. The average drug recoveries from the ECMO circuits at 24 hours were as follows: ciprofloxacin 96%, linezolid 91%, fluconazole 91%, ceftriaxone 80%, caspofungin 56% and thiopentone 12%. There was a significant reduction of ceftriaxone (P = 0.01), caspofungin (P = 0.01) and thiopentone (P = 0.008) concentrations in the ECMO circuit at 24 hours. Both protein binding and partition coefficient were highly significant, with the model possessing a high coefficient of determination (R (2) = 0.88, P <0.001).

conclusionsRecovery of the highly protein-bound drugs ceftriaxone, caspofungin and thiopentone was significantly lower in the ECMO circuits at 24 hours. For drugs with similar lipophilicity, the extent of protein binding may determine circuit drug loss. Future clinical population pharmacokinetic studies should initially be focused on drugs with greater lipophilicity and protein binding, and therapeutic drug monitoring should be strongly considered with the use of such drugs.

Indexed as

CaspofunginCeftriaxoneEchinocandinsExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFluconazoleHumansLipopeptidesModels, TheoreticalPlasmaThiopentalCaspofunginCeftriaxoneEchinocandinsFluconazoleLipopeptidesThiopental

Identifiers

PMID25888449
PMCPMC4407324
OpenAlexW1989193950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.