ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2026
Evaluation of digoxin dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring in adult patients receiving continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digoxin dosing guidance during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is scarce, relying on two case reports with pharmacokinetic modeling not subsequently validated by TDM and expert opinion. Objective: To examine varying digoxin dosing regimen effects on serum digoxin concentrations (SDCs) in patients receiving continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). Design: Retrospective, multicenter, single-health-system case series. Methods: Adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit over a 3.5-year period who received digoxin, with concurrent SDC monitoring and CVVHDF were included. The primary outcome of this study was to describe digoxin dosing and associated SDCs in adult patients receiving CVVHDF. Secondary outcomes aimed to determine the safety and tolerability of digoxin for patients receiving CVVHDF, including the incidence of bradycardia, digoxin immune fab administration, and in-hospital mortality. Results: Six patients met criteria for inclusion, yielding fourteen digoxin levels drawn during CVVHDF. The median CRRT effluent rate was 30.7 mL/kg/hr with a median digoxin level of 0.9 (IQR 0.7-1.1) ng/mL. Both levels ≥ 1.2 ng/mL (above the safety-oriented upper threshold) occurred in patients following a loading dose exceeding 8 mcg/kg ideal body weight. Ten total SDC were drawn in 4 patients receiving 125 mcg every 48-hours maintenance regimens and all resulted in pre-steady state levels < 1.2 ng/mL. Two patients (33.3%) experienced bradycardia, both of whom were receiving concomitant amiodarone. No patients received digoxin immune fab, and two patients (33.3%) experienced in-hospital mortality. Conclusion: A maintenance regimen of 125 mcg every 48 hours during CVVHDF achieved levels below the safety SDCs, although notably all levels reflect the first several doses during CVVHDF and may not reflect steady state monitoring. These data help address the current gap in data describing digoxin dosing during CRRT. Although this adds limited insight for digoxin dosing during CRRT, standard dosing and monitoring recommendations remain unconfirmed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.