Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8504621›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics1993

Drug dosage in patients during continuous renal replacement therapy. Pharmacokinetic and therapeutic considerations.

P Reetze-Bonorden, J Böhler, E Keller

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 159 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Antiepileptic drugs in critically ill patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2018
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P Reetze-BonordenDepartment of Nephrology, University of Freiburg, Federal Republic of Germany.
J Böhler
E Keller
University of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advantages of continuous haemofiltration and haemodialysis over intermittent haemodialysis for the treatment of acute renal failure are well recognised. In intensive care patients, 4 different continuous procedures, arteriovenous and venovenous haemofiltration (CAVH and CVVH) or haemodialysis (CAVHD and CVVHD), are employed. These effective detoxification treatments require knowledge of their influence on drug disposition. Data on kinetics of drugs during continuous treatment are scarce and limited almost exclusively to the oldest and least effective procedure (CAVH). Selected dialysis membranes may adsorb drugs, as in the case of aminoglycosides. In addition, elimination of substances with large molecular weights may vary depending on the pore size of the membrane, as in the case of vancomycin. Thus, even if drug dosages can be based on pharmacokinetic studies, selection of a dialysis membrane not studied may cause unpredictable drug concentrations. With these limitations in mind and considering the available literature on pharmacokinetics in patients with renal failure, general guidelines for drug dosage during continuous renal replacement therapy can be given. In haemofiltration, drug protein binding is the major factor determining sieving, i.e. the appearance of the drug in the ultrafiltrate. In haemodialysis, diffusion is added to ultrafiltration, and therefore the saturation of the combined dialysate and ultrafiltrate will decrease further with increasing dialysate flow rate. In continuous haemofiltration or haemodialysis the extracorporeal clearance can be calculated by multiplying the saturation value (estimated or, better, measured) with the ultrafiltrate and dialysate flow rate. Dividing the extracorporeal clearance by the total clearance (including the nonrenal clearance) gives the fraction of the dose removed due to extracorporeal elimination. Whether dosage recommendations available for anuric patients have to be modified or not can be decided on the basis of this value. In case of high nonrenal clearance, the degree of saturation is without clinical significance. Based on these considerations guidelines have been constructed for the effect of extracorporeal elimination on more than 120 different drugs commonly used in intensive care patients.

Indexed as

Drug TherapyPharmacokineticsRenal DialysisHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID8504621
OpenAlexW2010352340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.