↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of insufficient peak amikacin concentration in critically ill patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictors of insufficient peak amikacin concentration in critically ill patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Published in
Critical Care, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2122-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cyril Touchard, Alexandra Aubry, Philippine Eloy, Nicolas Bréchot, Guillaume Lebreton, Guillaume Franchineau, Sebastien Besset, Guillaume Hékimian, Ania Nieszkowska, Pascal Leprince, Charles-Edouard Luyt, Alain Combes, Matthieu Schmidt

Abstract

Amikacin infusion requires targeting a peak serum concentration (Cmax) 8-10 times the minimal inhibitory concentration, corresponding to a Cmax of 60-80 mg/L for the least susceptible bacteria to theoretically prevent therapeutic failure. Because drug pharmacokinetics on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are challenging, we undertook this study to assess the frequency of insufficient amikacin Cmax in critically ill patients on ECMO and to identify relative risk factors. This was a prospective, observational, monocentric study in a university hospital. Patients on ECMO who received an amikacin loading dose for suspected Gram-negative infections were included. The amikacin loading dose of 25 mg/kg total body weight was administered intravenously and Cmax was measured 30 min after the end of the infusion. Independent predicators of Cmax < 60 mg/L after the first amikacin infusion were identified with mixed-model multivariable analyses. Various dosing simulations were performed to assess the probability of reaching 60 mg/L < Cmax < 80 mg/L. A total of 106 patients on venoarterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) (68%) or venovenous-ECMO (32%) were included. At inclusion, their median (1st; 3rd quartile) Sequential Organ-Failure Assessment score was 15 (12; 18) and 54 patients (51%) were on renal replacement therapy. Overall ICU mortality was 54%. Cmax was < 60 mg/L in 41 patients (39%). Independent risk factors for amikacin under-dosing were body mass index (BMI) < 22 kg/m2 and a positive 24-h fluid balance. Using dosing simulation, increasing the amikacin dosing regimen to 30 mg/kg and 35 mg/kg of body weight when the 24-h fluid balance is positive and the BMI is ≥ 22 kg/m2 or < 22 kg/m2 (Table 3), respectively, would have potentially led to the therapeutic target being reached in 42% of patients while reducing under-dosing to 23% of patients. ECMO-treated patients were under-dosed for amikacin in one third of cases. Increasing the dose to 35 mg/kg of body weight in low-BMI patients and those with positive 24-h fluid balance on ECMO to reach adequate targeted concentrations should be investigated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 18 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 19%
Unspecified 3 6%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,309,225
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,669
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,501
of 342,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#58
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.