Ceftazidime-avibactam administered at 1.25 g every 8 h was used to treat multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia in a critically ill patient on continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH). Prefiltration plasma drug concentrations of ceftazidime and avibactam were measured at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 h along with postfiltration and ultrafiltrate concentrations at h 2 and h 6. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters of ceftazidime and avibactam, respectively, were as follows: maximum plasma concentration (C max ), 61.10 and 14.54 mg/liter; minimum plasma concentration (C min ), 31.96 and 8.45 mg/liter; half-life (t 1/2 ), 6.07 and 6.78 h; apparent volume of distribution at the steady state (V ss ), 27.23 and 30.81 liters; total clearance at the steady state (CL ss ), 2.87 and 2.95 liters/h; area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 8 h (AUC 0 -8 ), 347.87 and 85.69 mg · h/liter. Concentrations of ceftazidime in plasma exceeded the ceftazidime-avibactam MIC (6 mg/liter) throughout the 8-h dosing interval. Mean CVVH extraction ratios for ceftazidime and avibactam were 14.44% and 11.53%, respectively, and mean sieving coefficients were 0.96 and 0.93, respectively. The calculated mean clearance of ceftazidime by CVVH was 1.64 liters/h and for avibactam was 1.59 liters/h, representing 57.1% of the total clearance of ceftazidime and 54.3% of the total clearance of avibactam. Further data that include multiple patients and dialysis modes are needed to verify the optimal ceftazidime-avibactam dosing strategy during critical illness and CVVH.

Background: Use of nonbenzodiazepine agents propofol and dexmedetomidine are first line for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). These agents have been implicated in the development of bradycardia and hypotension in critical illness. Objectives: To compare the development of clinically significant hypotension and/or bradycardia (ie, negative hemodynamic event) in adults with sepsis yet to require vasopressors receiving either propofol or dexmedetomidine for continuous sedation. Methods: This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study of adults with non–vasopressor-dependent sepsis admitted to an ICU at two academic medical centers between July 2013-September 2017. Results: Patients in the propofol (n = 64) and dexmedetomidine (n = 31) groups developed a clinically significant negative hemodynamic event at statistically similar frequencies (34.4% vs 16.1%, P = 0.065). Patients receiving propofol developed a larger degree of hypotension (47.3 vs 34.7 mm Hg reduction, P = 0.031). In multivariable logistic regression modeling, independent predictors of a negative hemodynamic event were a past medical history of chronic kidney disease (odds ratio [OR] = 3.8; 95% CI = 1.17-12.2; P = 0.027) and baseline heart rate (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.00-1.10; P = 0.036). Conclusions and Relevance: A minority of patients with sepsis who received either propofol or dexmedetomidine experienced an event. Patients with sepsis without shock receiving continuous infusions of propofol and dexmedetomidine experienced a negative hemodynamic event at similar frequencies, though the degree of hypotension seen with propofol was greater. The clinical significance of these adverse effects requires cautious use in sepsis and further investigation.

Background Ketamine has seen increased use for sedation in the intensive care unit. In contrast to propofol or dexmedetomidine, ketamine may provide a positive effect on hemodynamics. Objective The objective of this study was to compare the development of clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia (ie, negative hemodynamic event) between critically ill adults receiving sedation with ketamine and either propofol or dexmedetomidine. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to an intensive care unit at an academic medical center between January 2016 and January 2021. Results Patients in the ketamine group (n = 78) had significantly less clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia compared with those receiving propofol or dexmedetomidine (n = 156) (34.6% vs 63.5%; P < 0.001). Patients receiving ketamine also experienced smaller degree of hypotension observed by percent decrease in mean arterial pressure (25.3% [17.4] vs 33.8% [14.5]; P < 0.001) and absolute reduction in systolic blood pressure (26.5 [23.8] vs 42.0 [37.8] mm Hg; P < 0.001) and bradycardia (15.5 [24.3] vs 32.0 [23.0] reduction in beats per minute; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression modeling, receipt of propofol or dexmedetomidine was the only independent predictor of a negative hemodynamic event (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 6.1; P < 0.001). Conclusion and Relevance Ketamine was associated with less clinically relevant hypotension or bradycardia when compared with propofol or dexmedetomidine, in addition to a smaller absolute decrease in hemodynamic parameters. The clinical significance of these findings requires further investigation.

No abstract

Introduction Despite the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), rates of thromboembolic disease, and subsequent morbidity and mortality remain unacceptably high in patients with severe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as apixaban, have numerous purported benefits although the safety and efficacy of their use in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with severe COVID-19 has yet to be evaluated. Materials and Methods Single-center, retrospective cohort study of 21 ICU patients with severe COVID-19 respiratory disease treated with apixaban for atrial fibrillation (AFib), venous thromboembolism (VTE), catheter-induced thrombosis, and/or COVID-19-induced coagulopathy. The primary objective was to evaluate the incidence of bleeding events and secondary objectives included thromboembolic events, coagulation parameters, and mortality. Results Ninety percent of patients were non-White, 43% were obese, 90% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 76% required mechanical ventilation. Nearly half of (47.6%) also experienced renal dysfunction and required renal replacement therapy. Eighty-six percent of patients received prophylaxis or treatment with UFH or LMWH within the 24-hour period prior to apixaban initiation. Patients were initiated on apixaban for the treatment of suspected or confirmed VTE (67%) or AFib (33%). All coagulation parameters remained abnormal but stable throughout the 10-day monitoring period. No patients experienced any major bleeding events or thrombosis throughout the study period. There were four deaths during the follow-up period, all deemed unrelated to coagulopathy or bleeding. Conclusion Apixaban appeared safe and efficacious in ICU patients with severe COVID-19 disease. These data encourage future trials seeking to optimize anticoagulation strategies in patients with severe COVID-19.