Local Anesthetic Plasma Concentrations as a Valuable Tool to Confirm the Diagnosis of Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity? A Report of 10 Years of Experience.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) has been reported as a serious complication of local anesthetic (LA) peripheral injection. The signs and symptoms of LAST are highly variable, and the challenge remains to confirm its diagnosis. In this context, the determination of LA plasma concentration appears as a valuable tool to confirm LAST diagnosis. The aims of this study were to describe observed LA concentrations in patients suspected with LAST and their contribution to diagnostic confirmation. METHODS: We retrospectively reported suspected LAST in patients for which at least one plasma LA concentration was determined to confirm diagnosis of LAST. Data collection came from our pharmacological laboratory's database. Clinical signs and symptoms of toxicity, their onset time and observed LA concentrations were used to confirm LAST diagnosis. RESULTS: 33 patients who presented with suspected LAST after ropivacaine and/or lidocaine administration were included. Prodromal symptoms were observed in 13 patients. Isolated central nervous system (CNS) toxicity occurred in 11 patients, and combined CNS and cardiovascular toxicity occurred in 12. One, two or three venous plasma samples were performed in 11, 3 and 19 patients, respectively. Toxic plasma LA concentrations were observed in three patients, receiving peripheral LA injection using lidocaine (16.1 µg/mL) and ropivacaine (4.2 and 4.8 µg/mL). CONCLUSION: This study presents an important biological and clinical dataset of patients who presented with suspected LAST. Plasma LA concentrations could bring valuable information in the diagnosis of LAST but requires rigorous sample protocols.

Evaluation of current dosing guidance for oral rifampicin treatment in adult patients with osteoarticular infections.

For management of osteoarticular infections, rifampicin appears to be the key antibiotic. We aimed to evaluate the actual rifampicin dosing regimens using a population pharmacokinetic model of rifampicin in patients with osteoarticular infections. A Monte Carlo simulation study was performed to simulate steady-state plasma concentrations for 1000 randomly sampled subjects using a total daily dose between 600 and 1200 mg (600 and 900 mg once daily, 450 and 600 mg twice daily, or 300 mg 3 times daily). When rifampicin was administered with fusidic acid, the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target (area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration ≥952) was achieved with all tested dosing regimen, except 600 mg once daily for Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. Without coadministration of fusidic acid, none of tested dosing regimens achieved this PK/PD target. Most recommended drug-dosing regimens allow attaining the fixed area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration target for Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcal osteoarticular infections. In future studies, PK/PD target for osteoarticular infections in human should also be confirmed.

Population pharmacokinetic model for tumescent lidocaine in women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Tumescent lidocaine anesthesia (TLA) is an opportunity to perform mastectomy for breast cancer without general anesthesia in elderly women. Few reports are available on the pharmacokinetics of lidocaine in a context of TLA during a unilateral mastectomy. The aim of this study was to describe lidocaine pharmacokinetics in elderly women undergoing breast cancer surgery after TLA and to explore the risk of the toxicity of this technique. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted to examine the pharmacokinetics of lidocaine in women undergoing TLA. TLA consists of an intradermal lidocaine instillation (20 mL, 1% [200 mg]) followed by a tumescent lidocaine infiltration (100 mL of 1% lidocaine [1000 mg] and 0.5 mg epinephrine to 1 L Ringer's lactate) via an infusion pump. A population pharmacokinetic (popPK) analysis was performed using the nonlinear mixed effects model (NONMEM). RESULTS: The analysis included 116 observations from 17 women with a median (range) age of 83.4 (60.5-90.0). The median tumescent lidocaine dose was 800 mg (range 375-1000 mg) infused over 48.0 ± 11.0 min. A one-compartment disposition model with first order absorption, two input compartments, and a central elimination best described the pharmacokinetics of lidocaine. The estimates (between subject variability; relative standard error, %) of apparent volume, apparent clearance, tumescent absorption rate, and instillation absorption rate were 195.0 (46.3; 14.5%) L, 24.7 (48.9; 13.3%) L h-1, 0.28 (39.6; 13.8%) h-1, and 2.56 (135.3; 44.9%) h-1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first popPK model developed to describe kinetic profiles of TLA. These findings confirm the slow diffusion of lidocaine from the tumescent deposit.

Analytical interference during cefepime therapeutic drug monitoring in intensive care patient: About a case report.

ß-lactams therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) appears as an essential tool to ensure the achievement of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic targets and prevent induced toxicity in intensive care unit patients. Indeed, those patients exhibit important pharmacokinetic variabilities that could lead to unpredictable plasma concentrations, potentially associated with poor clinical outcome, development of antibiotic resistance or increased side effects. Here, we report the case of a 48-year-old-patient admitted to intensive care unit and treated by cefepime using TDM. Due to inconsistency between observed cefepime plasma concentrations and patient clinical examination, investigations were started. After analytical tests, we highlighted an underlying analytical interference that overestimated cefepime plasma concentration with our in-house high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV) method. Only the inadequacy between plasmatic concentration and patient situation alerted pharmacologists and clinicians. As we found no previous case in literature, we believe this report must serve as an example of analytical limits that required pharmacologist awareness and expertise in TDM realization.