RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Vancomycin is a common antibiotic used to treat hemodialysis (HD) or hemodiafiltration (HDF)-related infections in pediatric patients, but optimal dosing remains unknown. This is the first observational study to characterize the pharmacokinetics and evaluate dosing of vancomycin in this population. METHODS: Eligible patients received IV vancomycin 10 mg/kg per dose postdialysis followed by a series of serum vancomycin concentrations collected before, immediately after, 1 hour after, and 4 hours after dialysis. The pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using 1- and 2-compartment models and a nonlinear least-squares algorithm. RESULTS: Among 42 vancomycin courses in 16 patients, 1 compartment model had the best fit for observed data. The net drug removal was 43 ± 13% (39% for HD and 50% for HDF) from an average 3-hour HD/HDF session. The mean elimination constant was 0.28 h-1 (standard deviation [SD], 0.11 h-1) during the intradialytic period compared with 0.0049 h-1 (SD, 0.004 h-1) when off dialysis. The mean volume of distribution was 0.65 (SD, 0.19) L/kg. Duration of dialysis session and mode of dialysis (HD vs. HDF) were significant predictors of vancomycin pharmacokinetic parameters. Half-life was shorter for HDF compared with HD (2.1 vs. 3.5 hours). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the simulations, an initial vancomycin dose of 10 mg/kg per dose and redosing postdialysis was optimal to achieve a vancomycin concentration range of 5 to 12 mg/L at 4 hours postdialysis and 24-hour area under the curve over minimum inhibitory concentration of ≥400 hours. Therapeutic drug monitoring is necessary to account for residual variability in vancomycin elimination in pediatric patients receiving HD/HDF.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Apheresis treatments require adequate venous access using peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheterization or central venous catheters (CVC). Ultrasound-guided PIV (USGPIV) can be used to decrease the need of CVC insertions for apheresis procedures. METHOD: A hybrid model of USGPIV and standard of care (SOC) for PIV access was developed. Nurses performed USGPIV on all patients considered for PIV access if felt SOC PIV access was not possible. Information was collected regarding nurses' confidence with access, number of attempts required, site of access, complications, and need for CVC. RESULTS: In all, 226 PIV access attempts were made during a 2-month period. All apheresis procedure types were represented. A total 65% were accessed by SOC and 35% by USGPIV. USGPIV was successful on first try on 90% draw/inlet access and 87% successful on first try on return access. Access above the antecubital fossa was required in 31% of USGPIV for draw/inlet veins, and 22% of return veins. Nurses' confidence with accessing PIV was increased by USGPIV, based on 7-point Likert scale assessments. During the recording period, 2/226 (0.9%) apheresis procedures required a CVC. In a separate cohort of only hematopoietic progenitor cell collections, CVC insertion was required in 44/238 (18.5%) patients, in 7 months prior to adoption of USGPIV and 5/152 (3.3%) patients in 7 months following adoption of USGPIV. CONCLUSION: A hybrid model of using SOC and USGPIV for PIV access for apheresis procedures resulted in decreased need for CVC access, high levels of successful initial access attempts, and increased nursing confidence in PIV access.