BACKGROUND: Patients who remain comatose after resuscitation are treated with moderate hypothermia. Little is known about the pharmacokinetics of drugs in patients who are treated with moderate hypothermia. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the pharmacokinetics of midazolam in resuscitated patients treated with moderate hypothermia in comparison to normothermic and non-resuscitated patients. SETTING: This study was performed on the ICU of a Dutch non-academic hospital. The study population consisted of nine patients in the hypothermic group and eight patients in the control group. METHOD: The resuscitated patients were cooled to a target temperature of 33 °C and rewarmed 24 h after start of cooling. Midazolam was given as continuous infusion. The control group consisted of non-resuscitated ICU-patients who were treated with midazolam as sedative. Plasma concentration-time data were collected for midazolam and its metabolites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Non-linear mixed effect modelling was used to analyze midazolam population pharmacokinetics and identify possible covariates. RESULTS: A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model best describes the data. The pharmacokinetic models of the investigated groups are not significantly different. Pharmacokinetic parameter estimates for midazolam for the hypothermic group are a body clearance (CL) of 12.6 l/h, an apparent volume of the central compartment (V1) of 19.1 l, an apparent volume of the peripheral compartment (V2) of 108 l and an intercompartmental clearance (Q) of 18.4 l/h. Estimated parameters for the control group are CL of 14.2 l/h, a V1 of 15.7 l, a V2 of 171 l and Q of 25.6 l/h. In the covariate analysis, body temperature did not significantly improve the model. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the pharmacokinetics of midazolam between resuscitated patients treated with hypothermia during 24 h and the control group.
BACKGROUND:Patients who remain comatose after resuscitation are treated with moderate hypothermia. Little is known about the pharmacokinetics of drugs in patients who are treated with moderate hypothermia. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the pharmacokinetics of midazolam in resuscitated patients treated with moderate hypothermia in comparison to normothermic and non-resuscitated patients. SETTING: This study was performed on the ICU of a Dutch non-academic hospital. The study population consisted of nine patients in the hypothermic group and eight patients in the control group. METHOD: The resuscitated patients were cooled to a target temperature of 33 °C and rewarmed 24 h after start of cooling. Midazolam was given as continuous infusion. The control group consisted of non-resuscitated ICU-patients who were treated with midazolam as sedative. Plasma concentration-time data were collected for midazolam and its metabolites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Non-linear mixed effect modelling was used to analyze midazolam population pharmacokinetics and identify possible covariates. RESULTS: A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model best describes the data. The pharmacokinetic models of the investigated groups are not significantly different. Pharmacokinetic parameter estimates for midazolam for the hypothermic group are a body clearance (CL) of 12.6 l/h, an apparent volume of the central compartment (V1) of 19.1 l, an apparent volume of the peripheral compartment (V2) of 108 l and an intercompartmental clearance (Q) of 18.4 l/h. Estimated parameters for the control group are CL of 14.2 l/h, a V1 of 15.7 l, a V2 of 171 l and Q of 25.6 l/h. In the covariate analysis, body temperature did not significantly improve the model. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the pharmacokinetics of midazolam between resuscitated patients treated with hypothermia during 24 h and the control group.
Authors: T B Vree; M Shimoda; J J Driessen; P J Guelen; T J Janssen; E F Termond; R van Dalen; J C Hafkenscheid; M S Dirksen Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Stephen A Bernard; Timothy W Gray; Michael D Buist; Bruce M Jones; William Silvester; Geoff Gutteridge; Karen Smith Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-02-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T M Bauer; R Ritz; C Haberthür; H R Ha; W Hunkeler; A J Sleight; G Scollo-Lavizzari; W E Haefeli Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Eleonora L Swart; Klaas P Zuideveld; Joost de Jongh; Meindert Danhof; Lambertus G Thijs; Robert M J Strack van Schijndel Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: David Hostler; Jiangquan Zhou; Michael A Tortorici; Robert R Bies; Jon C Rittenberger; Philip E Empey; Patrick M Kochanek; Clifton W Callaway; Samuel M Poloyac Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2010-02-17 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Linda G Franken; Anniek D Masman; Brenda C M de Winter; Frans P M Baar; Dick Tibboel; Teun van Gelder; Birgit C P Koch; Ron A A Mathot Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Kacey B Anderson; Samuel M Poloyac; Patrick M Kochanek; Philip E Empey Journal: Ther Hypothermia Temp Manag Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 1.286