Literature DB >> 3565242

Computer-assisted individualized lidocaine dosage: clinical evaluation and comparison with physician performance.

S Vozeh, T Uematsu, R Ritz, O Schmidlin, G Kaufman, A Scholer, F Follath.   

Abstract

The performance of a computerized dosing aid in achieving a target serum concentration of lidocaine in the middle of the recommended therapeutic range (3.5 mg/L) was evaluated in 63 patients treated for acute ventricular arrhythmias. In all patients a serum concentration measurement was obtained shortly after starting lidocaine infusion. In 22 patients a microcomputer program based on a Bayesian forecasting technique was used for dosing recommendations, whereas in 41 the serum concentration was interpreted and the dose was adjusted by the unaided physician. Both groups were similar with respect to the average concentration achieved (control: 3.8 +/- 1.13 [SD] mg/L, computer-aided: 3.5 +/- 0.59 mg/L). However, the interindividual variability was significantly larger in the control group (95% confidence interval: 1.5 to 6.1 mg/L vs 2.3 to 4.7 mg/L [p less than 0.01]). Nine of the 41 patients in the control group had a lidocaine concentration outside the recommended therapeutic range of 2 to 5 mg/L compared to only 1 of 22 in the computer-aided group. Lidocaine concentrations greater than 2 mg/L were associated with significantly more effective suppression of ventricular arrhythmias (p less than 0.05). The results show that Bayesian forecasting outperforms the physician in early adjustment of lidocaine dosage based on serum concentration measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3565242     DOI: 10.1016/0002-8703(87)90053-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  9 in total

Review 1.  Therapeutic drug monitoring and patient outcome. A review of the issues.

Authors:  A L Tonkin; F Bochner
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 2.  Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Authors:  S Vozeh
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 3.  Clinical pharmacokinetics in the 21st century. Does the evidence support definitive outcomes?

Authors:  M H Ensom; G A Davis; C D Cropp; R J Ensom
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 6.447

4.  Pharmacokinetics and dromotropic activity of ajmaline in rats with hyperthyroidism.

Authors:  Y Hashimoto; M Yasuhara; A Kamiya; K Okumura; R Hori
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 8.739

5.  Therapeutic drug monitoring of digoxin.

Authors:  S Vozeh
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Estimates of the population pharmacokinetic parameters and performance of Bayesian feedback: a sensitivity analysis.

Authors:  S Vozeh; C Steiner
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1987-10

Review 7.  Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data and models in clinical trials.

Authors:  J L Steimer; M E Ebelin; J Van Bree
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  1993 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.441

Review 8.  Poisoning due to class 1B antiarrhythmic drugs. Lignocaine, mexiletine and tocainide.

Authors:  C P Denaro; N L Benowitz
Journal:  Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp       Date:  1989 Nov-Dec

Review 9.  Pharmacogenetics: the therapeutic drug monitoring of the future?

Authors:  M H Ensom; T K Chang; P Patel
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.577

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.