Massive ingestion of cardiac drugs: toxicokinetic aspects of digoxin and sotalol during hemofiltration

Extracorporeal treatment for poisoning to beta-adrenergic antagonists: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

β-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning.

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods.

RESULTS

A total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

BAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.

Management of digoxin therapy using pharmacokinetics in a patient undergoing continuous venovenous hemofiltration

PURPOSE

The management of digoxin therapy using pharmacokinetics in a patient undergoing continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) is reported.

SUMMARY

A 46-year-old African-American woman with New York Heart Association class IV, American College of Cardiology- American Heart Association stage D heart failure arrived from an outside facility with complaints of dyspnea after minimal exertion, orthopnea, and lower-extremity edema. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed an estimated left ventricular ejection fraction of 15%. The patient subsequently required left ventricular assist device placement on hospital day 5 as a potential bridge to transplantation. A total digoxin loading dose of 500 μg i.v. (8.2 μg/kg) was given in two divided doses six hours apart. The next morning, the serum digoxin concentration was 1.9 ng/mL, and the patient was started on a maintenance digoxin dosage of 125 μg i.v. daily. On postoperative day (POD) 20, the patient developed acute kidney injury, and CVVH was initiated. The sieving coefficient (Sc), transmembrane clearance (CLtm), digoxin concentration in ultrafiltration fluid (Cuf), and need for supplemental digoxin were determined to account for CVVH- associated digoxin loss. After 14 days of CVVH, the patient's clinical condition improved, and CVVH was transitioned to intermittent hemodialysis. On POD 66, the patient was discharged to an extended-care facility without adverse reactions related to digoxin therapy.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of serum digoxin concentration and digoxin Cuf values suggested that digoxin was cleared by CVVH, allowed calculation of Sc and CLtm values, and facilitated determination of digoxin requirements in a critically ill patient requiring CVVH.