Serum trough concentration threshold and risk factors of cefoperazone-induced coagulopathy in critically ill patients: A retrospective case-control study

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Purpose To analyze the risk factors influencing the development of cefoperazone-induced coagulopathy in critically ill patients and determine the threshold of serum trough concentration. Methods A retrospective case-control study was conducted in the intensive care unit patients treated with cefoperazone, and it was approved by the Ethical Committee of Drum Tower Hospital affiliated with the Medical School of Nanjing University (NO.2023-158-01). Patients were divided into the normal group and coagulopathy group based on prothrombin time. The clinical characteristics of the two groups were compared using univariate analysis. The serum concentration threshold and influencing factors of cefoperazone-induced coagulopathy in critically ill patients were analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic curve and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 113 patients were included, and cefoperazone-induced coagulopathy occurred in 39 patients, with an incidence of 34.5%. These patients experienced significant prothrombin time prolongation around day 6 (median) after cefoperazone application. The serum trough concentration threshold of cefoperazone-induced coagulopathy in critically ill patients was 87.765 mg/l. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the APACHE II score ( p = 0.034), prophylactic use of vitamin K 1 ( p < 0.001), hepatic impairment ( p = 0.014), and C min ≥ 87.765 mg/l ( p = 0.005) were associated with cefoperazone-induced coagulopathy. Conclusion Cefoperazone-induced coagulopathy usually occurs on the 6th day of cefoperazone use in critically ill patients. The risk will increase in patients with an APACHE II score > 25, hepatic impairment, and cefoperazone C min ≥ 87.765 mg/l. Vitamin K 1 is effective in preventing this adverse reaction.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.