Magnesium is vital for numerous biochemical and physiological functions.
1
In clinical practice, serum magnesium is most commonly measured as total magnesium,
2
with normal values ranging between 0.7 mmol/L and 1.0 mmol/L.
1
Hypomagnesaemia (< 0.7 mmol/L) is a common finding in critically ill patients, may increase the risk of arrhythmias, and is associated with increased mortality.
2,
3
Thus, magnesium supplementation in critically ill patients is common.
2
Variability in current clinical intravenous magnesium therapy is evident by differences in quantity, frequency, and mode of delivery. This variability may be due to previous studies only reporting the pharmacokinetic data in specific groups: children, 4, 5, 6
pregnant women,
7,
8
and cardiac surgery patients.
9,
10,
11
No study, however, has described the pharmacokinetic effects of continuous intravenous magnesium therapy on total serum magnesium levels in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support. These patients may be at particular risk of arrhythmias, especially atrial fibrillation.
12
Moreover, previous small single centre controlled studies have shown that continuous magnesium infusion slows down the ventricular response to atrial fibrillation,
13
increases its conversion to sinus rhythm
13
and prevents its development in cardiac surgery patients.
14
Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of a combined “bolus plus continuous infusion” protocol of intravenous magnesium therapy targeting total serum magnesium levels between 1.5 mmol/L and 2 mmol/L in critically ill, mechanically ventilated, vasopressor-dependent patients. We hypothesised that such intervention would be logistically feasible, provide useful pharmacokinetic data, achieve magnesium target levels, and would not lead to an increase in vasopressor therapy.
Jahnen-Dechent W, Ketteler M. Magnesium basics. Clin Kidney J 2012; 5 (Suppl): i3-14
Fairley J, Glassford NJ, Zhang L, Bellomo R. Magnesium status and magnesium therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review. J Crit Care 2015; 30: 1349-58
Jahnen-Dechent W, Ketteler M. Magnesium basics. Clin Kidney J 2012; 5 (Suppl): i3-14
Fairley J, Glassford NJ, Zhang L, Bellomo R. Magnesium status and magnesium therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review. J Crit Care 2015; 30: 1349-58
Jiang P, Lv Q, Lai T, Xu F. Does hypomagnesemia impact on the outcome of patients admitted to the intensive care unit? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Shock 2017; 47: 288-95
Fairley J, Glassford NJ, Zhang L, Bellomo R. Magnesium status and magnesium therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review. J Crit Care 2015; 30: 1349-58
Variability in current clinical intravenous magnesium therapy is evident by differences in quantity, frequency, and mode of delivery. This variability may be due to previous studies only reporting the pharmacokinetic data in specific groups: children, 4, 5, 6
Rower JE, Liu X, Yu T, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of magnesium sulfate in the treatment of children with severe acute asthma. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2017; 73: 325-31
Becker SM, Job KM, Lima K, et al. Prospective study of serum and ionized magnesium pharmacokinetics in the treatment of children with severe acute asthma. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2019; 75: 59-66
Egelund TA, Wassil SK, Edwards EM, et al. High-dose magnesium sulfate infusion protocol for status asthmaticus: A safety and pharmacokinetics cohort study. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39: 117-22
Brookfield KF, Su F, Elkomy MH, et al. Pharmacokinetics and placental transfer of magnesium sulfate in pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214: 737.e1-9
Okusanya BO, Oladapo OT, Long Q, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetic properties of magnesium sulphate in women with pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. BJOG 2016; 123: 356-66
Biesenbach P, Mårtensson J, Lucchetta L, et al. Pharmacokinetics of magnesium bolus therapy in cardiothoracic surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2018; 32: 1289-94
Biesenbach P, Mårtensson J, Osawa E, et al. Magnesium supplementation: pharmacokinetics in cardiac surgery patients with normal renal function. J Crit Care 2018; 44: 419-23
Osawa EA, Biesenbach P, Cutuli SL, et al. Magnesium sulfate therapy after cardiac surgery: a before-and-after study comparing strategies involving bolus and continuous infusion. Crit Care Resusc 2018; 20: 209-16
Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, et al; SEPSISPAM Investigators. High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1583-93
Khanna A, English SW, Wang XS, et al; ATHOS-3 Investigators. Angiotensin II for the treatment of vasodilatory shock. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 419-30
Khanna A, English SW, Wang XS, et al; ATHOS-3 Investigators. Angiotensin II for the treatment of vasodilatory shock. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 419-30
Moran JL, Gallagher J, Peake SL, et al. Parenteral magnesium sulfate versus amiodarone in the therapy of atrial tachyarrhythmias: a prospective, randomized study. Crit Care Med 1995; 23: 1816-24
Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of a combined “bolus plus continuous infusion” protocol of intravenous magnesium therapy targeting total serum magnesium levels between 1.5 mmol/L and 2 mmol/L in critically ill, mechanically ventilated, vasopressor-dependent patients. We hypothesised that such intervention would be logistically feasible, provide useful pharmacokinetic data, achieve magnesium target levels, and would not lead to an increase in vasopressor therapy.
Methods
This pharmacokinetic study was approved by Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference No. HREC/52758/Austin-2019-177785; ANZCTR.org.au Registration No. ACTRN12619000925145). Written consent was provided by the patient’s legally responsible person.
Study inclusion criteria
We aimed to study a convenience sample of 30 adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Austin Hospital in Melbourne, Australia.
We included patients who:
We included patients who:
- had an existing intra-arterial catheter, a central venous catheter, and an indwelling urinary catheter;
- were mechanically ventilated via an endotracheal tube;
- were receiving vasopressor therapy; and
- had a treating clinician who decided that intravenous magnesium replacement was indicated.
We excluded patients who:
- were admitted to the ICU following cardiac surgery;
- had an allergy to magnesium sulfate or one of its excipients;
- were pregnant;
- were already receiving or had received a continuous intravenous magnesium infusion in the previous 24 hours;
- were currently receiving a muscle relaxant infusion;
- had a serum creatinine concentration of > 200 μmol/L; or
- were receiving continuous renal replacement therapy.
Basic demographic data, physiological parameters and information relating to ICU and hospital length of stay were collected.
Control group
Using the ICU’s electronic admissions database, we retrospectively identified a matched cohort of patients admitted to the ICU in the previous year who were intubated and ventilated and were receiving vasopressor support. They formed a control group for the purpose of comparing magnesium levels in the first 24 hours. Each study patient was matched to three control patients based on age, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score and admission diagnosis category. We used the ICU’s electronic medical records to collect information on basic demographic data, physiological and biochemical parameters along with information relating to ICU and hospital length of stay.
Magnesium infusion
We administered a 10 mmol bolus of magnesium sulfate through a central venous catheter over one hour, followed by a continuous infusion at a rate of between 1.5 mmol/h and 3 mmol/h for 24 hours depending on total serum magnesium levels. The infusion was stopped if there were two consecutive total serum magnesium levels over 2 mmol/L or if urine output was less than 200 mL over 6 hours (Figure 1). Blood and spot urine samples were taken immediately before the bolus infusion and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours after the bolus administration was completed. Blood and urine samples were sent immediately to a central pathology department for processing.