Lidocaine Clearance as Pharmacokinetic Parameter of Metabolic Hepatic Activity in Patients with Impaired Liver

  • Dr. Marija Jovanović University of Belgrade - Faculty of Pharmacy
  • Dr. Milena Kovačević University of Belgrade - Faculty of Pharmacy
  • Dr. Sandra Vezmar Kovačević University of Belgrade - Faculty of Pharmacy
  • Prof. Ivan Palibrk University Clinical Center of Serbia, Center for Anesthesiology and Resuscitation
  • Jasna Bjelanović University Clinical Center of Serbia, Center for Medical Biochemistry
  • Dr. Branislava Miljkovic
  • Dr. Katarina Vučićević
Keywords: liver failure; lidocaine; pharmacokinetics

Abstract


Background The study aimed to estimate lidocaine (LID) pharmacokinetic parameter values in patients with impaired liver function, and to assess change in parameters related to the surgical intervention.

Methods Patients with impaired liver function were subject to the test prior to, 3 and 7 days after the intervention. LID was administered in single i.v. dose of 1 mg/kg. Blood samples were collected at 15, 30 and 90 minutes after drug administration. Non-compartmental analysis was applied for calculating the pharmacokinetic parameters.

Results The study included 17 patients with the diagnosis of cirrhosis and 41 patients with liver tumor. In both groups of patients, the values of the coefficients of correlation show the best correlation between CL and Child-Pugh score (-0.693, p<0.005) over other pharmacokinetic parameters. The results indicate worsening hepatic function on 3rd day after operation in comparison to the values of LID CL prior to operation (mean LID CL for patients with Child-Pugh class A are 25.91 L/h, 41.59 L/h, respectively; while for B class are 16.89 L/h, 22.65 L/h, respectively). On day 7th, the values of LID CL (mean value for patients with Child-Pugh class A and B are 40.98 L/h and 21.46 L/h, respectively) are increased in comparison to 3rd day after.

Conclusions LID pharmacokinetic parameters consequently changed according to the severity of liver impairment, assessed by Child-Pugh score. Values of LID CL and Vd coupled with standard biochemical parameters may be used in obtaining the complete picture of hepatic status of patients.

References

1. Potter JM, Hickman PE, Henderson A, Balderson GA, Lynch SV, Strong RW. The use of the lidocaine-monoethylglycinexylidide test in the liver transplant recipient. Ther Drug Monit 1996; 18: 383-7.
2. Child CG, Turcotte JG. Surgery and portal hypertension. In: The liver and portal hypertension (ed CG Child): 50-64. Saunders 1964.
3. North-Lewis P. Drugs and the Liver. Pharmaceutical Press, 2008.
4. Achilefu S, Dorshow RB. Dynamic and Continuous Monitoring of Renal and Hepatic Functions with Exogenous Markers. Topics in Current Chemistry 2002; 222: 31-72.
5. Helmke S, Colmenero J, Everson GT. Noninvasive assessment of liver function. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2015; 31: 199-208.
6. Hoekstra LT, de Graaf W, Nibourg GA, Heger M, Bennink RJ, Stieger B, et al. Physiological and biochemical basis of clinical liver function tests: a review. Ann Surg 2013; 257: 27-36.
7. Tomassini F, Giglio MC, De Simone G, Montalti R, Troisi RI. Hepatic function assessment to predict post-hepatectomy liver failure: what can we trust? A systematic review. Updates Surg 2020; 72: 925-38.
8. Orlando R, Piccoli P, De Martin S, Padrini R, Floreani M, Palatini P. Cytochrome P450 1A2 is a major determinant of lidocaine metabolism in vivo: Effect of liver function. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004; 78: 80-8.
9. Conti F, Dousset B, Cherruau B, Guerin C, Soubrane O, Houssin D, et al. Use of lidocaine metabolism to test liver function during the long-term follow-up of liver transplant recipients. Clin Transplant 2004; 18: 235-41.
10. Tanaka E, Inomata S, Yasuhara H. The clinical importance of conventional and quantitative liver function tests in liver transplantation. J Clin Pharm Ther 2000; 25: 411-9.
11. Catterall WA, Mackie K. Local Anesthetics. In: Goodman and Gilman's the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (eds B L.L., JS Lazo, KL Parker): 1842. McGraw-Hill, 2006.
12. Oellerich M, Armstrong VW. The MEGX test: a tool for the real-time assessment of hepatic function. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23: 81-92.
13. Wojcicki J, Kozlowski K, Drozdzik M, Wojcicki M. Comparison of MEGX (monoethylglycinexylidide) and antipyrine tests in patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2002; 27: 243-7.
14. Fabris L, Jemmolo RM, Toffolo G, Paleari D, Viaggi S, Rigon M, et al. The monoethylglycinexylidide test for grading of liver cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13: 67-75.
15. Lorf T, Schnitzbauer AA, Schaefers SK, Scherer MN, Schlitt HJ, Oellerich M, et al. Prognostic value of the monoethylglycinexylidide (MEGX)-test prior to liver resection. Hepatogastroenterology 2008; 55: 539-43.
16. Shiffman ML, Luketic VA, Sanyal AJ, Thompson EB. Use of hepatic lidocaine metabolism to monitor patients with chronic liver disease. Ther Drug Monit 1996; 18: 372-7.
17. Ercolani G, Grazi GL, Calliva R, Pierangeli F, Cescon M, Cavallari A, et al. The lidocaine (MEGX) test as an index of hepatic function: its clinical usefulness in liver surgery. Surgery 2000; 127: 464-71.
18. Ben Said D, Ben Ali R, Ferchichi H, Salouage I, Ouanes L, Gaies E, et al. Lidocaine test for easier and less time consuming assessment of liver function in several hepatic injury models. Hepatol Int 2011; 5: 941-8.
19. Garcea G, Ong SL, Maddern GJ. Predicting liver failure following major hepatectomy. Dig Liver Dis 2009; 41: 798-806.
20. Wagener G. Assessment of hepatic function, operative candidacy, and medical management after liver resection in the patient with underlying liver disease. Semin Liver Dis 2013; 33: 204-12.
21. Mũnoz AE, Miguez C, Rubio M, Bartellini M, Levi D, Podesta A, et al. Lidocaine and Monoethylglycinexylidide Serum Determinations to Analyze Liver Function of Cirrhotic Patients After Oral Administration. Digestive Disease and Sciences 1999; 44: 789-95.
22. Wojcicki J, Kozlowski K, Drozdzik M, Wojcicki M. Lidocaine elimination in patients with liver cirrhosis. Acta Pol Pharm 2002; 59: 321-4.
23. Kashuba ADM, Park JJ, Persky AM, Brouwer KLR. Drug Metabolism, Transport, and the Influence of Hepatic Disease. In: Applied Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. Principles of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (eds ME Burton, LM Shaw, JJ Schentag, WE Evans). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2006.
24. Palatini P, De Martin S. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions in liver disease: An update. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 1260-78.
25. Han AN, Han BR, Zhang T, Heimbach T. Author Correction: Hepatic Impairment Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model Development: Current Challenges. Current Pharmacology Reports 2021; 7: 227-30.
26. Sakka SG. Assessing liver function. Curr Opin Crit Care 2007; 13: 207-14.
27. Siu J, McCall J, Connor S. Systematic review of pathophysiological changes following hepatic resection. HPB (Oxford) 2014; 16: 407-21.
28. van den Broek MA, Olde Damink SW, Dejong CH, Lang H, Malago M, Jalan R, et al. Liver failure after partial hepatic resection: definition, pathophysiology, risk factors and treatment. Liver Int 2008; 28: 767-80.
29. Oh SK, Lim BG, Kim YS, Kim SS. Comparison of the Postoperative Liver Function Between Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Inhalation Anesthesia in Patients with Preoperatively Elevated Liver Transaminase Levels: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2020; 16: 223-32.
30. Jochum C, Beste M, Penndorf V, Farahani MS, Testa G, Nadalin S, et al. Quantitative liver function tests in donors and recipients of living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2006; 12: 544-9.
Published
2022/12/01
Section
Original paper