Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1990 Apr;34(4):505–509. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.4.505

Inoculum effect on growth-delay time of oxacillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis exposed to cefamandole, cefazolin, and cefuroxime.

E Yourassowsky 1, M P van der Linden 1, F Crokaert 1
PMCID: PMC171633  PMID: 2344158

Abstract

Cephalosporins have been recommended as prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. The major function of these antibiotics is to protect patients against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. The lowest inoculum amount responsible for infection during surgery is unknown but is probably low. To determine the comparative activities of cefazolin, cefuroxime, and cefamandole against S. aureus and S. epidermidis for prophylactic purposes, we selected five strains of S. aureus and S. epidermidis that presented homogeneous resistances to oxacillin. A continuously monitored turbidimetric method was used to evaluate cultures with variable inoculum sizes ranging from 10(6) to 1 CFU/ml and exposed to cefazolin, cefuroxime, and cefamandole at concentrations of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 micrograms/ml. Growth was defined as an increase of 0.1 optical density unit. The relationship between the time required for growth, the antibiotic concentration, and the initial bacterial density showed that cefamandole was more active than cefazolin, which, in turn, was revealed to be more active than cefuroxime against S. aureus and S. epidermidis.

Full text

PDF
505

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Chambers H. F., Hackbarth C. J., Drake T. A., Rusnak M. G., Sande M. A. Endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in rabbits: expression of resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics in vivo and in vitro. J Infect Dis. 1984 Jun;149(6):894–903. doi: 10.1093/infdis/149.6.894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chambers H. F. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1988 Apr;1(2):173–186. doi: 10.1128/cmr.1.2.173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Coudron P. E., Jones D. L., Dalton H. P., Archer G. L. Evaluation of laboratory tests for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Nov;24(5):764–769. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.5.764-769.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Frongillo R. F., Bianchi P., Moretti A., Pasticci M. B., Ripa S., Pauluzzi S. Cross-resistance between methicillin and cephalosporins for staphylococci: a general assumption not true for cefamandole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 May;25(5):666–668. doi: 10.1128/aac.25.5.666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gilchrist J. E., Campbell J. E., Donnelly C. B., Peeler J. T., Delaney J. M. Spiral plate method for bacterial determination. Appl Microbiol. 1973 Feb;25(2):244–252. doi: 10.1128/am.25.2.244-252.1973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hartman B. J., Tomasz A. Expression of methicillin resistance in heterogeneous strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Jan;29(1):85–92. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.1.85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hirschmann J. V., Inui T. S. Antimicrobial prophylaxis: a critique of recent trials. Rev Infect Dis. 1980 Jan-Feb;2(1):1–23. doi: 10.1093/clinids/2.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kaiser A. B. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. N Engl J Med. 1986 Oct 30;315(18):1129–1138. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198610303151805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kaiser A. B., Petracek M. R., Lea J. W., 4th, Kernodle D. S., Roach A. C., Alford W. C., Jr, Burrus G. R., Glassford D. M., Jr, Thomas C. S., Jr, Stoney W. S. Efficacy of cefazolin, cefamandole, and gentamicin as prophylactic agents in cardiac surgery. Results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in 1030 patients. Ann Surg. 1987 Dec;206(6):791–797. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198712000-00018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mateos-Mora M., Knapp C. C., Washington J. A., 2nd Characterization of resistance phenotype and cephalosporin activity in oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988 Feb;32(2):170–174. doi: 10.1128/aac.32.2.170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pfaller M. A., Herwaldt L. A. Laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological aspects of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1988 Jul;1(3):281–299. doi: 10.1128/cmr.1.3.281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sabath L. D. Reappraisal of the antistaphylococcal activities of first-generation (narrow-spectrum) and second-generation (expanded-spectrum) cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Apr;33(4):407–411. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.4.407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Slama T. G., Sklar S. J., Misinski J., Fess S. W. Randomized comparison of cefamandole, cefazolin, and cefuroxime prophylaxis in open-heart surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 May;29(5):744–747. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.5.744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Stratton C. W., Liu C., Weeks L. S. Activity of LY146032 compared with that of methicillin, cefazolin, cefamandole, cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, and vancomycin against staphylococci as determined by kill-kinetic studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Aug;31(8):1210–1215. doi: 10.1128/aac.31.8.1210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Woods G. L., Knapp C. C., Washington J. A., 2nd Relationship between cefamandole and cefuroxime activity against oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis and oxacillin resistance phenotype. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Sep;31(9):1332–1337. doi: 10.1128/aac.31.9.1332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES