BACKGROUND: In this report we describe the in vivo antibacterial activity of linezolid in an experimental graft infection model in rats and compare it with teicoplanin. The objective of this study was also to determine the effects of the interaction of linezolid when it was combined with rifampicin and test this effect against strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Graft infections were established in the subcutaneous tissue of 130 Wistar rats by implantation of Dacron grafts followed by a topical inoculation with 2 x 10(7) CFU of clinical isolates of MRSA and MRSE. The study included a control group and six groups for each of the staphylococcal strains: an inoculated group that did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis, two inoculated groups that received intraperitoneal prophylaxis with teicoplanin or linezolid alone, an inoculated group that received rifampicin-soaked grafts, and two inoculated groups that received a combination prophylaxis consisting of intraperitoneal teicoplanin or linezolid and rifampicin-soaked grafts. RESULTS: There was a reduction in the quantitative bacterial graft cultures in all prophylaxis groups when compared with inoculated control groups. There was not a statistically significant difference between linezolid and teicoplanin prophylaxis groups. The best results were obtained by a combination of rifampicin-soaked grafts with linezolid or teicoplanin. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to suggest that linezolid differs from teicoplanin regarding effectiveness in the prevention of prosthetic vascular graft infection. Linezolid plus rifampicin and teicoplanin plus rifampicin are demonstrated to be valuable prophylactic regimens.
BACKGROUND: In this report we describe the in vivo antibacterial activity of linezolid in an experimental graft infection model in rats and compare it with teicoplanin. The objective of this study was also to determine the effects of the interaction of linezolid when it was combined with rifampicin and test this effect against strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Graft infections were established in the subcutaneous tissue of 130 Wistar rats by implantation of Dacron grafts followed by a topical inoculation with 2 x 10(7) CFU of clinical isolates of MRSA and MRSE. The study included a control group and six groups for each of the staphylococcal strains: an inoculated group that did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis, two inoculated groups that received intraperitoneal prophylaxis with teicoplanin or linezolid alone, an inoculated group that received rifampicin-soaked grafts, and two inoculated groups that received a combination prophylaxis consisting of intraperitoneal teicoplanin or linezolid and rifampicin-soaked grafts. RESULTS: There was a reduction in the quantitative bacterial graft cultures in all prophylaxis groups when compared with inoculated control groups. There was not a statistically significant difference between linezolid and teicoplanin prophylaxis groups. The best results were obtained by a combination of rifampicin-soaked grafts with linezolid or teicoplanin. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to suggest that linezolid differs from teicoplanin regarding effectiveness in the prevention of prosthetic vascular graft infection. Linezolid plus rifampicin and teicoplanin plus rifampicin are demonstrated to be valuable prophylactic regimens.
Authors: Paschalis Vergidis; Mark S Rouse; Gorane Euba; Melissa J Karau; Suzannah M Schmidt; Jayawant N Mandrekar; James M Steckelberg; Robin Patel Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Antonello Di Paolo; Paolo Malacarne; Emanuele Guidotti; Romano Danesi; Mario Del Tacca Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: S Ribes; M E Pachón-Ibáñez; M A Domínguez; R Fernández; F Tubau; J Ariza; F Gudiol; C Cabellos Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Igor Lazic; Andreas Obermeier; Bettina Dietmair; Wolfgang E Kempf; Albert Busch; Jutta Tübel; Jochen Schneider; Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe; Peter Biberthaler; Rainer Burgkart; Dominik Pförringer Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Anna V Piterina; Aidan J Cloonan; Claire L Meaney; Laura M Davis; Anthony Callanan; Michael T Walsh; Tim M McGloughlin Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Arianna Barbara Lovati; Carlo Luca Romanò; Marta Bottagisio; Lorenzo Monti; Elena De Vecchi; Sara Previdi; Riccardo Accetta; Lorenzo Drago Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.240