4.2 Article

A Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Ceftaroline Prophylaxis in Patients with External Ventricular Drains

期刊

SURGICAL INFECTIONS
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 169-173

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2014.098

关键词

-

资金

  1. Michigan State University/Sparrow Hospital Infectious Diseases Fellowship Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ceftaroline is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin antibiotic with activity against drug-resistant bacteria, including strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and may be useful to prevent and treat ventriculostomy-related infections (VRIs). The purpose of this study was to analyze the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prophylactic ceftaroline in neurosurgical patients with an external ventricular drain (EVD). Methods: Adult patients in the neurosurgical intensive care unit with an EVD were given prolonged prophylaxis with ceftaroline. Serum and cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) were obtained simultaneously at 2, 6, and 12 h after initiation of the fourth dose of ceftaroline and concentrations were measured by a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry assay. Time-kill curves against isolates of coagulase-negative S. aureus, methicillin-sensitive S. aureus, MRSA, and Streptococcus pneumoniae were determined in serum and CSF at each collection time point. Results: A total of five patients with a mean age of 63 y and mean weight of 83 kg were enrolled. The mean CSF:serum penetration ratios of ceftaroline were 0.005 (0.5%), 0.021 (2.1%), and 0.043 (4.3%) at 2, 6, and 12 h, respectively. The mean ceftaroline exposure ratio area under the curve (AUC)(csf)/AUC(serum)) was 0.011 (1.1%). Bactericidal activity at each collection time point was observed against each strain of staphylococci from serum samples and a penicillin-sensitive strain of S. pneumoniae from CSF samples. Conclusion: This investigation suggests that ceftaroline could have clinical utility for the prevention of VRIs in patients with EVDs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据