Effect of caffeic acid phenethyl ester on treatment of experimentally induced methicillin-resi̇stant Staphylococcus epidermidis endophthalmitis in a rabbit model

This study investigated the anti‐inflammatory effects of caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE), a natural bee‐produced compound, and compared it with corticosteroids in the treatment of experimentally induced methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) endophthalmitis in addition to intrav...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cell biochemistry and function 2007-11, Vol.25 (6), p.693-700
Hauptverfasser: Yıldırım, Özlem, Yılmaz, Ayça, Öz, Özay, Vatansever, Halil, Cinel, Leyla, Aslan, Gönül, Tamer, Lülüfer, Adıgüzel, Ufuk, Arpacı, Rabia, Kanık, Arzu, Emekdaş, Gürol
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study investigated the anti‐inflammatory effects of caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE), a natural bee‐produced compound, and compared it with corticosteroids in the treatment of experimentally induced methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) endophthalmitis in addition to intravitreal antibiotics. An experimental endophthalmitis model was produced in 24 New Zealand albino rabbits by unilateral intravitreal injection of 0.1 ml of 4.7 × 104 colony‐forming units (CFU) methicillin‐resistant S. epidermidis. The animals were then divided randomly into three treatment groups and a control group, group 1 (six rabbits), received only intravitreal vancomycin (1.0 mg/0.1 ml); group 2 (six rabbits), received both intravitreal vancomycin (1.0 mg/0.1 ml) and intravitreal dexamethasone (400 µg/0.1 ml) and group 3 (six rabbits), received both intravitreal vancomycin (1.0 mg/0.1 ml) and subtenon CAPE (10 mg/0.3 ml) after 24 h post‐infection. No treatment was given to the control group. Treatment efficacy was assessed by clinical examination, vitreous culture and histopathology. There were no statististically significant differences between clinical scores of all groups in examinations at 24 and 48 h post‐infection (p = 0.915 and p = 0.067 respectively), but in examinations at 72 h post‐infection and after 7 days post‐infection, although the clinical scores of treatment groups were not significantly different from each other, they were significantly lower than the control group (p 
ISSN:0263-6484
1099-0844
DOI:10.1002/cbf.1377