Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA
Background In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis. Questions/pur...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2015-11, Vol.473 (11), p.3573-3584 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3584 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 3573 |
container_title | Clinical orthopaedics and related research |
container_volume | 473 |
creator | Young, Simon W. Roberts, Tim Johnson, Sarah Dalton, James P. Coleman, Brendan Wiles, Siouxsie |
description | Background
In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis.
Questions/purposes
We asked: (1) What prophylaxis dosage and route (intravenous [IV] versus IORA of prophylactic antibiotics) produce less in vivo bacterial burden compared with no-antibiotic controls? (2) Compared with controls, what prophylaxis dosage and route yield fewer colony-forming units (CFUs) in euthanized animals in a model of TKA? (3) Is prophylactic IORA of antibiotics more effective than same-dose IV antibiotic administration in reducing CFUs?
Methods
Mice (six to nine per group) were block randomized to one of six prophylaxis regimens: control, systemic cefazolin (C100
IV
), IORA of cefazolin (C100
IORA
), systemic vancomycin (V110
IV
), low-dose systemic vancomycin (V25
IV
), and low-dose IORA of vancomycin (V25
IORA
). Surgery involved placement of an intraarticular knee prosthesis, followed by an inoculum of bioluminescent
Staphylococcus aureus
strain Xen36. Biophotonic imaging assessed in vivo bacterial loads, and after 4 days bacterial load was quantified using culture-based techniques. Comparisons were made for each prophylactic regimen to controls and between same-dose IV and IORA of prophylactic antibiotic regimens.
Results
Mice treated with systemic high-dose vancomycin, IORA of vancomycin, or IORA of cefazolin had lower in vivo
Staphylococcus aureus
burdens (median area under curve, Control: 5.0 × 10
6
; V110
IV
: 1.5 × 10
6
, difference of medians 3.5 × 10
6
, p = 0.003; V25
IV
: 1.94 × 10
6
, difference 3.07 × 10
6
, p = 0.49; V25
IORA
: 1.51 × 10
6
, difference 3.5 × 10
6
, p = 0.0011; C100
IORA
: 1.55 × 10
6
, difference 3.46 × 10
6
, p = 0.0016; C100
IV
: 2.35 × 10
6
, difference 2.66 × 10
6
, p = 0.23.) Similar findings were seen with culture-based techniques on recovered implants. IORA of prophylactic antibiotics was more effective than same-dose IV administration in reducing bacterial load on recovered implants (median CFUs < 7.0 × 10
0
vs 2.83 × 10
2
, p = 0.0183).
Conclusions
IORA of prophylactic cefazolin and vancomycin was more effective than the same dose of antibiotic given systemically. The effectiveness of vancomycin in particular was enhanced by IORA of prophylactic antibiotics despite using a lower dose.
Clinical relevance
Our study |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11999-015-4464-x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4586203</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3820634621</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-d7363964425479b3fdbd7a73e13c9538acf92b4e13492cba069f730de99123e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUsFu1DAQtRAVXQofwAVZ4sIlYI8dO74graoCFa2KYJG4WY7j7LpK4q2dVN0v4Ldx2FK1lZC4eDx-b549nofQK0reUULk-0SpUqogtCw4F7y4eYIWtISqoJTBU7QghKhCAf15iJ6ndJlTxkt4hg5BAHBQdIF-fXNrHwbT4dNhjCak5MKU8LLp_eBTPhkzikOLv8aw3ew6Y0dv8XIYfe1D3ibsEz4P0eGTtnUZvHZ4tTED_r5Lo-tn7kMpP2CTC6bk8tq4btZefVm-QAet6ZJ7eRuP0I-PJ6vjz8XZxafT4-VZYQVTY9FIlqPgHEouVc3apm6kkcxRZlXJKmNbBTXPKVdga0OEaiUjjVOKAnOCHaEPe93tVPeusW7uutPb6HsTdzoYrx8ig9_odbjWvKwEEJYF3t4KxHA1uTTq3ifrus4M889pKkEKxbiA_6DSisiKyipT3zyiXoYp5rH8YUkAWvJZkO5ZNuZBRdfevZsSPTtC7x2hsyP07Ah9k2te32_4ruKvBTIB9oSUoWHt4r2r_6n6G7Wrw0o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1717221542</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Young, Simon W. ; Roberts, Tim ; Johnson, Sarah ; Dalton, James P. ; Coleman, Brendan ; Wiles, Siouxsie</creator><creatorcontrib>Young, Simon W. ; Roberts, Tim ; Johnson, Sarah ; Dalton, James P. ; Coleman, Brendan ; Wiles, Siouxsie</creatorcontrib><description>Background
In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis.
Questions/purposes
We asked: (1) What prophylaxis dosage and route (intravenous [IV] versus IORA of prophylactic antibiotics) produce less in vivo bacterial burden compared with no-antibiotic controls? (2) Compared with controls, what prophylaxis dosage and route yield fewer colony-forming units (CFUs) in euthanized animals in a model of TKA? (3) Is prophylactic IORA of antibiotics more effective than same-dose IV antibiotic administration in reducing CFUs?
Methods
Mice (six to nine per group) were block randomized to one of six prophylaxis regimens: control, systemic cefazolin (C100
IV
), IORA of cefazolin (C100
IORA
), systemic vancomycin (V110
IV
), low-dose systemic vancomycin (V25
IV
), and low-dose IORA of vancomycin (V25
IORA
). Surgery involved placement of an intraarticular knee prosthesis, followed by an inoculum of bioluminescent
Staphylococcus aureus
strain Xen36. Biophotonic imaging assessed in vivo bacterial loads, and after 4 days bacterial load was quantified using culture-based techniques. Comparisons were made for each prophylactic regimen to controls and between same-dose IV and IORA of prophylactic antibiotic regimens.
Results
Mice treated with systemic high-dose vancomycin, IORA of vancomycin, or IORA of cefazolin had lower in vivo
Staphylococcus aureus
burdens (median area under curve, Control: 5.0 × 10
6
; V110
IV
: 1.5 × 10
6
, difference of medians 3.5 × 10
6
, p = 0.003; V25
IV
: 1.94 × 10
6
, difference 3.07 × 10
6
, p = 0.49; V25
IORA
: 1.51 × 10
6
, difference 3.5 × 10
6
, p = 0.0011; C100
IORA
: 1.55 × 10
6
, difference 3.46 × 10
6
, p = 0.0016; C100
IV
: 2.35 × 10
6
, difference 2.66 × 10
6
, p = 0.23.) Similar findings were seen with culture-based techniques on recovered implants. IORA of prophylactic antibiotics was more effective than same-dose IV administration in reducing bacterial load on recovered implants (median CFUs < 7.0 × 10
0
vs 2.83 × 10
2
, p = 0.0183).
Conclusions
IORA of prophylactic cefazolin and vancomycin was more effective than the same dose of antibiotic given systemically. The effectiveness of vancomycin in particular was enhanced by IORA of prophylactic antibiotics despite using a lower dose.
Clinical relevance
Our study supports previous studies of IORA of prophylactic antibiotics in humans and suggests this novel form of administration has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of prophylaxis in TKA. Because of concerns regarding antibiotic stewardship, IORA of prophylactic vancomycin may be more appropriately restricted to patients having TKA who are at greater risk of infection, and clinical trials are in progress.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-921X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1132</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4464-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26224291</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Animals ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage ; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation ; Bacterial Load ; Basic Research ; Cefazolin - administration & dosage ; Colony Count, Microbial ; Conservative Orthopedics ; Female ; Infection ; Injections, Intravenous ; Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Mice ; Models, Animal ; Orthopedics ; Prosthesis-Related Infections - diagnosis ; Prosthesis-Related Infections - microbiology ; Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention & control ; Sports Medicine ; Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis ; Staphylococcal Infections - microbiology ; Staphylococcal Infections - prevention & control ; Staphylococcus aureus ; Surgery ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Time Factors ; Vancomycin - administration & dosage]]></subject><ispartof>Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015-11, Vol.473 (11), p.3573-3584</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-d7363964425479b3fdbd7a73e13c9538acf92b4e13492cba069f730de99123e63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-d7363964425479b3fdbd7a73e13c9538acf92b4e13492cba069f730de99123e63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586203/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586203/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26224291$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Young, Simon W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Brendan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiles, Siouxsie</creatorcontrib><title>Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA</title><title>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</title><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><description>Background
In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis.
Questions/purposes
We asked: (1) What prophylaxis dosage and route (intravenous [IV] versus IORA of prophylactic antibiotics) produce less in vivo bacterial burden compared with no-antibiotic controls? (2) Compared with controls, what prophylaxis dosage and route yield fewer colony-forming units (CFUs) in euthanized animals in a model of TKA? (3) Is prophylactic IORA of antibiotics more effective than same-dose IV antibiotic administration in reducing CFUs?
Methods
Mice (six to nine per group) were block randomized to one of six prophylaxis regimens: control, systemic cefazolin (C100
IV
), IORA of cefazolin (C100
IORA
), systemic vancomycin (V110
IV
), low-dose systemic vancomycin (V25
IV
), and low-dose IORA of vancomycin (V25
IORA
). Surgery involved placement of an intraarticular knee prosthesis, followed by an inoculum of bioluminescent
Staphylococcus aureus
strain Xen36. Biophotonic imaging assessed in vivo bacterial loads, and after 4 days bacterial load was quantified using culture-based techniques. Comparisons were made for each prophylactic regimen to controls and between same-dose IV and IORA of prophylactic antibiotic regimens.
Results
Mice treated with systemic high-dose vancomycin, IORA of vancomycin, or IORA of cefazolin had lower in vivo
Staphylococcus aureus
burdens (median area under curve, Control: 5.0 × 10
6
; V110
IV
: 1.5 × 10
6
, difference of medians 3.5 × 10
6
, p = 0.003; V25
IV
: 1.94 × 10
6
, difference 3.07 × 10
6
, p = 0.49; V25
IORA
: 1.51 × 10
6
, difference 3.5 × 10
6
, p = 0.0011; C100
IORA
: 1.55 × 10
6
, difference 3.46 × 10
6
, p = 0.0016; C100
IV
: 2.35 × 10
6
, difference 2.66 × 10
6
, p = 0.23.) Similar findings were seen with culture-based techniques on recovered implants. IORA of prophylactic antibiotics was more effective than same-dose IV administration in reducing bacterial load on recovered implants (median CFUs < 7.0 × 10
0
vs 2.83 × 10
2
, p = 0.0183).
Conclusions
IORA of prophylactic cefazolin and vancomycin was more effective than the same dose of antibiotic given systemically. The effectiveness of vancomycin in particular was enhanced by IORA of prophylactic antibiotics despite using a lower dose.
Clinical relevance
Our study supports previous studies of IORA of prophylactic antibiotics in humans and suggests this novel form of administration has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of prophylaxis in TKA. Because of concerns regarding antibiotic stewardship, IORA of prophylactic vancomycin may be more appropriately restricted to patients having TKA who are at greater risk of infection, and clinical trials are in progress.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation</subject><subject>Bacterial Load</subject><subject>Basic Research</subject><subject>Cefazolin - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial</subject><subject>Conservative Orthopedics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Infection</subject><subject>Injections, Intravenous</subject><subject>Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Mice</subject><subject>Models, Animal</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Prosthesis-Related Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Prosthesis-Related Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention & control</subject><subject>Sports Medicine</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Infections - prevention & control</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Vancomycin - administration & dosage</subject><issn>0009-921X</issn><issn>1528-1132</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUsFu1DAQtRAVXQofwAVZ4sIlYI8dO74graoCFa2KYJG4WY7j7LpK4q2dVN0v4Ldx2FK1lZC4eDx-b549nofQK0reUULk-0SpUqogtCw4F7y4eYIWtISqoJTBU7QghKhCAf15iJ6ndJlTxkt4hg5BAHBQdIF-fXNrHwbT4dNhjCak5MKU8LLp_eBTPhkzikOLv8aw3ew6Y0dv8XIYfe1D3ibsEz4P0eGTtnUZvHZ4tTED_r5Lo-tn7kMpP2CTC6bk8tq4btZefVm-QAet6ZJ7eRuP0I-PJ6vjz8XZxafT4-VZYQVTY9FIlqPgHEouVc3apm6kkcxRZlXJKmNbBTXPKVdga0OEaiUjjVOKAnOCHaEPe93tVPeusW7uutPb6HsTdzoYrx8ig9_odbjWvKwEEJYF3t4KxHA1uTTq3ifrus4M889pKkEKxbiA_6DSisiKyipT3zyiXoYp5rH8YUkAWvJZkO5ZNuZBRdfevZsSPTtC7x2hsyP07Ah9k2te32_4ruKvBTIB9oSUoWHt4r2r_6n6G7Wrw0o</recordid><startdate>20151101</startdate><enddate>20151101</enddate><creator>Young, Simon W.</creator><creator>Roberts, Tim</creator><creator>Johnson, Sarah</creator><creator>Dalton, James P.</creator><creator>Coleman, Brendan</creator><creator>Wiles, Siouxsie</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151101</creationdate><title>Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA</title><author>Young, Simon W. ; Roberts, Tim ; Johnson, Sarah ; Dalton, James P. ; Coleman, Brendan ; Wiles, Siouxsie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-d7363964425479b3fdbd7a73e13c9538acf92b4e13492cba069f730de99123e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation</topic><topic>Bacterial Load</topic><topic>Basic Research</topic><topic>Cefazolin - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial</topic><topic>Conservative Orthopedics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Infection</topic><topic>Injections, Intravenous</topic><topic>Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Mice</topic><topic>Models, Animal</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Prosthesis-Related Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Prosthesis-Related Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention & control</topic><topic>Sports Medicine</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Infections - prevention & control</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Vancomycin - administration & dosage</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Young, Simon W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Brendan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiles, Siouxsie</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Young, Simon W.</au><au>Roberts, Tim</au><au>Johnson, Sarah</au><au>Dalton, James P.</au><au>Coleman, Brendan</au><au>Wiles, Siouxsie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA</atitle><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle><stitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</stitle><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><date>2015-11-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>473</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>3573</spage><epage>3584</epage><pages>3573-3584</pages><issn>0009-921X</issn><eissn>1528-1132</eissn><abstract>Background
In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis.
Questions/purposes
We asked: (1) What prophylaxis dosage and route (intravenous [IV] versus IORA of prophylactic antibiotics) produce less in vivo bacterial burden compared with no-antibiotic controls? (2) Compared with controls, what prophylaxis dosage and route yield fewer colony-forming units (CFUs) in euthanized animals in a model of TKA? (3) Is prophylactic IORA of antibiotics more effective than same-dose IV antibiotic administration in reducing CFUs?
Methods
Mice (six to nine per group) were block randomized to one of six prophylaxis regimens: control, systemic cefazolin (C100
IV
), IORA of cefazolin (C100
IORA
), systemic vancomycin (V110
IV
), low-dose systemic vancomycin (V25
IV
), and low-dose IORA of vancomycin (V25
IORA
). Surgery involved placement of an intraarticular knee prosthesis, followed by an inoculum of bioluminescent
Staphylococcus aureus
strain Xen36. Biophotonic imaging assessed in vivo bacterial loads, and after 4 days bacterial load was quantified using culture-based techniques. Comparisons were made for each prophylactic regimen to controls and between same-dose IV and IORA of prophylactic antibiotic regimens.
Results
Mice treated with systemic high-dose vancomycin, IORA of vancomycin, or IORA of cefazolin had lower in vivo
Staphylococcus aureus
burdens (median area under curve, Control: 5.0 × 10
6
; V110
IV
: 1.5 × 10
6
, difference of medians 3.5 × 10
6
, p = 0.003; V25
IV
: 1.94 × 10
6
, difference 3.07 × 10
6
, p = 0.49; V25
IORA
: 1.51 × 10
6
, difference 3.5 × 10
6
, p = 0.0011; C100
IORA
: 1.55 × 10
6
, difference 3.46 × 10
6
, p = 0.0016; C100
IV
: 2.35 × 10
6
, difference 2.66 × 10
6
, p = 0.23.) Similar findings were seen with culture-based techniques on recovered implants. IORA of prophylactic antibiotics was more effective than same-dose IV administration in reducing bacterial load on recovered implants (median CFUs < 7.0 × 10
0
vs 2.83 × 10
2
, p = 0.0183).
Conclusions
IORA of prophylactic cefazolin and vancomycin was more effective than the same dose of antibiotic given systemically. The effectiveness of vancomycin in particular was enhanced by IORA of prophylactic antibiotics despite using a lower dose.
Clinical relevance
Our study supports previous studies of IORA of prophylactic antibiotics in humans and suggests this novel form of administration has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of prophylaxis in TKA. Because of concerns regarding antibiotic stewardship, IORA of prophylactic vancomycin may be more appropriately restricted to patients having TKA who are at greater risk of infection, and clinical trials are in progress.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>26224291</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11999-015-4464-x</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0009-921X |
ispartof | Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015-11, Vol.473 (11), p.3573-3584 |
issn | 0009-921X 1528-1132 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4586203 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Animals Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation Bacterial Load Basic Research Cefazolin - administration & dosage Colony Count, Microbial Conservative Orthopedics Female Infection Injections, Intravenous Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects Medicine Medicine & Public Health Mice Models, Animal Orthopedics Prosthesis-Related Infections - diagnosis Prosthesis-Related Infections - microbiology Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention & control Sports Medicine Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis Staphylococcal Infections - microbiology Staphylococcal Infections - prevention & control Staphylococcus aureus Surgery Surgical Orthopedics Time Factors Vancomycin - administration & dosage |
title | Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T20%3A00%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Regional%20Intraosseous%20Administration%20of%20Prophylactic%20Antibiotics%20is%20More%20Effective%20Than%20Systemic%20Administration%20in%20a%20Mouse%20Model%20of%20TKA&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20orthopaedics%20and%20related%20research&rft.au=Young,%20Simon%20W.&rft.date=2015-11-01&rft.volume=473&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=3573&rft.epage=3584&rft.pages=3573-3584&rft.issn=0009-921X&rft.eissn=1528-1132&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11999-015-4464-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3820634621%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1717221542&rft_id=info:pmid/26224291&rfr_iscdi=true |