• 1. Brown DC, Conzemius MG, Shofer S, et al. Epidemiologic evaluation of postoperative wound infections in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997; 210: 13021306.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Scher KS, Wroczynski AF, Jones CW. Duration of antibiotic prophylaxis. An experimental study. Am J Surg 1986; 151: 209212.

  • 3. Whittem TL, Johnson AL, Smith CW, et al. Effect of perioperative prophylactic antimicrobial treatment in dogs undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999; 215: 212216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Prospero E, Barbadoro P, Marigliano A, et al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis: improved compliance and impact on infection rates. Epidemiol Infect 2011; 139: 13261331.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Xu SG, Mao ZG, Liu BS, et al. Evaluating the use of antibiotic prophylaxis during open reduction and internal fixation surgery in patients at low risk of surgical site infection. Injury 2015; 46: 184188.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Kaiser AB. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 11291138.

  • 7. Rosin E, Uphoff TS, Schultz-Darken NJ, et al. Cefazolin antibacterial activity and concentrations in serum and the surgical wound in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 13171321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Marcellin-Little DJ, Papich MG, Richardson DC, et al. Pharmacokinetic model for cefazolin distribution during total hip arthroplasty in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57: 720723.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Wilkens B, Sullivan P, McDonald TP, et al. Effects of cephalothin, cefazolin, and cefmetazole on the hemostatic mechanism in normal dogs: implications for the surgical patient. Vet Surg 1995; 24: 2531.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Hauser CJ, Adams CA Jr, Eachempati SR. Surgical Infection Society guideline: prophylactic antibiotic use in open fractures: an evidence-based guideline. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2006; 7: 379405.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Am J Infect Control 1999; 27: 97132.

  • 12. Weese JS, Halling KB. Perioperative administration of antimicrobials associated with elective surgery for cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: 83 cases (2003–2005). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 229: 9295.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Casale SA, McCarthy RJ. Complications associated with lateral fabellotibial suture surgery for cranial cruciate ligament injury in dogs: 363 cases (1997–2005). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009; 234: 229235.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Nicholson M, Beal M, Shofer F, et al. Epidemiologic evaluation of postoperative wound infection in clean-contaminated wounds: a retrospective study of 239 dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 577581.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Knights CB, Mateus A, Baines SJ. Current British veterinary attitudes to the use of perioperative antimicrobials in small animal surgery. Vet Rec 2012; 170: 646652.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Daude-Lagrave A, Carozzo C, Fayolle P, et al. Infection rates in surgical procedures: a comparison of cefalexin vs a placebo. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2001; 14: 146150.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Martin C, Pourriat JL. Quality of postoperative antibiotic administration by French anaesthetists. J Hosp Infect 1998; 40: 4753.

  • 18. Song F, Glenny AM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 1998; 85: 12321241.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Heineck I, Ferreira MB, Schenkel EP. Prescribing practice for antibiotic prophylaxis for 3 commonly performed surgeries in a teaching hospital in Brazil. Am J Infect Control 1999; 27: 296300.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Zanetti G, Flanagan HL, Cohn LH, et al. Improvement of intraoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in prolonged cardiac surgery by automated alerts in the operating room. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 1316.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Papich MG, Davis JL, Floerchinger AM. Pharmacokinetics, protein binding, and tissue distribution of orally administered cefpodoxime proxetil and cephalexin in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2010; 71: 14841491.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Rosin E, Ebert S, Uphoff TS, et al. Penetration of antibiotics into the surgical wound in a canine model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 700704.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Nazarali A, Singh A, Weese JS. Perioperative administration of antimicrobials during tibial plateau leveling osteotomy. Vet Surg 2014; 43: 966971.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Petersen SW, Rosin E. Cephalothin and cefazolin in vitro antibacterial activity and pharmacokinetics in dogs. Vet Surg 1995; 24: 347351.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Bidgood TL, Papich MG. Comparison of plasma and interstitial fluid concentrations of doxycycline and meropenem following constant rate intravenous infusion in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64: 10401046.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Bidgood TL, Papich MG. Plasma and interstitial fluid pharmacokinetics of enrofloxacin, its metabolite ciprofloxacin, and marbofloxacin after oral administration and a constant rate intravenous infusion in dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2005; 28: 329341.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Bidgood TL, Papich MG. Plasma pharmacokinetics and tissue fluid concentrations of meropenem after intravenous and subcutaneous administration in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63: 16221628.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Julious SA, Debarnot CA. Geometric means justification for PK data. J Biopharm Stat 2000; 10: 5571.

  • 29. Powers J. Statistical analysis of PK data. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1990; 13: 115120.

  • 30. Matushek KJ, Rosin E. Pharmacokinetics of cefazolin applied topically to the surgical wound. Arch Surg 1991; 126: 890893.

  • 31. Owen LJ, Gines JA, Knowles TJ, et al. Efficacy of adhesive incise drapes in preventing bacterial contamination of clean canine surgical wounds. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 732737.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Stegemann MR, Passmore CA, Sherington J, et al. Antimicrobial activity and spectrum of cefovecin, a new extended-spectrum cephalosporin, against pathogens collected from dogs and cats in Europe and North America. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 22862292.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Westermeyer RR, Roy AF, Mitchell MS, et al. In vitro comparison of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius susceptibility to common cephalosporins used in dogs. Vet Ther 2010; 11: E1E9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. Thungrat K, Price SB, Carpenter M, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of clinical Escherichia coli isolates from dogs and cats in the United States: January 2008 through January 2013. Vet Microbiol 2015; 179: 287295.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Douglas A, Udy AA, Wallis SC, et al. Plasma and tissue pharmacokinetics of cefazolin in patients undergoing elective and semielective abdominal aortic aneurysm open repair surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 52385242.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Pharmacokinetics of cefazolin for prophylactic administration to dogs

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
  • | 3 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
  • | 4 Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
  • | 5 Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate pharmacokinetics of cefazolin after IV injection of cefazolin (22 mg/kg) and after simultaneous IV and IM injections of cefazolin (total dose, 44 mg/kg) to dogs.

ANIMALS 12 adult Beagles.

PROCEDURES Dogs (6/group) were assigned to receive a single injection of cefazolin (IV group; 22 mg/kg, IV) or simultaneous injections (IV + IM group; 22 mg/kg, IV, and 22 mg/kg, IM). Interstitial fluid was collected over a 5-hour period by use of ultrafiltration probes for pharmacokinetic analysis.

RESULTS Mean cefazolin concentration in the interstitial fluid at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 5 hours after injection was 39.6, 29.1, 21.2, 10.3, 6.4, and 2.7 μg/mL, respectively, for the IV group and 38.3, 53.3, 46.4, 31.7, 19.1, and 8.9 μg/mL, respectively, for the IV + IM group. Mean area under the concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity, maximum concentration, half-life, and time to maximum concentration was 74.99 and 154.16 h·μg/mL, 37.3 and 51.5 μg/mL, 0.96 and 1.11 hours, and 1.28 and 1.65 hours, respectively, for the IV and IV + IM groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Cefazolin concentrations in interstitial fluid of dogs were maintained at > 4 μg/mL for 4 hours after a single IV injection and for 5 hours after simultaneous IV and IM injections. Therefore, simultaneous IV and IM administration of cefazolin 30 to 60 minutes before surgery should provide interstitial fluid concentrations effective against the most common commensal organisms (Staphylococcus spp and Streptococcus spp) on the skin of dogs for surgical procedures lasting ≤ 4 hours.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate pharmacokinetics of cefazolin after IV injection of cefazolin (22 mg/kg) and after simultaneous IV and IM injections of cefazolin (total dose, 44 mg/kg) to dogs.

ANIMALS 12 adult Beagles.

PROCEDURES Dogs (6/group) were assigned to receive a single injection of cefazolin (IV group; 22 mg/kg, IV) or simultaneous injections (IV + IM group; 22 mg/kg, IV, and 22 mg/kg, IM). Interstitial fluid was collected over a 5-hour period by use of ultrafiltration probes for pharmacokinetic analysis.

RESULTS Mean cefazolin concentration in the interstitial fluid at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 5 hours after injection was 39.6, 29.1, 21.2, 10.3, 6.4, and 2.7 μg/mL, respectively, for the IV group and 38.3, 53.3, 46.4, 31.7, 19.1, and 8.9 μg/mL, respectively, for the IV + IM group. Mean area under the concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity, maximum concentration, half-life, and time to maximum concentration was 74.99 and 154.16 h·μg/mL, 37.3 and 51.5 μg/mL, 0.96 and 1.11 hours, and 1.28 and 1.65 hours, respectively, for the IV and IV + IM groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Cefazolin concentrations in interstitial fluid of dogs were maintained at > 4 μg/mL for 4 hours after a single IV injection and for 5 hours after simultaneous IV and IM injections. Therefore, simultaneous IV and IM administration of cefazolin 30 to 60 minutes before surgery should provide interstitial fluid concentrations effective against the most common commensal organisms (Staphylococcus spp and Streptococcus spp) on the skin of dogs for surgical procedures lasting ≤ 4 hours.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Gonzalez (ojg10@yahoo.com).