Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:16289474rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0003232lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16289474lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0087111lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16289474lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0038170lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16289474lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0860239lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16289474lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0332161lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16289474lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0598629lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16289474lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1145640lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16289474lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1517004lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:issue6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:dateCreated2006-5-29lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:abstractTextAn in vitro antibiotic susceptibility assay for Staphylococcus aureus biofilms developed on 96-well polystyrene tissue culture plates was performed to elucidate the activity of citropin 1.1, rifampin and minocycline. Efficacy studies were performed in a rat model of staphylococcal CVC infection. Silastic catheters were implanted into the superior cava. Twenty-four hours after implantation the catheters were filled with citropin 1.1 (10 microg/mL). Thirty minutes later the rats were challenged via the CVC with 1.0 x 10(6) CFU of S. aureus strain Smith diffuse. Administration of antibiotics into the CVC (the antibiotic lock technique) began 24 h later. The study included: one control group (no CVC infection), one contaminated group that did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis, one contaminated group that received citropin 1.1-treated CVC, two contaminated groups that received citropin 1.1-treated CVC plus rifampin and minocycline at concentrations equal to MBCs for adherent cells and 1024 microg/mL in a volume of 0.1 mL that filled the CVC and two contaminated groups that received rifampin or minocycline at the same concentrations. All catheters were explanted 7 days after implantation. Main outcome measures were: minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC), minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC), synergy studies, quantitative culture of the biofilm formed on the catheters and surrounding venous tissues, and quantitative peripheral blood cultures. MICs of conventional antibiotics against the bacteria in a biofilm were at least four-fold higher than against the freely growing planktonic cells. In contrast, when antibiotics were used on citropin 1.1 pre-treated cells they showed comparable activity against both biofilm and planktonic organisms. The in vivo studies show that when CVCs were pre-treated with citropin 1.1 or with a high dose of antibiotics, biofilm bacterial load was reduced from 10(7) to 10(3) CFU/mL and bacteremia reduced from 10(3) to 10(1) CFU/mL. When CVCs were treated both with citropin 1.1 and antibiotics, biofilm bacterial load was further reduced to 10(1) CFU/mL and bacteremia was not detected, suggesting 100% elimination of bacteremia and a log 6 reduction in biofilm load. Citropin 1.1 significantly reduces bacterial load and enhances the effect of hydrophobic antibiotics in the treatment of CVC-associated S. aureus infections.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:monthJunlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:issn0196-9781lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:CirioniOscarOlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:GiacomettiAnd...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:GhiselliRober...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MocchegianiFe...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:OrlandoFioren...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SabaVittorioVlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ScaliseGiorgi...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KamyszWojciec...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:LukasiakJerzy...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SilvestriCarm...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:LicciAlbertoAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ChiodiLeonard...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:volume27lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:pagination1210-6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:16289474...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:year2006lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:articleTitleCitropin 1.1-treated central venous catheters improve the efficacy of hydrophobic antibiotics in the treatment of experimental staphylococcal catheter-related infection.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:affiliationInstitute of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:16289474pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tlld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:16289474lld:pubmed