Linezolid alone and in combination with rifampicin prevents experimental vascular graft infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis.

BACKGROUND: In this report we describe the in vivo antibacterial activity of linezolid in an experimental graft infection model in rats and compare it with teicoplanin. The objective of this study was also to determine the effects of the interaction of linezolid when it was combined with rifampicin and test this effect against strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Graft infections were established in the subcutaneous tissue of 130 Wistar rats by implantation of Dacron grafts followed by a topical inoculation with 2 x 10(7) CFU of clinical isolates of MRSA and MRSE. The study included a control group and six groups for each of the staphylococcal strains: an inoculated group that did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis, two inoculated groups that received intraperitoneal prophylaxis with teicoplanin or linezolid alone, an inoculated group that received rifampicin-soaked grafts, and two inoculated groups that received a combination prophylaxis consisting of intraperitoneal teicoplanin or linezolid and rifampicin-soaked grafts. RESULTS: There was a reduction in the quantitative bacterial graft cultures in all prophylaxis groups when compared with inoculated control groups. There was not a statistically significant difference between linezolid and teicoplanin prophylaxis groups. The best results were obtained by a combination of rifampicin-soaked grafts with linezolid or teicoplanin. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to suggest that linezolid differs from teicoplanin regarding effectiveness in the prevention of prosthetic vascular graft infection. Linezolid plus rifampicin and teicoplanin plus rifampicin are demonstrated to be valuable prophylactic regimens

Linezolid Alone and in Combination with Rifampicin Prevents Experimental Vascular Graft Infection Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis

Background: In this report we describe the in vivo antibacterial activity of linezolid in an experimental graft infection model in rats and compare it with teicoplanin. The objective of this study was also to determine the effects of the interaction of linezolid when it was combined with rifampicin and test this effect against strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Materials and methods: Graft infections were established in the subcutaneous tissue of 130 Wistar rats by implantation of Dacron grafts followed by a topical inoculation with 2 × 107 CFU of clinical isolates of MRSA and MRSE. The study included a control group and six groups for each of the staphylococcal strains: an inoculated group that did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis, two inoculated groups that received intraperitoneal prophylaxis with teicoplanin or linezolid alone, an inoculated group that received rifampicin-soaked grafts, and two inoculated groups that received a combination prophylaxis consisting of intraperitoneal teicoplanin or linezolid and rifampicin-soaked grafts. Results: There was a reduction in the quantitative bacterial graft cultures in all prophylaxis groups when compared with inoculated control groups. There was not a statistically significant difference between linezolid and teicoplanin prophylaxis groups. The best results were obtained by a combination of rifampicin-soaked grafts with linezolid or teicoplanin. Conclusions: We found no evidence to suggest that linezolid differs from teicoplanin regarding effectiveness in the prevention of prosthetic vascular graft infection. Linezolid plus rifampicin and teicoplanin plus rifampicin are demonstrated to be valuable prophylactic regimens. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved