English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The effectiveness of cefazolin in Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis has been questioned because of in vitro inactivation by staphylococcal beta-lactamase. Cefazolin, although inactivated in vitro by S. aureus beta-lactamase, was as effective as cephalothin in the treatment of left-sided S. aureus endocarditis in rabbits. Cefazolin (20 mg/kg every 6 or 8 h), cephalothin (40 mg/kg every 6 h), and methicillin (40 mg/kg every 6 h), administered intramuscularly, were compared in the treatment of left-sided endocarditis caused in rabbits by a highly penicillin-resistant strain of S. aureus. The three antibiotics were all effective in reducing titers in vegetations. However, at the dose used, methicillin reduced the titers more rapidly than cephalothin or cefazolin. Cefazolin concentrations in serum were about double those achieved with cephalothin or methicillin. However, cefazolin was only half as active as methicillin and one-eighth as active as cephalothin in vitro in a serum assay. The half life in serum of cefazolin, cephalothin, and methicillin were each about 30 min. Serum bactericidal activities of the three antibiotics were very similar.

Treatment of Experimental Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis: Comparison of Cephalothin, Cefazolin, and Methicillin