Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 70625

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri

"The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) has been in operation since almost a decade. It has contributed a huge number of peer reviewed articles, across a spectrum of medical disciplines, to the medical literature.
Its wide based indexing and open access publications attracts many authors as well as readers
For authors, the manuscripts can be uploaded online through an easily navigable portal, on other hand, reviewers appreciate the systematic handling of all manuscripts. The way JCDR has emerged as an effective medium for publishing wide array of observations in Indian context, I wish the editorial team success in their endeavour"



Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri
Faculty, Pediatric Medicine
Super Speciality Paediatric Hospital and Post Graduate Teaching Institute, Noida
On Sep 2018




Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
Knowledge is treasure of a wise man. The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help ones reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsNo manuscriptsNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2010 | Month : June | Volume : 4 | Issue : 3 | Page : 2410 - 2415

Study of Tissue and the Plasma Concentrations of Cefotaxime to Assess Its Suitability for Prophylaxis in Cholecystectomy

SHANMUGAM S *, ACHARYA L D **, MALLAYASAMY S R , RAO A , KHAN SA ,RAJAKANNAN T

*,**,***,*****,******M.Pharm Department of Pharmacy practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal. **** (MBBS),(MS)Department of Surgery, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal.

Correspondence Address :
Surulivel Rajan.M.Senior Lecturer, Department of Pharmacy practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences,Manipal – 576 104,Karnataka,(India)Telephone: +91-820 -2922403
Fax: +91-820-2571998,Email: msvragavrajan@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: Cholecystectomy is one of the frequent causes for abdominal surgery. It is generally thought that the antibiotic concentration used should be four to six times than the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to be effective, when it is used as prophylaxis. Cefotaxime is a commonly prescribed agent for surgical prophylaxis.
Aim: The aim of this study was to measure the gall bladder tissue and the plasma concentrations of cefotaxime in cholecystectomy and to assess its suitability as a prophylactic agent.
Methodology: 24 patients who were undergoing Cholecystectomy were enrolled to collect plasma and gall bladder tissue samples. Cefotaxime levels in the Gall bladder tissue and plasma samples were estimated. These concentrations were compared against the Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of commonly isolated organisms from surgical wound samples.
Results and Discussion: Plasma concentrations to MIC ratios were calculated which were in the range of 10 to 21 times higher than MIC. Tissue drug concentrations to MICs ratios were also calculated and were found to be smaller. This indicated that the concentration of the drug in the tissues was less than the MIC during the sampling time. This situation of lesser tissue concentration of the drug might result in drug failure and subsequent infection if contamination occurs during surgery.
Conclusion: This study showed that even though cefotaxime remained at a microbicidal concentration in plasma, it was present in the tissues at ineffective concentrations with respect to MIC. These results showed that the practice of using cefotaxime as a prophylactic agent in cholecystectomy may be reconsidered.

Keywords

Cefotaxime, Tissue concentration, Plasma concentration

Introduction
Antibiotic prophylaxis plays an important role in surgery. The goal of prophylactic antibiotic therapy is to prevent surgical site infections in high-risk patients or procedures (1). The choice of the prophylactic antibiotic depends on the type of surgery, patient risk factors, most frequent pathogens seen with this procedure, the safety and efficacy profile of the anti microbial agent, current literature evidence to support its use, cost and also institutional antimicrobial resistance patterns(2) . The occurrence of infection in postoperative wounds continues to be one of the serious complications from time immemorial. These infections occur in around 500,000 cases out of an estimated 27 million surgical procedures in the United States. Surgical site infections result in an extended period of hospitalization and increase health care costs significantly (3).

Surgical site infections are the second most frequent cause of nosocomial infections among hospitalized patients and the primary cause of nosocomial infection in surgical patients. The incidence of surgical site infections varies significantly between the western countries and the eastern countries 2%- 4% and 9-14% respectively (4), (5), (6). Cephalosporins are one of the most commonly prescribed agents for surgical prophylaxis because of their favourable pharmacokinetic profiles, low incidence of adverse effects and low costs (2). Among various type of surgeries, cholecystectomy is one of the frequent causes for abdominal surgeries, where cefotaxime; a third generation cephalosporin is widely used as prophylaxis. Some studies from the western countries showed that surgical site infection (SSI) rates with cholecystectomy are 12%-15% without prophylaxis and 3%-6% with prophylaxis. In India, it is 12% without prophylaxis and 4.5% with prophylaxis (7), (8),(9).

It is generally thought that the antibiotic concentration should be four to six times as that of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to be effective, when it is used as prophylaxis10. Additionally, the concentration of the antibiotic in the serum and the tissue is very important in case of surgery,it is the strongest predictor of postoperative surgical site infections and also, it is clear that the clinical effectiveness of an antibiotic depends on its penetration into the tissues (1). Cefotaxime follows time dependent killing, which means that its efficacy is closely related to the time during which its concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration (10). This study was planned to measure the plasma and gall bladder tissue concentrations of cefotaxime in case of cholecystectomy surgery to study its suitability as a surgical prophylactic agent.

Material and Methods

Methodology
Patients and Samples
This study was conducted at the Department of General Surgery of Kasturba hospital, Manipal which is a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India. This was a prospective study carried out over eight months from September 2006 to April 2007. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee. Patients who were posted for cholecystectomy and who were receiving cefotaxime injection as IV prophylaxis were included in the study. Other inclusion criteria were ages above 18 years old and willingness to participate in the study. Patients who were posted for Cholecystectomy but are receiving any other antibiotics along with cefotaxime were excluded from the study. Patients with renal and hepatic complications were also excluded from the study.

Sample collection
During surgery, an investigator was present along with the surgical team. The investigator documented the time of prophylactic administration of cefotaxime and the surgical removal of the gall bladder tissue. The investigator also collected blood samples at the same time, along with the tissue samples, with the help of surgeons. The blood samples were collected in containers which were coated with EDTA, so as to separate plasma. The time for all sample collections was recorded. The collected tissue samples were immediately washed thoroughly with saline to remove blood and water was removed by wiping with dry tissue paper. These were packed in a container with ice packs and were then transported immediately to the lab for storage. The collected blood samples were processed immediately to separate plasma and were stored along with the tissue samples in a deep freezer (- 70 0 C) till analysis. The tissue samples were homogenized and centrifuged to extract tissue fluids before analysis.

Analysis of samples
An analytical method for the determination of cefotaxime in human plasma and gall bladder tissues was developed and validated using the High Performance Liquid chromatography (HPLC) technique. The protein precipitation method using acetonitrile was used to extract the drug from the plasma and the tissue matrix. Cefuroxime was used as an internal standard. A mixture of 10 mM Ammonium acetate buffer, pH 5.0 and Acetonitrile (88:12, v/v) was used as a mobile phase and was filtered before use through a 0.45 m membrane filter. The flow rate of the mobile phase was maintained at 1.0 ml/min. The detection wavelength was 236 nm, with a runtime of 15 minutes and the injection volume was 100 µL. The developed and the validated method waslinear over the range of 1- 87µg/mL. The lowest concentration which could be quantified by this method was 1µg/mL. The developed method was specific, selective, accurate, precise and stable as per standard validation criteria (11).

Microbial Assays
The data on commonly prevailing organisms in surgical infections were collected. This data was collected from the culture reports of samples (wound swabs) which were sent from the department of surgery to the department of microbiology for a period of three months. The organisms which were cultured from the swab samples were archived in the microbiology department. At the end of the three months, all the cultured organisms were collected and revived and the Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MIC) for cefotaxime was determined using the agar plate method. The MIC was measured as the lowest concentration of the cefotaxime that completely inhibited visible growth as judged by the naked eye, disregarding a single colony or a thin haze within the area of the inoculated spot. Finally, the MICs of the various organisms were estimated. Ratios like plasma and tissue concentrations to MIC were calculated to find out the anti-microbial efficacy of cefotaxime against the prevalent organisms of surgical infections.

Results

Patient data
During the study period, 253 patients underwent Cholecystectomy, out of which 24 patients were enrolled in the study. Gall bladder tissue and blood samples were collected from the recruited patients. All 24 patients underwent the laparoscopic Cholecystectomy procedure. 14 study subjects were males and 10 of them were females. The demographic data and clinical conditions of the patients are presented in (Table/Fig 1).

Time of Tissue and Blood Collection
The usual length of the Cholecystectomy surgery ranged from 1-3 hours. Since the antimicrobial action is time dependent for cefotaxime, time was considered as an important factor which affected the concentration of the drug in the blood as well as in the gall bladder tissues. Depending upon the length of surgery, the time of blood and tissue sampling varied from less than half an hour to more than three hours. The mean time of blood collection was 105.67 ± 54 minutes and the mean time of tissue removal was 97.6 ± 53.8 minutes. Various intervals of sample collection are represented in (Table/Fig 2).


Plasma and Tissue Concentrations of Cefotaxime
The mean plasma cefotaxime concentration which was observed was 126.9±29.2μg/mL, with a range of 92.5 to 171.5μg/mL. The mean tissue concentration observed was 3.5±1.4μg/mL, with a range of 1.32 to 7.23μg/mL.

Correlation of Time with Plasma and Tissue Drug Concentration
The correlation between time and plasma concentrations was studied and it was found that there was a negative linear correlation with a Pearson correlation coefficient of r2 = -0.8322 (95% CI=-0.9269 to -0.6380)], which is shown in (Table/Fig 3) .This showed that the rate of decline in plasma concentrations corresponded well with the passage of time. No such correlation was found between the time of tissue removal and the tissue concentration of the drug.


Microbial Assays
The wound samples collected from the surgery department were cultured and the organisms were isolated. Totally, 9 common organisms were isolated from the swab samples and their MICs were determined. The organisms were considered to be susceptible to cefotaxime if the MIC was 16µg/mL or less, as moderately susceptible if the MIC was greater than 16µg/mL but less than 64µg/mL. The organisms are considered to be resistant if the MIC was 64µg/mL or more (12). The sensitivity and MIC of the isolated organisms are shown in (Table/Fig 4) .


Plasma and Tissue Concentrations to MIC Ratios
The plasma and tissue concentration to MIC ratio was calculated since this ratio is considered as one of the sensitive indices to find out the effectiveness of an antibiotic. The mean plasma concentration to MIC ratio was 15.85.The tissue concentration to MIC ratio was very small when compared to the plasma concentration to MIC ratio. The results are shown in (Table/Fig 5) .

Discussion

This study was conducted with an aim to assess the suitability of cefotaxime as a prophylactic agent in Cholecystectomy surgery, considering its pharmacokinetic property, tissue penetration and plasma concentration. For collecting gallbladder tissues and blood, the time of administration of the prophylactic dose was considered as the zero point to calculate other timings. The mean time of tissue removal was found to be 97.6 minutes, whereas the mean time of blood collection was found to be 105.6 minutes. During the study, it was observed that the duration of surgery ranged from one to three hours. It is generally advisable to use an antibiotic which has a longer half life than the length of the time of surgery (9). In the present study, cefotaxime which has a half life of 80-100 minutes was administered as a prophylactic agent. Cholecystectomy took variable time periods, in many instances more than the half life of cefotaxime. The mean time of blood and tissue collection in this study was more than the half life of the drug itself and as a result, at the time of sample collection itself, half of the drug might have been eliminated from the system.

The time of tissue and blood collection was kept as close as possible so as to understand the drug concentrations at both the sites at a particular time. The negative correlation between time and plasma concentrations showed that the drug concentrations in plasma reduced linearly with the passage of time. Hence, time had to be taken as an important parameter in order to decide the regimen of the prophylaxis. There was no correlation between tissue concentrations and time, since many of the tissue values were too low and highly variable. Since the tissue concentrations were at the lower end limit of the detection of our assay method, small variations in concentrations might have been missed and thereby, finding the correlation at this range was difficult.

The plasma concentration gives an idea about the quantum of the drug available in the circulation and also, it is the most dynamic parameter which changes with various other parameters like the distribution of the drug, plasma protein binding, clearance rate, etc. Cefotaxime has a protein binding of around 40%. This makes a reasonable quantity of the drug to be retained by plasma and the plasma concentration will be maintained as compared to other sites. For antibiotics with higher protein binding, it was proposed to give higher doses so as to reach tissues at higher concentrations (4). Tissue concentrations were found to be lower in case of gall bladder tissues in the present study and this aspect had to be considered while choosing cefotaxime as a prophylactic antibiotic in gall bladder surgery, since the penetration of the drug was found to be inadequate.

The ratio of tissue to plasma drug concentration was too small in many patients. The traditional way of using the volume of distribution assumed homogenous distribution between the organs and blood.(1) But many studies including the present study showed uneven distribution of the drug between blood and the studied tissue. In the present study, when the correlation between plasma and the tissues was assessed, it was found that there was no significant correlation [Spearman r = 0.3997 (95% CI= -0.03979 to 0.7096)].

A total of nine organisms were isolated by the microbiology study. The organisms which were covered by cefotaxime only, were taken into consideration. Out of nine organisms, six were found to be sensitive to cefotaxime, with minimum inhibitory concentrations of 8μg/ml. One organism was moderately susceptible and two organisms were resistant.

Regarding pharmacokinetic parameters, it has been demonstrated that the breakpoint for the increased probability of successful antimicrobial efficacy is a peak/MIC ratio which is >4 in case of beta lactams and vancomycin and >10 in case of fluroquinolones (13), (14). It was difficult to estimate the peak concentration in patients and so, it was decided to take the available plasma concentrations at the time of incision, to compare with MICs. The plasma concentrations to MIC ratios were calculated, which were in the range of 10 to 21 times higher than MIC. Tissue drug concentrations to MICs ratios were also calculated and were found to be smaller. This indicates that the concentration of the drug in the tissues was less than the MIC during sampling time. This situation of lesser tissue concentration of the drug might result in drug failure and subsequent infection if contamination occurs during surgery.

Previously reported studies have suggested that when cefotaxime was administered up to one hour before surgery, there was a reduction in the rate of infections by threefold. So, a prophylactic dose of cefotaxime was administered one hour before a surgical procedure (15) ,(16). If the length of surgery exceeded two hours, it was also advised to give a second dose of cefotaxime, since it has shorter half life. Such a practice was not observed in the current study. Irrespective of the length of surgery, a second dose was given after the patient was shifted to the post surgical wards. Moreover, cephalosporins are classified as agents which have time dependent killing and therefore, the goal of therapy should be to maintain the levels of drug concentrations above MIC, as far as possible during the peri-operative period and in case of subsequent dose during surgery (17). In this context, the prophylactic use of cefotaxime for cholecystectomy may be reconsidered, owing to less tissue penetration and shorter half life.

Conclusion

Cholecystectomy surgery, in many instances, was longer than the half life of cefotaxime and this fact needs to be considered while choosing a prophylactic agent for this surgery. This study showed that cefotaxime, even though it remained at a microbicidal concentration in plasma, was present in tissues at ineffective concentrations with respect to MIC. These results showed that the practice of using cefotaxime as a prophylactic agent in cholecystectomy may be reconsidered.

References

1.
Nix DE, Goodwin SD, Peloquin CA, Rotella DL, Schentag J J. Antibiotic tissue penetration and its relevance; models of tissue penetration and their meaning. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991; 35:1947-52.
2.
Kanji S, Devlin JW. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. In: Dipiro, JT., Talbert, R.L, Yee, G.C., Matzke, G.R., Wells, B.G., Posey, L.M.,(Eds) Pharmacotherapy – A Pathophysiologic approach, 6th ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill.2005: pp .2217-29.
3.
Ronald Lee Nichols. Preventing Surgical Site Infections: A Surgeon’s Perspective. Emerg Infect Dis 2001; 7(2): 220-24
4.
Nguyen D, McLeod, WB, Phung DC. Incidence and predictors of surgical site infections in Vietnam. Infec control hosp epidemiology 2001; 22: 485-92.
5.
Sohn AH, Parvez FM, Vu T. Prevalence of surgical site infections and patterns of antimicrobial use in a large tertiary care hospital in the hochi minh city, Vietnam. Infec Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23: 382-87.
6.
Khan SA, Rao. PGM, Rao A, Rodrigues G. Survey and evaluation of antibiotic prophylactic usage in surgery wards of tertiary level institution before and after the implementation of clinical guidelines. Indian J Surg 2006; 68: 150-56.
7.
Dev AK, Paul S. Wound infection following cholecystectomy. Indian J Surg 1993; 55: 265 –69.
8.
Chandrasekhar C, Seenu V, Misra MC, Rattan A, Kapur BM, Singh R. Risk factors for wound infection following elective cholecystectomy.Trop Gastroenterol 1996;17: 230-32.
9.
Swoboda S, Oberdorfer K, Klee F, Hoppe-Tichy T, Baum HV, Geiss HK. Tissue and serum concentrations of levofloxacin 500 mg administered intravenously or orally for antibiotic prophylaxis in biliary surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51: 459–62.
10.
Mehrotra R, Gaudio RD, Palazzo M. Antibiotic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in critical illness. Intensive care med 2004; 30:2145-56.
11.
Guidance for industry, Bioanalytical Method Validation [Internet]. Bethesda [MD]: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, (US); May 2001[cited 26/12/09]. [about 25 screens]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070107.pdf
12.
Cefotaxime drug profile. Thompson Micromedex-Drug Dex ®, 2008, Washington, USA.
13.
Nishida M, Murakawa T, Kamimura T. Bactericidal activity of cephalosporins in an in-vitro model simulating serum levels. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978;14:6-12.
14.
Drusano GI, Johnson DE, Rosen M. Pharmacodynamics of a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37:483-90.
15.
Wise R, Baker S, Livingstone R. Comparison of cefotaxime and moxalactum pharmacokinetics and tissue levels. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 18:369-71.
16.
Wittmann DH, Sshassan HH, Welter J, Seidel H. Verfugbarkeit von cefotaxime. Munch Med Wschr 1980; 122:637-41.
17.
Nicolau DP, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH. Antibiotic kinetics and dynamics for the clinician. Phil J Microbiol Infect Dis 1996; 25(1):25-34.

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com