Antibiotic–Heparin Lock: In Vitro Confirmation of Antibacterial Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: To determine whether high concentrations of antibiotic “locked” into a central venous catheter with heparin would retain sufficient antimicrobial activity to inhibit the growth of organisms commonly causing catheter-related infections in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Methods: Cefazolin, vancomycin, ceftazidime (all at final concentrations of 10 mg/mL), and gentamicin (final concentration 5 mg/mL) were “locked” separately with heparin sodium (final concentration 5000 IU/mL) in central venous catheters. The catheters were incubated for 72 h at 37°C in a dark incubator. The solutions were then drained from the catheters and used for microbiological testing against organisms commonly causing catheter-related infections. Results: In all cases, the antibiotic–heparin solutions drained from central venous catheters after 72 h at 37°C produced zones of inhibition that were not different from those produced by antibiotic controls (at 5 mg/mL). Conclusions: Each of cefazolin, vancomycin, ceftazidime, and gentamicin locked into central venous catheters with heparin sodium had the ability to inhibit the growth of microorganisms commonly causing catheter-related infections and should be suitable for use in an antibiotic–heparin lock for further in vitro and prospective clinical trials. RESUME Objectif : Determiner si l’usage de fortes concentrations d’antibiotiques avec de l’heparine, comme «barriere» dans un catheter veineux central, pourraient maintenir une activite antimicrobienne suffisante pour inhiber la croissance des microorganismes qui sont la cause frequente d’infections liees au catheter chez les patients hemodialyses. Methode : De la cefazoline, de la vancomycine, de la ceftazidime (toutes aux concentrations finales de 10 mg/mL), ou de la gentamicine (a la concentration finale de 5 mg/mL) a ete injectee avec de l’heparine sodique (concentration finale de 5000 UI/mL) comme barriere antimicrobienne des catheters veineux centraux. Les catheters ont ensuite ete incubes a la noirceur pendant 72 heures a 37 °C. Chacune des solutions injectees dans les catheters a ete par la suite evacuee et soumise a une epreuve antimicrobienne a l’egard des microorganismes qui sont la cause frequente d’infections dues aux catheters. Resultats : Dans tous les cas, les solutions antibiotique–heparine evacuees des catheters veineux centraux apres incubation de 72 heures a 37 °C ont produit des zones d’inhibition qui n’etaient pas differentes de celles produites par les antibiotiques temoins positifs (a 5 mg/mL). Conclusions : La cefazoline, la vancomycine, la ceftazidime et la gentamicine injectees avec de l’heparine sodique pour servir de barriere antimicrobienne aux catheters veineux centraux avaient toutes la capacite d’inhiber la croissance des microorganismes qui causent les infections liees au catheter. Par consequent, leur usage dans un systeme de barriere antibiotique–heparine devrait bien se preter a des etudes in vitro et a des etudes cliniques prospectives plus poussees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".