Petersen S W, Rosin E
School of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706, USA.
Vet Surg. 1995 Jul-Aug;24(4):347-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.1995.tb01341.x.
The periods of time that cephalothin and cefazolin serum concentration remained above minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for beta hemolytic, coagulase positive staphylococcal, and Escherichia coli clinical isolates were compared. Cephalothin and cefazolin were similarly very effective in vitro against staphylococcal isolates, with an MIC90 of 0.12 microgram/mL and 0.25 microgram/mL, respectively. In contrast, cefazolin was more effective than cephalothin against E coli isolates; the cefazolin MIC90 for E coli was 16 micrograms/mL and for cephalothin 64 micrograms/mL. Cefazolin (20 mg/kg intravenously [i.v.]) serum concentration remained more than MIC90 for E coli isolates significantly longer than serum concentration of cephalothin (40 mg/kg i.v.) (P < .001).
比较了头孢噻吩和头孢唑林血清浓度对β溶血性、凝固酶阳性葡萄球菌及大肠杆菌临床分离株保持高于最低抑菌浓度（MIC）的时间段。头孢噻吩和头孢唑林在体外对葡萄球菌分离株同样非常有效，其MIC90分别为0.12微克/毫升和0.25微克/毫升。相比之下，头孢唑林对大肠杆菌分离株比头孢噻吩更有效；头孢唑林对大肠杆菌的MIC90为16微克/毫升，而头孢噻吩为64微克/毫升。静脉注射（i.v.）20毫克/千克的头孢唑林血清浓度保持高于大肠杆菌分离株MIC90的时间显著长于静脉注射40毫克/千克的头孢噻吩血清浓度（P <.001）。
