Postantibiotic and bactericidal effect of imipenem againstPseudomonas aeruginosa

  • I. Odenholt
  • B. Isaksson
  • L. Nilsson
  • O. Cars


The postantibiotic effect of imipenem onPseudomonas aeruginosa was studied at different inocula using one ATCC strain and four clinical isolates. The postantibiotic effect was measured using two different methods: viable counts and bioluminescence assay of intracellular bacterial ATP. The postantibiotic effect could be demonstrated with both methods (viable counts 1–2 h, ATP assay 3–5 h) for all strains at an inoculum of 106 CFU/ml. When the inoculum was raised to 108 CFU/ml, no postantibiotic effect could be observed with either method using routine growth conditions. This disappearance of the postantibiotic effect coincided with a loss of bactericidal effect of imipenem when high inocula were used. Improved oxygenation of the cultures restored the bactericidal and postantibiotic effects of imipenem at high inocula.


Internal Medicine Growth Condition Clinical Isolate Imipenem Bactericidal Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bigger, J. W.: The bactericidal action of penicillin onStaphylococcus pyogenes. Irish Journal of Medical Science 1946, 227: 553–568.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parker, R. F., Luse, S.: The action of penicillin on staphylococcus: further observations on the effect of a short exposure. Journal of Bacteriology 1948, 56: 75–81.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eagle, H.: The recovery of bacteria from the toxic effects of penicillin. Journal of Clinical Investigation 1949, 28: 832–836.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mc Donald, P. J., Craig, W. A., Kunin, C. M.: Persistent effect of antibiotics onStaphylococcus aureus after exposure for limited periods of time. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1977, 135: 217–223.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson, D. A., Rolinson, G. N.: The recovery following exposure of bacteria to penicillin. Chemotherapy 1979, 25: 14–22.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bundtzen, R. W., Gerber, A. U., Cohn, D. L., Craig, W. A.: Postantibiotic suppression of bacterial growth. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1981, 3: 28–37.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerber, A. U., Craig, W. A.: Growth kinetics of respiratory pathogens after short exposures to ampicillin and erythromycin in vitro. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1981, 8: 81–91.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vogelman, B. S., Craig, W. A.: Postantibiotic effects. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1985, 15, Supplement A: 37–46.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Craig, W. A., Gudmundsson, S.: The postantibiotic effect. In: Lorian, V. (ed.): Antibiotics in laboratory medicine. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1986, p. 515–536.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerber, A. U., Craig, W. A., Brugger, H. P., Feller, C., Vastila, A. P., Brandel, J.: Impact of dosing intervals on activity of gentamicin and ticarcillin againstPseudomonas aeruginosa in granulocytopenic mice. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1983, 147: 910–917.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerber, A. U., Feller-Seessenmann, C.: In vivo assessment of in vitro killing patterns ofPseudomonas aeruginosa. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1985, 15, Supplement A: 201–206.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Odenholt, I., Holm, S. E., Cars, O.: An in vivo model for evaluation of the postantibiotic effect. Scandinavian Journal of Inectious Diseases 1988, 20: 97–103.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mc Donald, P. J., Hakendorf, P., Pruul, H.: Recovery period of bacteria after brief exposure to N-formimidoylthienamycin and other antibiotics. In: Periti, P., Grassi, G. G. (ed.): Current chemotherapy and immunotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, 1981, p. 741–743.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bustamente, C. I., Drusano, G. L., Tatem, B. A., Standiford, H. C.: Postantibiotic effect of imipenem onPseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1984, 5: 678–682.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gudmundsson, S., Vogelman, B., Craig, W. A.: The in vivo postantibiotic effect of imipenem and other new antimicrobials. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1986, 18, Supplement E: 67–73.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manek, N., Andrews, J. M., Wise, R.: The postantibiotic effect of imipenem. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1986, 18: 641.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Molin, Ö., Nilsson, L., Ånsehn, S.: Rapid detection of bacterial growth in blood cultures by bioluminescent assay of bacterial ATP. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1983, 18: 521–525.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cars, O., Henning, C., Holm, S. E.: Penetration of ampicillin and dicloxacillin into tissue cage fluid in rabbits. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1981, 13: 69–74.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spratt, B. G., Tolanputra, V., Zimmerman, W.: Binding of thienamycin and clavulanic acid to penicillin-binding proteins ofEscherichia coli K-12. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1977, 12: 406–409.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kropp, H., Gerchens, L., Sundelof, J. G., Kahan, F. M.: Antibacterial activity of imipenem. The first thienamycin antibiotic. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1985, 7, Supplement 3: 389–410.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tuomanen, E.: The search forβ-lactam antibiotics that kill nongrowing bacteria. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1986, 8, Supplement 3: 279–291.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vogelman, B., Gudmundsson, S., Turnidge, J., Leggett, J., Craig, W. A.: In vivo postantibiotic effect. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1988, 157: 287–298.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mattie, H.: Kinetics of antimicrobial action. Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 1981, 1: 19–27.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eagle, H., Musselman, A. D.: The slow recovery of bacteria from the toxic effects of penicillin. Journal of Bacteriology 1949, 58: 475–490.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Freeman, B. A.: Pseudomonas and legionella. In: Freeman, B. A. (ed.): Textbook of microbiology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 544–551.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luria, S. E.: A test for penicillin sensitivity and resistance inStaphylococcus. Proceedings in Sociology and Experimental Biology 1946, 61: 46–51.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sabath, L. D., Garner, C., Wilcox, C., Finland, M.: Effect of inoculum and ofβ-lactamase on the anti-staphylococcal activity of thirteen penicillins and cephalosporins. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1975, 8: 344–349.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gwynn, M. N., Rolinson, G. N.: Selection of variants ofPseudomonas aeruginosa resistent toβ-lactam antibiotics. Infection 1980, 8: 73–80.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greenwood, D., Eley, A.: A turbidity study of the response of select strains ofPseudomonas aeruginosa to eight anti-pseudomonasβ-lactam antibiotics. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1980, 145: 110–117.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Corrado, M. L., Landesman, S. H., Cherubin, C. E.: Influence of inoculum size on activity of cefoperazone, cefotaxime, moxalactam, piperacillin and N-formimidoyl thienamycin (MK 0787) againstPseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1980, 18: 893–896.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Watanakunakorn, C.: Effects of inoculum size on the activity of carboxy- and ureido-penicillins and effects of combinations of ureido-penicillins with amino-glycosides against resistentPseudomonas aeruginosa. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1986, 17: 91–95.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eng, R. H. K., Smith, S. M., Cherubin, C. E.: Inoculum effect of newβ-lactam antibiotics onPseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1984, 26: 42–47.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neu, H. C., Labthavikul, P.: Comparative in vitro activity of N-formimidoyl thienamycin against gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic species and itsβ-lactamase stability. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1982, 21: 180–187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Odenholt
    • 1
  • B. Isaksson
    • 2
  • L. Nilsson
    • 2
  • O. Cars
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Infectious Diseases and Department of Clinical Bacteriology, Akademiska sjukhusetUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Clinical BacteriologyLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations