European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 543–549 | Cite as

Pharmacokinetics and tissue concentrations of ceftazidime in burn patients

  • R. A. Walstad
  • L. Aanderud
  • E. Thurmann-Nielsen


The pharmacokinetics and tissue concentrations of ceftazidime have been investigated in 8 patients with severe burns (20–80% of body surface area) undergoing skin transplantation 2 to 21 days after injury. Two prophylactic doses of ceftazidime were administered as 1 g i.v. bolus injections with an 8 h interval. Blood, urine, burn blister fluid and tissue were frequently sampled and drug concentrations were analyzed by HPLC. The kinetics of ceftazidime was the same after each dose.

In these patients the pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime was greatly altered from that in other patients and there was much interindividual variation. The mean ceftazidime elimination half-life, apparent volume of distribution and total clearance were: 2.7 h, 30.91 (0.38 l·kg−1) and 139 ml·min−1, respectively. A linear correlation was found between creatinine clearance and the renal clearance of the ceftazidime, the mean values being 108 and 95 ml·min−1, respectively. No correlation was found between creatinine clearance and the total clearance of ceftazidime. The mean percentage urine recovery was 69% of the dose. Tissue and burn blister fluid concentrations were above the MIC, and ranged from 40.0 to 3.1 mg·kg−1. A substantial increase in the apparent volume of distribution and non-renal clearance of ceftazidime was observed, probably due to increased capillary permeability and drug loss through the wound surface replacement of prior to surgery and subsequently to lost and blood fluid.

Key words

ceftazidime pharmacokinetics tissue concentrations burn patients 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alestig K, Trollfors B, Anderson R (1984) Ceftazidime and renal function. J Antimicrob Chemother 13: 177–181Google Scholar
  2. Arturson G (1980) Pathophysiology of the burn wound. Ann Chir Gynaecol 69: 178–190Google Scholar
  3. Ayrton J (1981) Assay of ceftazidime in biological fluids using high-pressure liquid chromatography. J Antimicrob Chemother 8 [Suppl B]: 227–331Google Scholar
  4. Baxter CR (1974) Fluid volume and electrolyte changes of the early postburn period. Clin Plast Surg 4: 693–708Google Scholar
  5. Brogard JM, Jehl F, Pâris-Bockel D, Blickle JF, Adloff M, Monteil H (1987) Biliary elimination of ceftazidime. J Antimicrob Chemother 19: 671–678Google Scholar
  6. Butler JK (1983) Microbiology, pharmacology and clinical activity of ceftazidime. Drugs Exp Clin Res 9: 9–17Google Scholar
  7. Cameron JS, Miller-Jones CMH (1967) Renal function and renal failure in badly burned children. Br J Surg 54: 132–141Google Scholar
  8. Cockroft DW, Gault MM (1976) Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 16: 31–41Google Scholar
  9. Eklund J, Granberg P-O, Liljedahl S-O (1970) Studies on renal function in burns. Act Chirurg Scand 136: 627–640Google Scholar
  10. Glew RH, Moellering RC Jr, Burke JF (1976) Gentamicin dosage in children with extensive burns. J Trauma 16: 819–823Google Scholar
  11. Harding SM, Ayrton J, Thornton JE, Munro AJ, Hogg MIJ (1981) Pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime in normal subjects. J Antimicrob Chemother 8 [Suppl B]: 261–262Google Scholar
  12. Jones RN, Barry AL, Thornsberry C, Gerlach EH, Fuchs PC, Gavan TL, Sommers HM (1981) Ceftazidime, a pseudomonasactive cephalosporin: In-vitro antimicrobial activity evaluation including recommendations for disc diffusion susceptibility tests. J Antimicrob Chemother 8 [Suppl B]: 187–211Google Scholar
  13. MacMillan BG (1971) Ecology of bacteria colonizing the burned patient given topical and systemic gentamicin therapy. A five-year study. J Infect Dis 124: 278–286Google Scholar
  14. Norrby SR, Burman LA, Linderholm H, Trollfors B (1982) Ceftazidime: pharmacokinetics in patients and effects on the renal function. J Antimicrob Chemother 10: 199–206Google Scholar
  15. Phillips I, Warren C, Shannon K, King A, Hanslo D (1981) Ceftazidime: In-vitro antibacterial activity and susceptibility to β-lactamases compared to that of cefotaxime, moxalactam and other β-lactam antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 8 [Suppl B]: 23–31Google Scholar
  16. Rowland M, Tozer TN (1980) Clinical pharmacokinetics. Concepts and applications. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 9–76Google Scholar
  17. Sawchuk RJ (1984) Drug absorption and disposition in burn patients. In: Bennet LZ, Massond N, Gambertoglio JG. (eds) Pharmacokinetic basis for drug treatment. Raven Press, New York, pp 333–348Google Scholar
  18. Walstad RA, Hellum KB, Svarva PL, Ingram Patricia M (1983a) The evaluation of ceftazidime in the treatment of bacterial infections in eighty seriously ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 8 [Suppl A]: 131–137Google Scholar
  19. Walstad RA, Hellum KB, Blika S, Dale LG, Fredriksen T, Myhre KI, Spencer GR (1983b) Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of ceftazidime: studies on lymph, aqueous humour, skin blister, cerebrospinal and pleural fluid. J Antimicrob Chemother 12 [Suppl A]: 275–282Google Scholar
  20. Walstad RA, Wiig JN, Thurmann-Nielsen E, Halvorsen TB (1986) Pharmacokinetics of ceftazime in patients with biliary tract disease. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 31: 327–331Google Scholar
  21. Walstad RA, Dahl K, Hellum KB, Thurmann-Nielsen E (1988) The pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime in patients with impaired renal function and concurrent frusemide therapy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 35: 273–279Google Scholar
  22. Zaske DE, Sawchuk RJ, Gerding DN, Strate RG (1976) Increased dosage requirements of gentamicin in burn patients. J Trauma 16: 824–828Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. A. Walstad
    • 1
  • L. Aanderud
    • 2
  • E. Thurmann-Nielsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and ToxicologyUniversity of TrondheimTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Dept. of AnaesthesiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations