Cefamandole (Cephamandole)
(Synonyms: 头孢孟多; Cephamandole) 目录号 : GC32240
头孢孟多（Cephamandole）是第二代广谱头孢菌素抗生素。
Cas No.:34444-01-4
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >98.00%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
Cefamandole is a second-generation broad-spectrum cephalosporin antibiotic. As the antibiotic is broken down in the body, it releases free NMTT, which can cause hypoprothrombinemia.
| Cas No. | 34444-01-4 | SDF | |
| 别名 | 头孢孟多; Cephamandole | ||
| Canonical SMILES | O=C(C(N12)=C(CSC3=NN=NN3C)CS[C@]2([H])[C@H](NC([C@H](O)C4=CC=CC=C4)=O)C1=O)O | ||
| 分子式 | C18H18N6O5S2 | 分子量 | 462.5 |
| 溶解度 | Soluble in DMSO | 储存条件 | Store at -20°C |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 2.1622 mL | 10.8108 mL | 21.6216 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.4324 mL | 2.1622 mL | 4.3243 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.2162 mL | 1.0811 mL | 2.1622 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
Cefamandole and cefoxitin
Ann Intern Med 1985 Jul;103(1):70-8.PMID:3890658DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-103-1-70.
Cefamandole and cefoxitin, introduced only 7 years ago, are now the most commonly prescribed parenteral antibiotics in the United States. These drugs are similar to the first-generation cephalosporins in toxicity, but their in-vitro spectrum of activity is greater. Their serum half-lives are longer than those of cephalothin and cephapirin but shorter than that of cefazolin. Although Cefamandole has been recommended in empiric therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia and as a prophylactic agent for patients having various surgical procedures, other regimens are less expensive and just as effective. Cefamandole should not be used to treat intra-abdominal, enterobacter, or ampicillin-resistant Haemophilus influenzae infections. Cefoxitin is effective in the treatment and prevention of mixed aerobic-anaerobic skin and soft-tissue, intra-abdominal, gynecologic, and penicillinase-producing, spectinomycin-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections. Cefoxitin represents a greater advance than Cefamandole in our continuing search for safe and more effective antimicrobial agents.
Teicoplanin vs Cephamandole for antimicrobial prophylaxis in prosthetic joint implant surgery: (preliminary results)
Eur J Surg Suppl 1992;(567):19-21.PMID:1381636doi
Infection following prosthetic joint implant jeopardizes the prosthesis and may lead to long-term locomotor disability. Interoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis can reduce the incidence of infectious complications. The comparative safety and efficacy of single-dose teicoplanin and four doses of Cephamandole over a 24-hour period is currently being assessed in a single-blind, randomized concurrent study of patients who undergo first time hip or knee arthroplasty. Of 660 evaluated patients, 352 have received Cephamandole and 308 teicoplanin. Two patients in each group had a surgical wound infection at 1 week after surgery. Reassessment 30 days postoperatively showed resolution of the infection in both of the teicoplanin patients and in one of the Cephamandole patients. Proven or suspected infection involving other body systems occurred in 30 teicoplanin and 38 Cephamandole patients at 1 week postoperatively and in 5 teicoplanin and 3 Cephamandole patients 1 month after surgery. Adverse events occurred in 20 (5.1%) teicoplanin patients and 29 (7.1%) Cephamandole patients. These preliminary results suggest that single-dose teicoplanin is a safe and effective prophylactic agent in prosthetic joint implant surgery.
Stability and compatibility studies of Cephamandole nafate with PVC infusion bags
J Pharm Biomed Anal 1994 Jan;12(1):99-104.PMID:8161612DOI:10.1016/0731-7085(94)80016-2.
A rapid isocratic technique was developed for the analysis of Cephamandole nafate and Cephamandole in parenteral solutions using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with UV detection and C18 column. The availability and compatibility of drugs from solutions infused via plastic infusion bags through plastic administration sets have been examined. No significant drugs loss was observed during simulated infusions (n = 4) for 1 h using PVC infusion bags and administration sets. No significant difference was found between infusion solutions (5% glucose or 0.9% NaCl). The stability of drugs was also studied in solution in PVC bags after storage at room temperature and at 4 degrees C without protection from light. The results show the stability of Cephamandole nafate during 24 h at room temperature and 7 days storage at 4 degrees C to be satisfactory, irrespective of the infusion solution (5% glucose or 0.9% NaCl). However, an almost immediate and total transformation of Cephamandole nafate to Cephamandole in 5% glucose has been observed, whereas in 0.9% NaCl both forms were found in similar proportions.
A comparison of the penetration of cefuroxime and Cephamandole into bone, fat and haematoma fluid in patients undergoing total hip replacement
J Antimicrob Chemother 1997 Jul;40(1):99-104.PMID:9249210DOI:10.1093/jac/40.1.99.
Twelve patients undergoing total hip anthroplasty received, at the induction of anaesthesia, Cephamandole (1 g) and cefuroxime (1.5 g); further doses of Cephamandole (1 g) and cefuroxime (750 mg) were given at 8 and 16 h after the operation. Routine total hip arthroplasty was performed and at timed intervals during operation samples of bone, fat and blood were collected for assay for HPLC analysis. Samples of the haematoma fluid that formed around the operation site and further blood samples were also collected at 7 and 15 h after the operation. Although considerable variation was observed in the bone and fat concentrations of both agents, the cefuroxime levels were substantially higher than those of Cephamandole, with mean values for bone of cefuroxime 36.0 mg/L (95% CI 29.0-43.0 mg/L) and Cephamandole 18.3 mg/L (95% CI 14.2-22.4 mg/L) and for fat of cefuroxime 15.0 mg/L (95% CI 11.1-18.9 mg/L) and Cephamandole 11.2 mg/L (95% CI 7.2-15.2 mg/L). When corrected for blood concentrations the penetration of both agents was similar (bone, 43.6% cefuroxime and 37.8% Cephamandole; fat, 16.0% cefuroxime and 19.2% Cephamandole). Cefuroxime concentrations in haematoma drain fluid were higher than those of Cephamandole 6-8 h after the operation (17.8 versus 8.3 mg/L) but lower at 14-16 h (7.7 versus 9.6 mg/L). We conclude that there are no significant differences between the bone, fat or haematoma penetration of cefuroxime and Cephamandole and that any differences in the absolute levels of the two agents are due to differences in the total drug administered rather than their ability to penetrate into these sites. Time-kill curves for cefuroxime and Cephamandole against five clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus failed to identify any significant differences between the rates of kill for the two agents at the concentrations seen in bone, fat or haematoma fluid. For both prophylaxis regimens antibiotic concentrations exceeded the MICs for potential pathogens for the duration of the operation and also in the haematoma which surrounds the operation site for up to 24 h after the operation.
Comparative evaluation of cefotaxime and Cephamandole in the prevention of post-operative infective complications following emergency abdominal surgery
Br J Clin Pract 1990 Jan;44(1):17-21.PMID:2180462doi
In previous published work we described 57 patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, prospectively randomised to receive either cefotaxime or Cephamandole as a single-antibiotic, three-dose, peri-operative prophylaxis against post-operative infective complications. This earlier work suggested that cefotaxime might be more effective than Cephamandole in preventing wound sepsis in emergency abdominal surgery. We describe here our findings in a further 63 patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery who were similarly allocated into either a cefotaxime or Cephamandole antibiotic group. Infective complications occurred in 12/32 (37 per cent) of the cefotaxime group and 15/31 (48 per cent) of the Cephamandole group. Wound infections occurred in 5/32 (16 per cent) of the cefotaxime group and 9/31 (29 per cent) of the Cephamandole group. The organisms cultured and their sensitivities are discussed in detail. The total of 120 patients studied in the two series showed wound infection to occur in 13 per cent of the 62 patients receiving cefotaxime and 30 per cent of the 58 patients receiving Cephamandole. This difference reaches statistical significance (p less than 0.05). Possible mechanisms to explain this finding are discussed. Again we found the regime of 4 g of cefotaxime given peri-operatively to be a simple, safe and effective single agent as prophylaxis for emergency abdominal surgery.