论文部分内容阅读
普遍相信氯霉素肌注后的吸收不佳,这一看法很大程度上是基于Dupont等在一组成人研究结果的报告,该氏发现口服氯霉素后的血浆氯霉素浓度接近肌注琥珀酸钠氯霉素(Chloramphenicol Sodium Succinate)后的两倍。然而这仅是13例肌注组与4例口服组的比较。况且,口服氯霉素后的血浆浓度也较静滴琥珀酸钠氯霉素者为高,因此就不能下这样的结论,即仅仅因为口服后较肌注后的血浆浓度高就认为静滴法优于肌注法。Glakzo等发现,不论是肌注还是
It is generally believed that poor absorption following chloramphenicol intramuscular injection is largely based on a report by Dupont et al. In a set of adult studies that found that the concentration of plasma chloramphenicol after oral chloramphenicol was nearly intramuscular Twice as long as Chloramphenicol Sodium Succinate. However, this is only a comparison of 13 cases of intramuscular injection with 4 cases of oral administration. Moreover, the oral plasma concentration of chloramphenicol is also higher than intravenous sodium chloramphenicol succinate, so we can not under the conclusion that only because after oral administration of plasma concentration after intramuscular injection of intravenous infusion method that Better than intramuscular injection. Glakzo found that, whether intramuscular or