Ability of Different Non-Antimicrobial Wound Dressings to Remove Bacteria from Surfaces Using in vitro Planktonic and Mature Biofilm Models

被引:0
作者
Meredith, Kate [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Jones, Alison Amanda [1 ]
Towers, Victoria Louise [1 ]
Metcalf, Daniel Gary
机构
[1] Convatec Ltd, Microbiol R&D, Deeside, Flintshire, Wales
[2] Convatec Ltd, Adv Wound Care R&D, Deeside, Flintshire, Wales
[3] Convatec Ltd, Microbiol R&D, GDC First Ave,Deeside Ind Pk, Deeside, Flintshire, Wales
来源
CHRONIC WOUND CARE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH | 2023年 / 10卷
关键词
antimicrobial stewardship; biofilms; microbial drug resistance; wound healing; wound infection; SEQUESTRATION;
D O I
10.2147/CWCMR.S421986
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Non-antimicrobial wound dressings can remove bacteria from wound surfaces through mechanisms such as binding and immobilization, which may contribute to antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: This study evaluated four different types of dressings (gauze, carboxymethylcellulose gelling fiber [CMC], dialkylcarbamoyl chloride [DACC] hydrophobic coated fibers, and polyurethane [PU] foam) for removal of planktonic bacteria (all dressings) and mature biofilm bacteria (CMC, DACC and PU foam dressings) in vitro. Total viable counts were performed after incubation for 2, 4 and 6 hours. Results: The percentage of CA-MRSA removed by CMC dressing was significantly (p<0.05) greater than all other dressings at all timepoints in the planktonic and biofilm models. A significantly greater percentage of planktonic ESBL P. aeruginosa was removed by CMC dressings than other test dressings with the exception of when compared to PU Foam at the 6-hour time point. Differences in the removal of ESBL P. aeruginosa biofilms between CMC dressings and other dressings were less pronounced, which is likely due to the nature of the biofilm formed. Conclusion: CMC dressings may play an effective role in reducing bioburden of acute and hard-to-heal wounds in a clinical setting.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 9
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Detection of differential gene expression in biofilm-forming versus planktonic populations of Staphylococcus aureus using micro-representational-difference analysis
    Becker, P
    Hufnagle, W
    Peters, G
    Herrmann, M
    [J]. APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2001, 67 (07) : 2958 - 2965
  • [2] Bowler P G, 1999, J Wound Care, V8, P499
  • [3] Bowler PG., 2016, Wound Medicine, V14, P6, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.WNDM.2016.05.005
  • [4] Chronic Wound Biofilms: Pathogenesis and Potential Therapies
    Clinton, Lie
    Carter, Tammy
    [J]. LABMEDICINE, 2015, 46 (04): : 277 - 284
  • [5] Binding of two bacterial biofilms to dialkyl carbamoyl chloride (DACC)-coated dressings in vitro
    Cooper, R.
    Jenkins, L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF WOUND CARE, 2016, 25 (02) : 76 - 82
  • [6] The biofilm matrix
    Flemming, Hans-Curt
    Wingender, Jost
    [J]. NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY, 2010, 8 (09) : 623 - 633
  • [7] Fletcher J, 2020, Best practice statement: antimicrobial stewardship strategies for wound management
  • [8] A method for growing a biofilm under low shear at the air-liquid interface using the drip flow biofilm reactor
    Goeres, Darla M.
    Hamilton, Martin A.
    Beck, Nicholas A.
    Buckingham-Meyer, Kelli
    Hilyard, Jackie D.
    Loetterle, Linda R.
    Lorenz, Lindsey A.
    Walker, Diane K.
    Stewart, Philip S.
    [J]. NATURE PROTOCOLS, 2009, 4 (05) : 783 - 788
  • [9] Bacterial biofilms: From the natural environment to infectious diseases
    Hall-Stoodley, L
    Costerton, JW
    Stoodley, P
    [J]. NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY, 2004, 2 (02) : 95 - 108
  • [10] Clinical investigation of biofilm in non-healing wounds by high resolution microscopy techniques
    Hurlow, J.
    Blanz, E.
    Gaddy, J. A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF WOUND CARE, 2016, 25 (09) : S11 - S22