Antimicrobial effects of different wound dressings: an invitro study
Abstract number: P1290
Baka S., Kouskouni E., Rizos D., Demeridou S., Skalkidis Y., Arapoglou V.
Objectives: Wound dressings have been developed for several decades to keep the wound clean by absorbing the exudate, thus contributing to the healing process. They help in the treatment of moderately to highly exuding leg ulcers mostly when healing is delayed due to the bacteria present. This study aimed to compare the effect of five commercially available wound dressings, in vitro, on the survival and proliferation of five different microorganisms frequently isolated from leg ulcers in our hospital.
Methods: Two protocols were used to test first, the ability of each dressing to inhibit bacterial growth on an already inoculated surface and second, to resist bacterial colonization after impregnation with the same concentration of each of the microorganisms tested. The antimicrobial activity of Contreet / Biatain Ag (a silver-containing foam dressing) and Biatain Ibu (a foam dressing containing ibuprofen) was compared to Biatain (a plain foam dressing) (all foam dressings from Coloplast A/S, Humlebaek, Denmark) serving as control, while two gauze dressings (both from Dermagenics Europe BV, Kaatsheuvel, The Netherlands), MelMax® [impregnated with a mixture of metalloproteinase-regulating Poly Hydrated Ionogens (PHI-5) and buckwheat honey] and PHI 5® (DerMax®) (containing zinc and rubidium ions) were compared to sterile gauze used in the operation rooms which served as a general control and as specific control for the 2 types of gauze dressings. Based on the prevalence in our hospital, five microorganisms were used to test the ability of the wound dressing to resist infection in both protocols: Staphylococcus epidermidis, ATCC 35984, S. aureus, ATCC 29213, Clinical isolate of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), Escherichia coli, ATCC 35218, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ATCC 27853.
Results: In both protocols Contreet/Biatain Ag foam dressing displayed antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for 9 days, Staphylococcus epidermidis for 10 and 7 days, respectively, Staphylococcus aureus growth was inhibited for 10 and 6 days, respectively, while MRSA for 11 and 10 days, respectively. Two other dressings, MelMax® and PHI-5® inhibited MRSA and S. epidermidis growth, respectively, for 4 days.
Conclusion: Contreet/Biatain Ag foam dressing displayed a broader antibacterial activity in both protocols performed, suggesting that it can be left in place for a longer period of time.
|Session name:||Abstracts 20th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases|
|Location:||Vienna, Austria, 10 - 13 April 2010|
|Back to top|