Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:38:16.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of a Silicone Urinary Catheter Impregnated with Chlorhexidine and Triclosan Against Colonization With Proteus mirabilis and Other Uropathogens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Trupti A. Gaonkar ,
Lauserpina Caraos  and
Shanta Modak
Trupti A. Gaonkar
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
Lauserpina Caraos
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
Shanta Modak*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
*
Dept. of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 W. 168th St., New York, NY 10032 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We sought to develop an infection-resistant urinary catheter. We evaluated 3 types of catheters for their efficacy against uropathogens in an in vitro model of the urinary tract. The catheter impregnated with Chlorhexidine and triclosan suppressed the growth of uropathogens, including Proteus mirabilis, for 20-30 days or longer.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , May 2007 , pp. 596 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bruce, AW, Sira, SS, Clark, AF, Awad, SA. The problem of catheter encrustation. Can Med Assoc J 1974;111:238–241.Google Scholar
2. Hukins, DWT, Hickey, DS, Kennedy, AP. Catheter encrustation by struvite. Br J Urol 1983;55:304–305.Google Scholar
3. Getliffe, KA, Mulhall, AB. The encrustation of indwelling catheters. Br J Urol 1991;67:337–341.Google Scholar
4. Kunin, CM. Blockage of urinary catheters: role of microorganisms and constituents of the urine on formation of encrustations. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:835–842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Warren, JW. Catheter associated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001;17:299–303.Google Scholar
6. Ronald, A. The etiology of urinary tract infection: traditional and emerging pathogens. Am J Med 2002;113(suppl 1A):14S–19S.Google Scholar
7. Saint, S, Veenstra, DL, Sullivan, SD, Chenoweth, C, Fendrick, AM. The potential clinical and economic benefits of silver alloy urinary catheters in preventing urinary tract infection. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:2670–2675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Lee, SJ, Kim, SW, Cho, YH, et al. A comparative multi-centre study on the incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infection between nitrofurazone-coated and silicone catheters. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004;24(suppl 1):S65–S69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Pearman, JW. The value of kanamycin-colistin bladder instillations in reducing bacteriuria during intermittent catheterization of patients with acute spinal cord injury. Br J Urol 1979;51:367–374.Google Scholar
10. Gaonkar, TA, Sampath, LA, Modak, SM. Evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of urinary catheters impregnated with antiseptics in an in vitro urinary tract model. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:506–513.Google Scholar
11. Darouiche, RO, Smith, JA, Dhabuwala, CB, et al. Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated bladder catheters in reducing catheter-associated bacteriuria: a prospective, randomized, multi-centre clinical trial. Urology 1999;54:976–981.Google Scholar
12. Maki, DG, Tambyah, PA. Engineering out the risk of infection with urinary catheters. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:1–6.Google Scholar
13. Schaeffer, AJ, Story, KO, Johnson, SM. Effect of silver oxide/trichloroiso-cyanuric acid antimicrobial urinary drainage system on catheter associated bacteriuria. J Urol 1988;139:69–73.Google Scholar
14. Jones, GLI, Russell, AD, Caliskan, Z, Stickler, DJ. A strategy for the control of catheter blockage by crystalline Proteus mirabilis biofilm using the antibacterial agent triclosan. Eur Urol 2005;48:838–845.Google Scholar
15. Jones, GLI, Muller, CT, O'Reilly, M, Stickler, DJ. Effect of triclosan on the development of bacterial biofilms by urinary tract pathogens on urinary catheters. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;57:266–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Richards, CL, Hoffman, KC, Bernhard, JM, Winslow, SD, Norman, JC, Whalen, RL. Development and characterization of an infection inhibiting urinary catheter. ASAIO J 2003;49:449–453.Google Scholar
17. Kim, CY, Kumar, A, Sampath, L, Sokol, DVM, Modak, SM. Evaluation of an antimicrobial impregnated continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter for infection control in rats. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39:165–173.Google Scholar
18. do Amorim, CV, Aun, CE, Mayer, MP. Susceptibility of some oral microorganisms to Chlorhexidine and paramonochlorophenol. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2004;18:242–246.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Jones, GL, Muller, CT, O'Reilly, M, Stickler, DJ. Effect of triclosan on the development of bacterial biofilms by urinary tract pathogens on urinary catheters. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;57:266–272.Google Scholar
20. Tambe, SM, Sampath, L, Modak, SM. In vitro evaluation of the risk of developing bacterial resistance to antiseptics and antibiotics used in medical devices. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001;47:589–598.Google Scholar