Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-19T17:36:56.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Vitro Assessment of Chlorhexidine Gluconate–Impregnated Polyurethane Foam Antimicrobial Dressing Using Zone of Inhibition Assays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Shubhangi Bhende  and
Daniel Spangler
Shubhangi Bhende*
Affiliation:
Corporate Microbiology and Sterilization Sciences, Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, New Jersey
Daniel Spangler
Affiliation:
Corporate Microbiology and Sterilization Sciences, Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, New Jersey
*
Ethicon, Inc., P.O. Box 151, Somerville, NJ 08876
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate an antimicrobial dressing consisting of hydrophilic polyurethane foam with chlorhexidine gluconate for activity against several antibiotic-resistant clinical isolates as well as American Type Culture Collection reference strains using zone of inhibition assays.

Methods:

Sterile foam samples with chlorhexidine gluconate and untreated controls were transferred onto inoculated agar plates. Plates were incubated at 35°C to 37° C for 24 hours and examined for zones of inhibition around the foam samples.

Results:

Polyurethane foam with chlorhexidine gluconate showed antimicrobial activity in vitro against all of the challenge organisms including antibiotic-resistant clinical isolates.

Conclusion:

The data from this in vitro study support the hypothesis that polyurethane foam with chlorhexidine gluconate has an antimicrobial effect against antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus and Enterococcus species, as well as Candida species.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 25 , Issue 8 , August 2004 , pp. 664 - 667
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2004

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.Malchesky, P, Chamberlain, V, Scott-Conner, C, Salis, B, Wallace, C. Reprocessing of reusable medical devices. ASAIO J 1995;41:146–151.Google Scholar
2.Mermel, LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:391–402.Google Scholar
3.Rello, J, Ochagavia, A, Sabanes, E, et al.Evaluation of outcome of intravenous catheter-related infections in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:1027–1030.Google Scholar
4.Dimick, JB, Pelz, RK, Consunji, R, et al.Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in a surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2001;136:229–234.Google Scholar
5.Mermel, LA. Catheter-related bloodstream infections [correction]. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:395.Google Scholar
6.Steckelberg, JM, Osmon, DR. Prosthetic joint infections. In: Bisno, AL, Waldvogel, FA, eds. Infections Associated With Indwelling Medical Devices, ed. 3. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2000:173–209.Google Scholar
7.Campbell, AA, Song, L, Nelson, BJ, et al.Development, characterization, and anti-microbial efficacy of hydroxyapatite-chlorhexidine coatings produced by surface-induced mineralization. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;53:400–407.Google Scholar
8.Moroni, A, Vannini, F, Mosca, M, Giannini, S. State of the art review: techniques to avoid pin loosening and infection in external fixation. J Orthop Trauma 2002;16:189–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Lewallen, DG, Edwards, CC. Complications of external fixation. In: Epps, CH Jr ed. Complications of Orthopedic Surgery, ed. 3. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott; 1994.Google Scholar
10.Pearson, ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:438–473.Google Scholar
11.Sherertz, RJ. Pathogenesis of vascular catheter infection. In: Bisno, AL, Waldvogel, FA, eds. Infections Associated With Indwelling Medical Devices, ed. 3. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2000:111–125.Google Scholar
12.Jarvis, WR, Edwards, JR, Culver, DH, et al.Nosocomial infection rates in adult and pediatric intensive care units in the United States. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):185S–191S.Google Scholar
13.Toltzis, P, Goldmann, DA. Current issues in central venous catheter infection. Ann Rev Med 1990;41:169–176.Google Scholar
14.Maki, DG. Infections caused by intravascular devices used for infusion therapy: pathogenesis, prevention and management. In: Bisno, AL, Waldvogel, FA, eds. Infections Associated With Indwelling Medical Devices, ed. 2. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 1994:155–212.Google Scholar
15.Sherertz, PJ. Pathogenesis of vascular catheter-related infections. In: Seifert, H, Jansen, B, Farr, BM, eds. Catheter-Related Infections. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1997:1–30.Google Scholar
16.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report: data summary from January 1990-May 1999, issued June 1999. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:520–532.Google Scholar
17.Maki, DG, Narans, LL, Kluger, DM. Prospective randomized, investigator-masked trial of a novel chlorhexidine-impregnated disk (BIOPATCH) on central venous and arterial catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:96.Google Scholar
18.Maki, DG. Preventing intravascular catheter-related infections: an evidence-based approach. Physician Weekly 2004;21. Available at www.physweekly.com/pc.asp?issuid=66&questionid=72. Accessed December 2003.Google Scholar
19.Banton, J, Banning, V. Impact of catheter-related bloodstream infections with the use of the BIOPATCH dressing. Journal of Vascular Access Devices 2002:27–32.Google Scholar
20.Crnich, CJ, Maki, DG. The promise of novel technology for the prevention of intravascular device-related bloodstream infection: 1. Pathogenesis and short-term devices. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1232–1242.Google Scholar
21.Bootman, M, Yamamoto, R, inventors; Integra LifeSciences I Ltd., assignee. Method of making a polyurethane-biopolymer composite. US patent 6,071,447. June 6, 2000.Google Scholar
22.Russell, AD. Principles of antimicrobial activity and resistance. In: Block, S, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation, ed. 5. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:47–49.Google Scholar
23.Russell, AD. Bacterial sensitivity and resistance, plasmids and bacterial resistance. In: Russell, AD, Hugo, WB, Ayliffe, GAJ, eds. Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Preservation, and Sterilization, ed. 3. Oxford, England: Blackwell Science; 1999:299–301.Google Scholar
24.Stickler, DJ, Thomas, B. Antiseptic and antibiotic resistance in gram-negative bacteria causing urinary tract infection. J Clin Pathol 1980;33:288–296.Google Scholar