Comparative Antimicrobial Activity of Commercial Wound-Care Solutions on Bacterial and Fungal Biofilms
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Comparative Antimicrobial Activity of Commercial Wound-Care Solutions on Bacterial and Fungal Biofilms

Filetype[PDF-928.28 KB]


English
Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

Details:

  • Alternative Title:
    Ann Plast Surg
  • Personal Author:
  • Description:
    Background:

    Biofilms represent a complex milieu of matrix-enclosed microorganisms, which can significantly contribute to the pathology of chronic wounds. In this study, we compare the activity of three commercial antimicrobial wound-care solutions, Vashe® (HOCl-based), PhaseOne® (HOCl-based), and Sulfamylon® (mafenide acetate), for their in vitro activity against bacterial and fungal biofilms.

    Methods:

    Reference and clinical isolates of 6 Gram-negative bacterial species (36 total strains), 3 Gram-positive bacteria (21 strains), and 3 Candida species (9 strains) were used to create biofilms. Various working concentrations of the 3 antiseptic agents were incubated with the biofilms in microwell plates; they were monitored from 1 minute to 24 hours to compare bacterial and fungal viability through colony forming unit (CFU) analysis.

    Results:

    Vashe® and PhaseOne® displayed excellent bactericidal and fungicidal activity, whereas Sulfamylon® demonstrated minimal activity against the biofilms tested. With the exception of C. albicans, all biofilms were eliminated at either 1 or 10 minutes using Vashe® and PhaseOne® solutions. In most cases, mafenide was unable to eliminate both bacterial and fungal biofilms, even with 24 hours of treatment.

    Conclusions:

    Biofilms represent a major clinical challenge, with no clear consensus for treatment of chronic wounds or prosthetic devices. Our results suggest that hypochlorous acid-based wound solutions such as Vashe® and PhaseOne® are more efficacious than mafenide in eliminating bacterial and fungal biofilms. Further studies are necessary to investigate and compare the in vivo efficacy of these products in clinical care.

  • Subjects:
  • Source:
    Ann Plast Surg. 83(4):404-410
  • Pubmed ID:
    31524733
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC6750017
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Funding:
    H75 DP001736/DP/NCCDPHP CDC HHS/United States
  • Volume:
    83
  • Issue:
    4
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov