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

Details

• Alternative Title:
  Ann Plast Surg
• Personal Author:
  Harriott, Melphine M. ; Bhindi, Nayan ; Kassis, Salam ; Summitt, Blair ; Perdikis, Galen ; Wormer, Blair A. ; Rankin, Timothy M. ; Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos ; Samaha, Mario ; Stratton, Charles ; Schmitz, Jonathan E.
• 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:
  Article
• 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):
  CDC Public Access
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha256:32f9e30494980b72327f1ea40c49d893e56fdba05477235a03566a7c7dbc5ac1
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/94454/cdc_94454_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 928.28 KB ]