4.4 Article

Comparison of quantification methods illustrates reduced Pseudomonas aeruginosa activity on nanorough polyvinyl chloride

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31821

Keywords

nanomaterials; endotracheal tube; biofilm; ventilator-associated pneumonia; Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Funding

  1. Rhode Island Science and Technology Advisory Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients on mechanical ventilators for extended periods of time are faced with a high probability of developing ventilator associated pneumonia. Although this has been mostly addressed through the re-engineering of endotracheal tubes (ETTs) with antimicrobial materials, such material coatings may easily delaminate during use. However, the potential exists to apply nanotechnology to the ETT to avoid delamination but implement antibacterial properties. Selecting a protocol to evaluate in vitro material for anti-infection is difficult, partially due to the existence of conflicting reported methods of analysis. In this study, the susceptibility of conventional and nanorough polymeric materials to bacterial biofilm growth were evaluated. After creating nanorough polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ETTs, Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms were then grown on sample surfaces during a 24-h culture. Biofilms were then removed and assayed from sample surfaces using a variety of techniques. Comparisons between the different techniques used for biofilm removal indicated that vortexing provided adequate removal of the biofilm from sample surfaces. Most importantly, a protocol following the vortexing method of biofilm and bacteria removal provided an similar to 40% lower yield of colony forming units from nanorough PVC compared to conventional PVC. This suggests that Pseudomonas aeruginosa are less adherent on nanorough PVC than conventional PVC. (c) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 98B: 1-7, 2011.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available