4.6 Article

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Decreases Mortality in a Murine Model of Burn-Wound Sepsis Involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090494

关键词

-

资金

  1. Academic Support Program Funds of Xijing Hospital, the Fourth Military Medical University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The colonization of burn wounds by Pseudomonas aeruginosa can lead to septic shock, organ injuries, and high mortality rates. We hypothesized that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would decrease invasion and proliferation of P. aeruginosa within the burn wound and reduce mortality. Methods: Thermal injuries were induced in anesthetized mice, and P. aeruginosa was applied to the wound surface for 24 h. After removing the burn eschar and debridement, the animals were subjected to either NPWT or wet-to-dry (WTD) treatment protocols. The bacterial loads on the wound surface were assessed during 7 d of treatment, as were the concentrations of inflammatory cytokines in the peripheral blood samples. Survival was monitored daily for 14 d after burn induction. Finally, samples of wounded skin, lung, liver, and kidney were collected and subjected to histopathological examination. Results: Applying P. aeruginosa to the burn wound surface led to sepsis. During early stages of treatment, NPWT reduced the mortality of the septic animals and levels of P. aeruginosa within the burn wound compared with WTD-treated animals. Circulating levels of cytokines and cytoarchitectural abnormalities were also significantly reduced via NPWT. Conclusions: Our data indicate that NPWT inhibits the invasion and proliferation of P. aeruginosa in burn-wounded tissue and decreases early mortality in a murine model of burn-wound sepsis. These therapeutic benefits likely result from the ability of NPWT to decrease bacterial proliferation on the wound surface, reduce cytokine serum concentrations, and prevent damage to internal organs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据