4.5 Article

In Vitro Evaluation of Polihexanide, Octenidine and NaClO/HClO-Based Antiseptics against Biofilm Formed by Wound Pathogens

期刊

MEMBRANES
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/membranes11010062

关键词

wound biofilm; polihexanide; octenidine; hypochlorous acid; sodium hypochlorite

资金

  1. National Science Center [2017/27/B/NZ6/02103]
  2. B. Braun Medical AG, Sempach, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the antibiofilm activity of different antiseptics, finding that polyhexanide- and octenidine-based antiseptics had high antibiofilm activity, while hypochlorite-based antiseptics showed weaker effects. The data suggest that polyhexanide- or octenidine-based antiseptics are highly useful in treating biofilm.
Chronic wounds complicated with biofilm formed by pathogens remain one of the most significant challenges of contemporary medicine. The application of topical antiseptic solutions against wound biofilm has been gaining increasing interest among clinical practitioners and scientific researchers. This paper compares the activity of polyhexanide-, octenidine- and hypochlorite/hypochlorous acid-based antiseptics against biofilm formed by clinical strains of Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The analyses included both standard techniques utilizing polystyrene plates and self-designed biocellulose-based models in which a biofilm formed by pathogens was formed on an elastic, fibrinous surface covered with a fibroblast layer. The obtained results show high antibiofilm activity of polihexanide- and octenidine-based antiseptics and lack or weak antibiofilm activity of hypochlorite-based antiseptic of total chlorine content equal to 80 parts per million. The data presented in this paper indicate that polihexanide- or octenidine-based antiseptics are highly useful in the treatment of biofilm, while hypochlorite-based antiseptics with low chlorine content may be applied for wound rinsing but not when specific antibiofilm activity is required.

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

4.5
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