4.5 Article

In Vivo Detection of Staphylococcus aureus in Biofilm on Vascular Prostheses Using Non-invasive Biophotonic Imaging

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.09.007

关键词

S. aureus; Biofilm; Bioluminescence; Vascular graft infection

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
  2. German Research Foundation [TRR34]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Biophotonic imaging was compared to standard enumeration method both for counting Staphylococcus aureus in biofilm and bacterial susceptibility tests of different graft materials. Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled animal study. Material and methods: Five types of vascular grafts were placed subcutaneously in 35 mice and challenged with bioluminescent S. aureus. The mice were divided into equal groups as follows: group A (polyester), group B (polytetrafluoroethylene), group C and D (two types of silver acetate-coated polyester) and group E (bovine pericardium). Controls were given only the bacteria. The bioluminescence signal of S. aureus, able to predict number of viable bacteria in biofilm without any manipulation, was measured at different time points. Five days postinfection, regular cultures of adherent bacteria on grafts were obtained. Comparative analyses between bioluminescence activity and culture enumeration were performed. Results: The number of viable bacteria on silver-coated prostheses was the slightest, indicating superior bacterial resistance. The density of bacteria on polytetrafluoroethylene and polyester was comparable, with a non-significant advantage for polytetrafluoroethylene. Moreover, bioluminescence detected the number of viable S. aureus in biofilm more exactly compared to enumeration of bacteria. Conclusion: Bioluminescence imaging can be considered a useful tool to characterize susceptibility of any graft material to bacterial biofilm prior to implantation. (C) 2010 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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