Background: Infections in ICU’s patients are known to often originate from the colonization of wounds by the patient’s endogenous microbiota, and to eventually lead to secondary sepsis. Aim: to compare in vitro the ...Background: Infections in ICU’s patients are known to often originate from the colonization of wounds by the patient’s endogenous microbiota, and to eventually lead to secondary sepsis. Aim: to compare in vitro the direct and residual effects after different exposure times of 4% chlorhexidine, and of 0.1% and 0.04% polyhexanide (in gel and solution forms), on ATCC-microorganisms, and too, on bacterial strains obtained from ICU patients. Methods: We used wild multi-drug resistant strains recently obtained from the wounds of patients hospitalized at ICU and reference strains from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). Chlorhexidine 4% was studied as a reference solution. The direct and residual effects of the 0.1% and 0.04% polyhexanide, in gel and solution forms, were analyzed using cotton germ carriers. To evaluate the direct effect, we exposed the strains to the antiseptic. To assess the residual effect, the germ-carriers were impregnated with antiseptic and were allowed to dry before we contaminated them. We inoculated the germ carriers in a culture medium with an inhibitor of antiseptic effect to count the number of surviving microorganisms. Findings: 0.1% Polyhexanide solution proved a direct and residual efficacy after 24 hours equivalent to 4% chlorhexidine. Is very important to highlight that this great efficacy did not change according to whether they were ATCC or multidrug-resistant strains. Conclusions: 0.1% polyhexanide demonstrated a great direct and residual efficacy (like 4% chlorhexidine), against multi-drug resistant strains isolated from ICU’s patients. Moreover, due to its few cytotoxicity against keratinocytes and fibroblasts can be an optimal antiseptic for burns, wounds or ulcers.展开更多
文摘Background: Infections in ICU’s patients are known to often originate from the colonization of wounds by the patient’s endogenous microbiota, and to eventually lead to secondary sepsis. Aim: to compare in vitro the direct and residual effects after different exposure times of 4% chlorhexidine, and of 0.1% and 0.04% polyhexanide (in gel and solution forms), on ATCC-microorganisms, and too, on bacterial strains obtained from ICU patients. Methods: We used wild multi-drug resistant strains recently obtained from the wounds of patients hospitalized at ICU and reference strains from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). Chlorhexidine 4% was studied as a reference solution. The direct and residual effects of the 0.1% and 0.04% polyhexanide, in gel and solution forms, were analyzed using cotton germ carriers. To evaluate the direct effect, we exposed the strains to the antiseptic. To assess the residual effect, the germ-carriers were impregnated with antiseptic and were allowed to dry before we contaminated them. We inoculated the germ carriers in a culture medium with an inhibitor of antiseptic effect to count the number of surviving microorganisms. Findings: 0.1% Polyhexanide solution proved a direct and residual efficacy after 24 hours equivalent to 4% chlorhexidine. Is very important to highlight that this great efficacy did not change according to whether they were ATCC or multidrug-resistant strains. Conclusions: 0.1% polyhexanide demonstrated a great direct and residual efficacy (like 4% chlorhexidine), against multi-drug resistant strains isolated from ICU’s patients. Moreover, due to its few cytotoxicity against keratinocytes and fibroblasts can be an optimal antiseptic for burns, wounds or ulcers.
