Clinical impact of an anti-biofilm Hydrofiber dressing in hard-to-heal wounds previously managed with traditional antimicrobial products and systemic antibiotics

Daniel G Metcalf; Philip G Bowler

doi:10.1093/burnst/tkaa004

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Clinical impact of an anti-biofilm Hydrofiber dressing in hard-to-heal wounds previously managed with traditional antimicrobial products and systemic antibiotics

更新时间：2022-06-09

- Clinical impact of an anti-biofilm Hydrofiber dressing in hard-to-heal wounds previously managed with traditional antimicrobial products and systemic antibiotics
- Burns & Trauma Vol. 8, Issue 1, (2020)
- 作者机构：
  
  Science & Technology
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.1093/burnst/tkaa004
  CLC：
- Published：2020，
  
  Published Online：4 March 2020，
扫描看全文
Daniel G Metcalf, Philip G Bowler, Clinical impact of an anti-biofilm Hydrofiber dressing in hard-to-heal wounds previously managed with traditional antimicrobial products and systemic antibiotics, Burns & Trauma, Volume 8, 2020, tkaa004, https://doi.org/10.1093/burnst/tkaa004
DOI：

Daniel G Metcalf, Philip G Bowler, Clinical impact of an anti-biofilm Hydrofiber dressing in hard-to-heal wounds previously managed with traditional antimicrobial products and systemic antibiotics, Burns & Trauma, Volume 8, 2020, tkaa004, https://doi.org/10.1093/burnst/tkaa004 DOI：

摘要

Abstract

BackgroundHard-to-heal wounds are often compromised by the presence of biofilm. This presents an infection risk

yet traditional antimicrobial wound care products and systemic antibiotics are often used despite the uncertainty of therapeutic success and wound progression. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of a next-generation anti-biofilm Hydrofiber wound dressing (AQUACEL Ag+ Extra[AQAg+ E]) in hard-to-heal wounds that had previously been treated unsuccessfully with traditional silver-

iodine- or polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB)-containing dressings and products and/or systemic antibiotics.MethodsClinical case study evaluations of the anti-biofilm dressing were conducted

where deteriorating or stagnant wounds were selected by clinicians and primary dressings were replaced by the anti-biofilm dressing for up to 4 weeks

or as deemed clinically appropriate

with monitoring via case report forms. The data was stratified for cases where traditional silver-

iodine- or PHMB-containing products

or systemic antibiotics

had been used prior to the introduction of the anti-biofilm dressing.ResultsSixty-five cases were identified for inclusion

wounds ranging in duration from 1 week to 20 years (median: 12 months). In 47 (72%) cases the wounds were stagnant

while 15 (23%) were deteriorating; 3 wounds were not recorded. After an average of 4.2 weeks of management with the anti-biofilm dressing (range: 1–11 weeks)

in 11 (17%) cases the wounds had healed (i.e. complete wound closure)

40 (62%) wounds improved

9 (14%) wounds remained the same and 5 (8%) wounds deteriorated.ConclusionsThe introduction of this anti-biofilm dressing into protocols of care that had previously involved wound management with traditional antimicrobial products and/or antibiotics was shown to facilitate improvements in the healing status of most of these hard-to-heal wounds. Dressings containing proven anti-biofilm technology

in combination with antimicrobial silver and exudate management technology

appear to be an effective alternative to traditional antimicrobial products and antibiotics in the cases presented here. The use of antimicrobial wound dressings that contain anti-biofilm technology may have a key role to play in more effective wound management and antibiotic stewardship.

关键词

Keywords

AntibioticsAntimicrobialsAQUACEL Ag+ ExtraBiofilmDressingsIodineHard-to-heal woundsPolyhexamethylene biguanideSilver

references

1.Metcalf DG, Bowler PG. Biofilm delays wound healing: A review of the evidence. Burns Trauma 2013;1:5–12.

2.Malone M, Bjarnsholt T, McBain AJ, James GA, Stoodley P, Leaper D, et al. The prevalence of biofilms in chronic wounds: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. J Wound Care 2017;26:20–5.

3.Wolcott RD. Biofilms cause chronic infections. J Wound Care 2017;26:423–5.

4.Webb R. A chronic case of confusion. J Wound Care 2017;26:421.

5.Reddy M, Gill SS, Wu W, Kalkar SR, Rochon PA. Does this patient have an infection of a chronic wound? JAMA 2012;307:605–11.

6.Haesler E, Swanson T, Ousey K, Carville K. Clinical indicators of wound infection and biofilm: reaching international consensus. J Wound Care 2019;28:s4–12.

7.Lipsky BA, Dryden M, Gottrup F, Nathwani D, Seaton RA, Stryja J. Antimicrobial stewardship in wound care: A position paper from the British Society for Antimicrobial Therapy and the European wound management association. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016;71:3026–35.

8.Bowler PG, Duerden BI, Armstrong DG. Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management. Clin Microbiol Rev 2001;14:244–69.

9.Pereira SG, Moura J, Carvalho E, Empadinhas N. Microbiota of chronic diabetic wounds: Ecology, impact and potential for innovative treatment strategies. Frontiers Microbiol 2017;8:1791.

10.Vella J, Vella M, Cassar K, Camilleri L, Serracino-Inglott A, Azzopardi LM, et al. Factors affecting penetration of ciprofloxacin in lower extremity ischemic tissues. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2016;15:126–31.

11.Bowler PG. Antibiotic resistance and biofilm tolerance: A combined threat in the treatment of chronic infections. J Wound Care 2018;27:273–7.

12.Rahim K, Saleha S, Zhu X, Huo L, Basit A, Franco OL. Bacterial contribution in chronicity of wounds. Microb Ecol 2017;73:710–21.

13.Wolcott RD, Kennedy JP, Dowd SE. Regular debridement is the main tool for maintaining a healthy wound bed in most chronic wounds. J Wound Care 2009;18:54–6.

14.Roberts CD, Leaper DJ, Assadian O. The role of topical antiseptic agents within antimicrobial stewardship strategies for prevention and treatment of surgical site and chronic open wound infection. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2017;6:63–71.

15.McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: Activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999;12:147–79.

16.Bowler PG, Parsons D. Combatting wound biofilm and recalcitrance with a novel anti-biofilm Hydrofiber wound dressing. Wound Medicine 2016;14:6–11.

17.Metcalf D, Parsons D, Bowler P. Safety and effectiveness of a new antimicrobial wound dressing designed to manage exudate, infection and biofilm. Int Wound J 2017;14:203–13.

18.Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P, Kathju S, Høiby N, Moser C, Costerton JW, et al. Towards diagnostic guidelines for biofilm-associated infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2012;65:127–45.

19.Metcalf DG, Bowler PG, Hurlow J, A clinical algorithm for wound biofilm identification. J Wound Care 2014;23:137–43.

20.Wolcott RD, Rhoads DD. A study of biofilm-based wound management in subjects with critical limb ischaemia. J Wound Care 2008;17:145–55.

21.Attinger C, Wolcott R. Clinically addressing biofilm in chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2012;1:127–32.

22.Said J, Walker M, Parsons D, Stapleton P, Beezer AE, Gaisford S. An in vitro test of the efficacy of an anti-biofilm wound dressing. Int J Pharm 2014;474:177–81.

23.Next-generation antimicrobial dressings: AQUACEL™ Ag+ Extra™ and Ribbon . London:Wounds International, 2014 (Suppl). Available to download from: www.woundsinternational.com.

24.Parsons D, Meredith K, Rowlands VJ, Short D, Metcalf DG, Bowler PG. Enhanced performance and mode of action of a novel antibiofilm Hydrofiber® wound dressing. Biomed Res Int 2016;December:7616471.

25.Seth AK, Zhong A, Nguyen KT, Hong SJ, Leung KP, Galiano RD, et al. Impact of a novel, antimicrobial dressing on in vivo, Pseudomonas aeruginosa wound biofilm: Quantitative comparative analysis using a rabbit ear model. Wound Repair Regen 2014;22:712–9.

26.Davis SC, Li J, Gil J, Valdes J, Solis M, Higa A, et al. The wound-healing effects of a next-generation anti-biofilm silver Hydrofiber wound dressing on deep partial-thickness wounds using a porcine model. Int Wound J 2018;15:834–9.

27.Percival SL, Bowler P, Woods EJ. Assessing the effect of an antimicrobial wound dressing on biofilms. Wound Repair Regen 2008;16:52–7.

28.Phillips PL, Yang Q, Davis S, Sampson EM, Azeke JI, Hamad A, et al. Antimicrobial dressing efficacy against mature Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm on porcine skin explants. Int Wound J 2015;12:469–83.

29.Kirker KR, Fisher ST, James GA, McGhee D, Shah CB. Efficacy of polyhexamethylene biguanide-containing antimicrobial foam dressing against MRSA relative to standard foam dressing. Wounds 2009;21:229–33.

30.Davis SC, Li J, Gil J, Head C, Valdes J, Glinos GD, et al. Preclinical evaluation of a novel silver gelling fiber dressing on Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a porcine wound infection model. Wound Repair Regen 2019;27:360–5.

31.Roche ED, Woodmansey EJ, Yang Q, Gibson DJ, Zhang H, Schultz GS. Cadexomer iodine effectively reduces bacterial biofilm in porcine wounds ex vivo and in vivo. Int Wound J 2019;16:674–83.

32.Davis SC, Harding A, Gil J, Parajon F, Valdes J, Solis M, et al. Effectiveness of a polyhexanide irrigation solution on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in a porcine wound model. Int Wound J 2017;14:937–44.

33.Malone M, Johani K, Jensen SO, Gosbell IB, Dickson HG, McLennan S, et al. Effect of cadexomer iodine on the microbial load and diversity of chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers complicated by biofilm in vivo. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017;72:2093–101.

34.Lenselink E, Andriessen A. A cohort study on the efficacy of a polyhexanide-containing biocellulose dressing in the treatment of biofilms in wounds. J Wound Care 2011;20:534–9.

35.Hurlow J, Blanz E, Gaddy JA. Clinical investigation of biofilm in non-healing wounds by high resolution microscopy techniques. J Wound Care 2016;25:S11–22.

查看原文

Views

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools