Abstract
The use of medical devices, such as urinary stents, catheters, artificial heart valves, prosthetic joints and other implants, collectively often referred to as “biomaterials” has increased dramatically over the past century, and has become a major part of modern medicine and our daily life. With the aging society, the higher demand on these devices to restore function and quality of life, combined with the ever improving technology within the medical field, the problem of biomaterial-associated infection (BAI) is expected to increase.
The most common causative microorganisms in BAI are Staphylococcus aureus, a major pathogen in wound infections, and Staphylococcus epidermidis, the harmless skin commensal. Depending on the type of device and location of application, other pathogens such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, enterococci, streptococci, Propionibacterium acnes and yeast can also cause BAI.
Prevention of BAI is a challenging problem, in particular due to the increased risk of resistance development associated with current antibiotic-based strategies. Here we showed the evidence of biofilms as a source for peri-implant tissue colonization, clearly showing the importance of preventive measures to be able to act both against implant and tissue colonization. Subsequently, we described different strategies to prevent BAI and other difficult-to-treat biofilm infections. We conclude that future research should focus on the development of combination devices with both anti-fouling or contact-killing capacities—to protect the implant—and controlled release of an antimicrobial agent to protect the surrounding tissue.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Biofilm
- Biomaterial
- Biomaterial-associated infection
- Foreign body response
- Intracellular survival
- Staphylococci
1 The Clinical Problem
The use of medical devices, such as urinary stents, catheters, artificial heart valves, prosthetic joints and other implants, collectively often referred to as “biomaterials” has increased dramatically over the past century, and has become a major part of modern medicine and our daily life. With the aging society, the higher demand on these devices to restore function and quality of life, combined with the ever improving technology within the medical field, the problem of biomaterial-associated infection (BAI) is expected to increase.
Catheters, and orthopedic devices are among the most frequently used devices in human medicine [1, 2]. Catheters suspected for infection are replaced by a new catheter at a different location, since using the original location for re-implantation over a guide-wire is strongly discouraged because of the high reinfection risk [3]. Primary implantation of prosthetic joints like prosthetic hips, knees, elbows and ankles, is considered a so-called clean procedure [4], however, in 0.5–1% (hip or knee) to over 5% (elbow or ankle) of cases, infections occur [5, 6]. Revision surgery is associated with higher frequencies of infection, due to the compromised condition of the tissue, longer procedures and more extensive tissue damage during surgery.
The most common causative microorganisms in BAI are Staphylococcus aureus, a major pathogen in wound infections, and Staphylococcus epidermidis, the harmless skin commensal [6,7,8]. Depending on the type of device and location of application, other pathogens such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, enterococci, streptococci, Propionibacterium acnes and yeast can also cause BAI [9, 10].
As early as in 1957, Elek and Conen studied the minimum infective dose of staphylococci for man in relation to suture infection [11]. In healthy volunteers, they estimated the minimum pus-forming dose of S. aureus—called Staphylococcus pyogenes in those days—on intradermal injections in absence of sutures to be 2–8 million bacteria, numbers which are improbable in case of a natural infection. However, the presence of a foreign body, a suture in this case, resulted in a dramatic reduction in the minimal inoculum required for pus production: a dose of 300 bacteria led to abscess formation. Higher inoculum doses even resulted in lesions with ‘the size of an orange’, caused fever and took over a week to resolve, in spite of penicillin therapy. Although this experiment clearly demonstrated the enhancing effect of the presence of a foreign body, but the authors stated that the outcome of the experiment “led to great difficulty in finding further volunteers”. Nowadays, such an experimental set-up would not be easily approved by medical ethical committees, but it did provide crucial information on the pathogenesis of BAI. Thus, it has been recognized for at least 60 years that the presence of a foreign body predisposes for infection, and this has repeatedly been confirmed in animal studies [12,13,14,15]. In rabbits, for example, only 50 colony forming units (CFU) of S. aureus were sufficient for infection in the presence of a cemented hip implant, whereas 10,000 CFU were required in absence of the foreign body [16].
1.1 Biofilms
Bacterial biofilm formation is considered the major element in the pathogenesis of BAI [1, 10, 17]. Biofilm formation is initiated when planktonic bacterial cells attach to the surfaces of implants (Fig. 1). BAI are often caused by biofilm-forming bacterial strains able to cover the surface of the biomaterial, resulting in complex structures consisting of bacteria, extracellular polymeric substances (bacterial products like polysaccharides, proteins and DNA) and host proteins and cells [17]. Bacteria in biofilms behave differently from planktonic bacteria, particularly in response to antibiotic treatment [18]. The complex bacterial community of a biofilm is highly tolerant to antibiotics [19]. This is partly due to the complicated structure of the extracellular polymeric matrix of the biofilm, making the bacteria less accessible to many antibiotic agents [20]. As most antibiotics target active cell processes, the slow growth or starved state of the bacteria in a biofilm may also make them more tolerant. A subpopulation of these bacteria, the so-called persisters, reaches a dormant and drug-tolerant state. Such persisters are suggested to be largely responsible for the recalcitrance and recurrence of biofilm-associated infections [21]. Moreover, biofilm-entrapped bacteria are unreachable for the human immune system.
1.2 Tissue Colonization
Next to biofilm formation, another important element in the pathogenesis of BAI is bacterial colonization of the tissue around implants (Fig. 2), due to dysregulation of the local immune response by the combined presence of bacteria and a foreign body [22,23,24,25]. Bacteria are inevitably introduced in the tissue wound during surgery, either originating from the patient’s skin microflora or from the operation room [26]. Due to the implanted biomaterial, the efficacy of the host immune response is reduced. Already in the 1980s, Zimmerli et al. showed reduced neutrophil phagocytic activity in guinea pig tissue cage models infected with S. aureus [27]. When different challenge doses of S. epidermidis were injected along subcutaneously implanted catheter segments at the back of mice, the bacteria were more often found in the peri-implant tissue than on the biomaterial itself, and persisted for longer periods in the tissue than on the implant [28]. Moreover, S. epidermidis survives inside macrophages in tissue surrounding implants in mice (Fig. 2) [25, 28].
In a mouse subcutaneous BAI model, the possible routes of infection at the interface between implants and the surrounding tissue were studied [29]. In this study, S. epidermidis bacteria applied on the surface of titanium implants, both adhering and as a biofilm, relocate from the material to the surrounding tissue (Fig. 2), which is accordance with earlier studies with other types of materials [25, 28]. This suggests that it is a more general phenomenon occurring around implants manufactured from biomaterials as diverse as polymer and titanium, and with different bacterial species. In a study by Broekhuizen et al., mice were treated with dexamethasone and BrdU, a nucleotide analogue that is incorporated into DNA of dividing cells and can be detected immunohistologically. Analysis of tissue samples collected at 14 and 21 days after challenge with S. epidermidis showed regrowth of the bacteria with BrdU incorporated, which had apparently replicated between day 14 and 21, suggesting that tissue rather than the implant provides a hiding place for the bacteria [30]. Moreover, after incubation of peri-catheter tissue biopsies of deceased intensive care unit patients with BrdU, bacteria had incorporated BrdU in situ, proving that bacteria also reside and synthesize nucleic acids within tissue surrounding biomaterials in humans [30].
Bacteria colonizing the surface of a biomaterial not only are a focus of a localized biofilm infection, but can also be the source of tissue colonization (Fig. 2). Conversely, bacteria residing in the tissue can be a cause of infection after re-implantation, in experimental infection [31] as well as in patients [32].
Tissue-residing bacteria can be hard to eradicate by antibiotic treatment [33, 34]. For instance, when infected prosthetic joints are removed, patients usually require a prolonged regimen of systemic and local antibiotic treatment in order to reach and kill bacteria present in the tissue before re-implantation can be performed [6, 35]. In conclusion, next to the prevention of bacterial colonization of the implant and the subsequent biofilm formation, prevention of bacterial colonization of peri-implant tissue is of vital importance.
1.3 Intracellular Survival
In the subcutaneous mouse BAI model staphylococci predominantly co-localized with macrophages in the peri-implant tissue, even when the bacteria were present exclusively on the implant surface at the start of the experiment (Fig. 2) [29]. This interesting observation suggests that the bacteria were either removed from the implant by phagocytosis, or first detached and were subsequently phagocytosed. In this mouse model, both S. epidermidis [29] and S. aureus [36] were cultured in high numbers from the tissue and co-localized with macrophages in histology, particularly at 4 days after challenge, suggesting that these macrophages were not effectively killing the bacteria. Most likely, the local host immune response is impaired in presence of an implant, resulting in less or no clearance of bacteria. As mentioned before, neutrophils can have reduced phagocytic and bactericidal capacity in the vicinity of an implant [27, 37]. Moreover, the intracellular killing capacity of macrophages can be reduced due to altered cytokine tissue levels due to the presence of a biomaterial [25, 30, 37,38,39]. Staphylococci may even form small colony variants to adapt to this micro-environment, which are more resistant to antimicrobial compounds [40, 41]. Apparently, when bacteria are initially present near or on the surface of implants this results in ineffective eradication by phagocytes. This might lead to persistence of (intracellular) bacteria in the peri-implant tissue.
1.4 Antimicrobial Resistance
In addition to the difficulty of treating biofilm-encased or intracellularly residing bacteria with conventional antibiotic therapy, treating BAI is further hindered by the rising antibiotic resistance among pathogens. The World Health Organization recently endorsed a global action plan to tackle antibiotic resistance [42]. One of the key objectives of this plan is to develop novel antimicrobial drugs. The emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and pandrug-resistant (PDR) pathogens, accelerated by the selective pressure exerted by extensive use and misuse of antimicrobials, further underscores the very pressing need for the discovery of novel treatment strategies to replace or complement the conventional antibiotics. Magiorakos et al. defined MDR bacteria as non-susceptible to at least one agent in three or more antimicrobial categories, XDR bacteria as non-susceptible to at least one agent in all but two or fewer antimicrobial categories, meaning bacterial isolates which remained susceptible to only one or two categories, and PDR bacteria as non-susceptible to all agents in all antimicrobial categories [43]. The occurrence of XDR and PDR strains illustrates the clinical challenges that we will be facing in the dark scenario of a possible “post-antibiotic era”. Antimicrobial resistance causing limited or no treatment options in critically ill patients, stresses the importance of the development of new agents that can be used against drug-resistant bacteria. Clearly, it is vital that novel antimicrobial agents are also effective against drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria belonging to the so-called ESKAPE panel (Enterococcus faecium, S. aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species [44]), which cause the majority of US hospital infections [45] and are associated with high morbidity and mortality [46].
2 Preventive Strategies
As explained above, in addition to biofilm formation on the implant, colonization of peri-implant tissue is an important factor in the pathogenesis of BAI. Therefore, this niche needs to be taken into consideration when designing preventive strategies against BAI. Current strategies mainly focus on the development of four types of antimicrobial surfaces: (1) antifouling/anti-adhesive surfaces, (2) tissue-integrating surfaces, (3) contact-killing surfaces, and (4) surfaces which incorporate and release antimicrobials (Fig. 3) [47]. These approaches all have their benefits and limitations, which need to be taken into account when designing an antimicrobial strategy for a particular device [48].
2.1 Anti-adhesive
Implant surfaces are ideal substrates for opportunistic bacteria to attach to, colonize, and form biofilms on. Surface properties of the implant, like surface charges, hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity and surface chemistry play a major role in initial bacterial adhesion and proliferation. Already in 1987, Gristina suggested that tissue cell integration and bacterial adhesion compete for a spot on the implant’s surface, summarized as the so-called ‘race for the surface’ concept [49]. In case the bacteria win this race, infection instead of tissue integration would be the end result. In addition, Gristina also suggested that colonization of the tissue around implants was a possible mechanism of infection [49]. Bacterial adhesion and subsequent biofilm formation may be prevented by modifying the physicochemical surface properties of biomaterials, for instance by using hydrophilic polymer coatings, e.g. immobilized poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), as applied on contact lenses, shunts, endotracheal tubes and urinary catheters [47, 50]. Functionalization of the surface with a dense layer of polymer chains commonly known as polymer brush coatings, is another approach [34, 51]. Large exclusion volumes of tethered polymer chains result in surfaces difficult to approach by proteins or bacteria, and these brush coating molecules may even possess antimicrobially active functional groups.
2.2 Antibiotics
In general, antibiotics are selected based on their capacity to prevent biofilm formation, but not on their ability to kill bacteria in the other niches relevant for BAI, like in peri-implant tissue and intracellularly in host cells [47]. Antibiotics often used in the treatment of BAI, such as vancomycin and gentamicin, have low or hardly any penetration into host cells, and are thereby not active against intracellular bacteria. On the other hand, rifampicin (against staphylococci) or fluoroquinolones (against Gram-negative bacilli) do target these intracellularly localized bacteria, but resistance develops rapidly against these antibiotics. The combination of vancomycin and rifampicin is often used to treat BAI, but—as vancomycin does not reach intracellular bacteria—this likely results in a high risk of resistance development towards rifampicin.
Coatings releasing antibiotic are widely used for medical devices, like in sutures and central venous and urinary tract catheters. These coatings have two major disadvantages: (1) a patient can be infected with a bacterium resistant to the released antibiotic, and (2) due to the local release a gradient of the antibiotic will be created near the implant, which increases the risk to select for resistant bacteria. In view of the increasing development of resistance, the use of antibiotics for medical device is discouraged by government regulatory agencies like the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [48, 52].
2.3 Antiseptics
As an alternative to antibiotics, commonly used antiseptics and disinfectants may be used, as they are less known to induce resistance and in general have a broader spectrum of activity than antibiotics. These biocides, such as alcohols, aldehydes and biguanides, are extensively used in hospitals and other health care settings, and also by the general public, as an essential part of infection control practices [53]. Probably the most widely used biocide in antiseptic products (e.g. hand wash and oral products) is chlorhexidine, owing to its broad spectrum activity, low toxicity and good tolerability of soft tissue. Moreover, resistance development is extremely rare and chlorhexidine has been shown to prevent infection in animal models [36] and in patients [54]. It is used topically, for surgical site preparation, and also intracorporeally [55], and as dental irrigant fluid [56]. Chlorhexidine is currently FDA approved for coatings on intravenous catheters, and these catheters have been shown to be effective in decreasing catheter-related infection in humans [57, 58].
2.4 Antimicrobial Peptides
As discussed earlier, due to the major problems arising from resistance to conventional antibiotics, there is a strong need for antimicrobials not associated with resistance development. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are innate defence molecules of animals, plants and microorganisms. These amphipathic, cationic peptides commonly have antimicrobial activity against a wide variety of pathogens, including bacteria, fungi and viruses, and low risk of resistance development [59, 60]. In addition, many AMPs have immune-modulatory and wound healing activities [61]. The low risk of resistance development is due to the fact that AMPs interact with microbial membranes, mostly resulting in membrane depolarisation, permeabilization and/or disruption leading to rapid cell death, or passing of the membrane to reach intracellular targets [62]. Naturally occurring human AMPs are considered excellent templates for the development of novel synthetic antimicrobials. Indeed, native AMPs have been used as design templates for a large variety of synthetic AMPs, some of which have now entered phase 2 and 3 clinical trials [63, 64].
For biomaterials, the predominant AMP-related antimicrobial strategies are coating by tethering AMPs to the surface, or to apply the peptides in controlled release coatings. Immobilisation of AMPs on surfaces has been performed with a variety of peptides, and with many different chemistries [65,66,67,68]. Peptides should retain the structural characteristics important for their antimicrobial activity after immobilisation, to be effective on a surface. Length, flexibility, and kind of spacer connecting the peptide to the surface, the AMP surface density and the orientation of the immobilised peptides are other decisive factors for success [69]. Interestingly, even short surface-attached peptides, which are unlikely to have a free interaction with the bacterial membrane, have antimicrobial activity [70], probably due to destabilisation of the membrane by displacement of positively charged counter-ions, changing bacterial surface electrostatics and activating autolytic enzymes or disrupting the ionic balance [70].
Surface attachment of peptides may have certain disadvantages. Firstly, chemical procedures of tethering AMPs to surfaces may cause strong decrease in their antimicrobial activity, or even their inactivation [71, 72] depending on the combination of peptides and immobilization technology. Secondly, proteins, blood platelets and dead bacteria may block the antimicrobial groups on the surface. Lastly, since the antimicrobial activity is restricted to the surface of the implant, there is a lack of antimicrobial impact on bacteria in the tissue surrounding the implant.
Incorporation of AMPs in controlled release coatings has not yet been extensively developed, although AMPs such as OP-145 [73], IB-367 (Iseganan) [74] and Omiganan [75] have already reached clinical phase 2 or 3 testing for infections not associated with biomaterials [64]. Application of AMPs in antimicrobial surface coatings is however a subject of increasing interest [65,66,67, 76, 77].
In addition to direct antimicrobial activity, AMPs can prevent excessive activation of pro-inflammatory responses by binding bacterial endotoxins such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS) of Gram-negative bacteria, and peptidoglycan (PG) and lipoteichoic acid (LTA) of Gram-positive bacteria, which leads to their neutralization. This way, AMPs combine the desired characteristics of both direct antimicrobial agents and immune-modulators. The immunomodulatory activity may be used to increase efficacy of clearance of bacterial biofilm infection [78, 79], and might help to prevent derangement of immune responses which increase susceptibility to infection [22, 80, 81].
3 Conclusions and Future Perspective
Prevention of BAI is a challenging problem, in particular due to the increased risk of resistance development associated with current antibiotic-based strategies. Here we showed the evidence of biofilms as a source for peri-implant tissue colonization, clearly showing the importance of preventive measures to be able to act both against implant and tissue colonization. Subsequently, we described different strategies to prevent BAI and other difficult-to-treat biofilm infections. Therefore we conclude that future research should focus on the development of combination devices with both anti-fouling or contact-killing capacities—to protect the implant—and controlled release of an antimicrobial agent to protect the surrounding tissue.
References
Anderson JM, Patel JD. Biomaterial-dependent characteristics of the foreign body response and S. epidermidis biofilm interactions. In: Moriarty TF, SAJ Z, Busscher HJ, editors. Biomaterials associated infection. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 119–49.
Kwakman PHS, Zaat SAJ. Preventive measures against transcutaneous device infections. In: Moriarty TF, Zaat SAJ, Busscher HJ, editors. Biomaterials associated infection. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 229–48.
Safdar N, Kluger DM, Maki DG. A review of risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by percutaneously inserted, noncuffed central venous catheters: implications for preventive strategies. Medicine (Baltimore). 2002;81(6):466–79.
Evans RP. Current concepts for clean air and total joint arthroplasty: laminar airflow and ultraviolet radiation: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):945–53.
Krenek L, Farng E, Zingmond D, SooHoo NF. Complication and revision rates following total elbow arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(1):68–73.
Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(16):1645–54.
Anderson JM, Marchant RE. Biomaterials: factors favoring colonization and infection. In: Waldvogel FA, Bisno AL, editors. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology; 2000. p. 89–109.
O’Gara JP, Humphreys H. Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms: importance and implications. J Med Microbiol. 2001;50(7):582–7.
Waldvogel FA, Bisno AL. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology; 2000.
Holmberg A, Lood R, Mörgelin M, Söderquist B, Holst E, Collin M, et al. Biofilm formation by Propionibacterium acnes is a characteristic of invasive isolates. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15(8):787–95.
Elek SD, Conen PE. The virulence of Staphylococcus pyogenes for man; a study of the problems of wound infection. Br J Exp Pathol. 1957;38(6):573–86.
James RC, Macleod CJ. Induction of staphylococcal infections in mice with small inocula introduced on sutures. Br J Exp Pathol. 1961;42:266–77.
Noble WC. The production of subcutaneous staphylococcal skin lesions in mice. Br J Exp Pathol. 1965;46(3):254–62.
Taubler JH, Kapral FA. Staphylococcal population changes in experimentally infected mice: infection with suture-adsorbed and unadsorbed organisms grown in vitro and in vivo. J Infect Dis. 1966;116(3):257–62.
Zimmerli W, Waldvogel FA, Vaudaux P, Nydegger UE. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection: description and characteristics of an animal model. J Infect Dis. 1982;146(4):487–97.
Southwood RT, Rice JL, McDonald PJ, Hakendorf PH, Rozenbilds MA. Infection in experimental arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;224:33–6.
Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284(5418):1318–22.
Chen M, Yu Q, Sun H. Novel strategies for the prevention and treatment of biofilm related infections. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(9):18488–501.
Otto M. Staphylococcus epidermidis—the “accidental” pathogen. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7(8):555–67.
Flemming H-C, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(9):623–33.
Gerdes K, Semsey S. Microbiology: pumping persisters. Nature. 2016;534(7605):41–2.
Zaat S, Broekhuizen C, Riool M. Host tissue as a niche for biomaterial-associated infection. Future Microbiol. 2010;5(8):1149–51.
Boelens JJ, Zaat SAJ, Murk JL, Weening JJ, van der Poll T, Dankert J. Enhanced susceptibility to subcutaneous abscess formation and persistent infection around catheters is associated with sustained interleukin-1beta levels. Infect Immun. 2000;68(3):1692–5.
Boelens JJ, Zaat SAJ, Meeldijk J, Dankert J. Subcutaneous abscess formation around catheters induced by viable and nonviable Staphylococcus epidermidis as well as by small amounts of bacterial cell wall components. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;50(4):546–56.
Boelens JJ, Dankert J, Murk JL, Weening JJ, van der Poll T, Dingemans KP, et al. Biomaterial-associated persistence of Staphylococcus epidermidis in pericatheter macrophages. J Infect Dis. 2000;181(4):1337–49.
Fitzgerald RH. Microbiologic environment of the conventional operating room. Arch Surg. 1979;114(7):772–5.
Zimmerli W, Lew PD, Waldvogel FA. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection. Evidence for a local granulocyte defect. J Clin Investig. 1984;73(4):1191–200.
Broekhuizen CAN, de Boer L, Schipper K, Jones CD, Quadir S, Feldman RG, et al. Peri-implant tissue is an important Niche for Staphylococcus epidermidis in experimental biomaterial-associated infection in mice. Infect Immun. 2007;75(3):1129–36.
Riool M, de Boer L, Jaspers V, van der Loos CM, van Wamel WJB, Wu G, et al. Staphylococcus epidermidis originating from titanium implants infects surrounding tissue and immune cells. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(12):5202–12.
Broekhuizen CAN, Sta M, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE, Zaat SAJ. Microscopic detection of viable Staphylococcus epidermidis in peri-implant tissue in experimental biomaterial-associated infection, identified by bromodeoxyuridine incorporation. Infect Immun. 2010;78(3):954–62.
Engelsman AF, Saldarriaga-Fernandez IC, Nejadnik MR, van Dam GM, Francis KP, Ploeg RJ, et al. The risk of biomaterial-associated infection after revision surgery due to an experimental primary implant infection. Biofouling. 2010;26(7):761–7.
Moriarty TF, Kuehl R, Coenye T, Metsemakers W-J, Morgenstern M, Schwarz EM, et al. Orthopaedic device-related infection: current and future interventions for improved prevention and treatment. EFORT Open Rev. 2016;1(4):89–99.
Broekhuizen CAN, de Boer L, Schipper K, Jones CD, Quadir S, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE, et al. Staphylococcus epidermidis is cleared from biomaterial implants but persists in peri-implant tissue in mice despite rifampicin/vancomycin treatment. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2008;85A(2):498–505.
Nejadnik MR, Engelsman AF, Saldarriaga Fernandez IC, Busscher HJ, Norde W, van der Mei HC. Bacterial colonization of polymer brush-coated and pristine silicone rubber implanted in infected pockets in mice. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(6):1323–5.
Walenkamp GHIM. Gentamicin PMMA beads and other local antibiotic carriers in two-stage revision of total knee infection: a review. J Chemother. 2001;13(sup4):66–72.
Riool M, Dirks A, Jaspers V, de Boer L, Loontjens T, van der Loos C, et al. A chlorhexidine-releasing epoxy-based coating on titanium implants prevents Staphylococcus aureus experimental biomaterial-associated infection. Eur Cells Mater. 2017;33(4):143–57.
Zimmerli W, Sendi P. Pathogenesis of implant-associated infection: the role of the host. Semin Immunopathol. 2011;33(3):295–306.
Boelens JJ, van der Poll T, Dankert J, Zaat SAJ. Interferon-γ protects against biomaterial-associated Staphylococcus epidermidis infection in mice. J Infect Dis. 2000;181(3):1167–71.
Boelens JJ, van Der Poll T, Zaat SAJ, Murk JL, Weening JJ, Dankert J. Interleukin-1 receptor type I gene-deficient mice are less susceptible to Staphylococcus epidermidis biomaterial-associated infection than are wild-type mice. Infect Immun. 2000;68(12):6924–31.
Tuchscherr L, Heitmann V, Hussain M, Viemann D, Roth J, von Eiff C, et al. Staphylococcus aureus small-colony variants are adapted phenotypes for intracellular persistence. J Infect Dis. 2010;202(7):1031–40.
Zaat SAJ. Tissue colonization in biomaterial-associated infection. In: Moriarty TF, Zaat SAJ, Busscher HJ, editors. Biomaterials associated infection. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 175–207.
Chan M. Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
Magiorakos A-P, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(3):268–81.
Rice LB. Federal funding for the study of antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial pathogens: no ESKAPE. J Infect Dis. 2008;197(8):1079–81.
Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS, Edwards JE, Gilbert D, Rice LB, et al. Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(1):1–12.
Paramythiotou E, Routsi C. Association between infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and mortality in critically ill patients. World J Crit Care Med. 2016;5(2):111.
Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC, Subbiahdoss G, Jutte PC, van den Dungen JJ, Zaat SA, Schultz MJ, et al. Biomaterial-associated infection: locating the finish line in the race for the surface. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(153):153rv10.
Brooks BD, Brooks AE, Grainger DW. Antimicrobial medical devices in preclinical development and clinical use. In: Moriarty TF, Zaat SAJ, Busscher HJ, editors. Biomaterials associated infection. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 307–54.
Gristina A. Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science (80-). 1987;237(4822):1588–95.
Banerjee I, Pangule RC, Kane RS. Antifouling coatings: recent developments in the design of surfaces that prevent fouling by proteins, bacteria, and marine organisms. Adv Mater. 2011;23(6):690–718.
Neoh KG, Shi ZL, Kang ET. Anti-adhesive and antibacterial polymer brushes. In: Moriarty TF, Zaat SAJ, Busscher HJ, editors. Biomaterials associated infection. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 405–32.
FDA. Draft guidance for industry and FDA Staff—premarket notification [510(k)] submissions for medical devices that include antimicrobial agents, vol. 510. Rockville: FDA; 2007.
McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999;12(1):147–79.
Rupp ME, Lisco SJ, Lipsett PA, Perl TM, Keating K, Civetta JM, et al. Effect of a second-generation venous catheter impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on central catheter-related infections: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(8):570–80.
Wilkins RG, Unverdorben M. Wound cleaning and wound healing. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2013;26(4):160–3.
Iqbal A. Antimicrobial irrigants in the endodontic therapy. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2012;6(2):1–7.
Campbell AA, Song L, Li XS, Nelson BJ, Bottoni C, Brooks DE, et al. Development, characterization, and anti-microbial efficacy of hydroxyapatite–chlorhexidine coatings produced by surface-induced mineralization. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53(4):400–7.
Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO, Thornby JI, Wenker OC, Gabrielli A, et al. A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(1):1–8.
Zasloff M. Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms. Nature. 2002;415(6870):389–95.
Hancock REW, Sahl H-G. Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new anti-infective therapeutic strategies. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(12):1551–7.
Nakatsuji T, Gallo RL. Antimicrobial peptides: old molecules with new ideas. J Investig Dermatol. 2012;132(3 Pt 2):887–95.
Pasupuleti M, Schmidtchen A, Malmsten M. Antimicrobial peptides: key components of the innate immune system. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2012;32(2):143–71.
Fox JL. Antimicrobial peptides stage a comeback. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(5):379–82.
Greber KE, Dawgul M. Antimicrobial peptides under clinical trials. Curr Top Med Chem. 2016;17(5):620–8.
Gao G, Lange D, Hilpert K, Kindrachuk J, Zou Y, Cheng JTJ, et al. The biocompatibility and biofilm resistance of implant coatings based on hydrophilic polymer brushes conjugated with antimicrobial peptides. Biomaterials. 2011;32(16):3899–909.
Yazici H, O’Neill MB, Kacar T, Wilson BR, Oren EE, Sarikaya M, et al. Engineered chimeric peptides as antimicrobial surface coating agents toward infection-free implants. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016;8(8):5070–81.
Rai A, Pinto S, Evangelista MB, Gil H, Kallip S, Ferreira MGSS, et al. High-density antimicrobial peptide coating with broad activity and low cytotoxicity against human cells. Acta Biomater. 2016;33:64–74.
Silva RR, Avelino KYPS, Ribeiro KL, Franco OL, Oliveira MDL, Andrade CAS. Chemical immobilization of antimicrobial peptides on biomaterial surfaces. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2016;1(8):129–42.
Costa F, Carvalho IF, Montelaro RC, Gomes P, Martins MCL. Covalent immobilization of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) onto biomaterial surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(4):1431–40.
Hilpert K, Elliott M, Jenssen H, Kindrachuk J, Fjell CD, Körner J, et al. Screening and characterization of surface-tethered cationic peptides for antimicrobial activity. Chem Biol. 2009;16(1):58–69.
Bagheri M, Beyermann M, Dathe M. Immobilization reduces the activity of surface-bound cationic antimicrobial peptides with no influence upon the activity spectrum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(3):1132–41.
Onaizi SA, Leong SSJ. Tethering antimicrobial peptides: current status and potential challenges. Biotechnol Adv. 2011;29(1):67–74.
Nell MJ, Tjabringa GS, Wafelman AR, Verrijk R, Hiemstra PS, Drijfhout JW, et al. Development of novel LL-37 derived antimicrobial peptides with LPS and LTA neutralizing and antimicrobial activities for therapeutic application. Peptides. 2006;27(4):649–60.
Mosca DA, Hurst MA, So W, Viajar BSC, Fujii CA, Falla TJ. IB-367, a protegrin peptide with in vitro and in vivo activities against the microflora associated with oral mucositis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(7):1803–8.
Sader HS, Fedler KA, Rennie RP, Stevens S, Jones RN. Omiganan pentahydrochloride (MBI 226), a topical 12-amino-acid cationic peptide: spectrum of antimicrobial activity and measurements of bactericidal activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(8):3112–8.
Ma M, Kazemzadeh-Narbat M, Hui Y, Lu S, Ding C, Chen DDY, et al. Local delivery of antimicrobial peptides using self-organized TiO2 nanotube arrays for peri-implant infections. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2012;100A(2):278–85.
Riool M, de Breij A, de Boer L, Kwakman PHSS, Cordfunke RA, Cohen O, et al. Controlled release of LL-37-derived synthetic antimicrobial and anti-biofilm peptides SAAP-145 and SAAP-276 prevents experimental biomaterial-associated Staphylococcus aureus infection. Adv Funct Mater. 2017;27(20):1606623.
Mansour SC, de la Fuente-Núñez C, Hancock REW. Peptide IDR-1018: modulating the immune system and targeting bacterial biofilms to treat antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. J Pept Sci. 2015;21(5):323–9.
Mansour SC, Pena OM, Hancock REW. Host defense peptides: front-line immunomodulators. Trends Immunol. 2014;35(9):443–50.
Heim CE, Vidlak D, Scherr TD, Kozel JA, Holzapfel M, Muirhead DE, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells contribute to Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic biofilm infection. J Immunol. 2014;192(8):3778–92.
Heim CE, Vidlak D, Scherr TD, Hartman CW, Garvin KL, Kielian T. IL-12 promotes myeloid-derived suppressor cell recruitment and bacterial persistence during Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic implant infection. J Immunol. 2015;194(8):3861–72.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Riool, M., Zaat, S.A.J. (2022). Biomaterial-Associated Infection: Pathogenesis and Prevention. In: Soria, F., Rako, D., de Graaf, P. (eds) Urinary Stents. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04484-7_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04484-7_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04483-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04484-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)