Advertisement

Comparison of octenidine dihydrochloride (Octenisept®), polihexanide (Prontosan®) and povidon iodine (Betadine®) for topical antibacterial effects in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-contaminated, full-skin thickness burn wounds in rats

  • Fatih Uygur
  • Mustafa Özyurt
  • Rahmi Evinç
  • Tugrul Hosbul
  • Bahattin Çeliköz
  • Tuncer Haznedaroglu
Research Article
  • 232 Downloads

Abstract

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is one of the most frequently isolated organisms from infected burn wounds and a significant cause of nosocomial infection and septic mortality among burn patients. In this animal study, three antiseptic agents which were Octenidine dihydrochloride (Octenisept®, Schülke & Mayr, Norderstedt, Germany), polyhexanide (Prontosan®, B. Braun, Melsungen AG, Germany) and povidon iodine (Betadine, Purdue Pharma L.P, Stamford, USA) were compared to assess the antiseptic effect of their applications on experimental burn wounds in in rats contaiminated with P. aeruginosa. All treatment modalities were effective against P. aeruginosa because there were significant differences between treatment groups and control groups. The mean eschar concentrations were not different between polyhexanide and povidon iodine groups, but there were significant differences between the octenidine dihydrochloride group and the other treatment groups, indicating that the Octenidine dihydrochloride significantly eliminated P. aeruginosa more effectively in the tissues compared to the to other agents. All treatment modalities were sufficient to prevent the P. aeruginosa invasion into the muscle and to cause systemic infection. In conclusion, Octenidine dihydrochloride is the most effective antiseptic agent in the treatment of the P. aeruginosa-contaminated burn wounds; Octenidine dihydrochloride can be considered as a treatment choice because of its peculiar ability of limit the frequency of replacing wound dressings.

Keywords

Pseudomonas aeruginosa Burn wounds Antiseptic 

References

  1. [1]
    Pruitt, B. A., Jr., Infection and the burn patient, Br. J. Surg., 1990, 77, 1081–1082PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Pruitt, B. A., Jr., The diagnosis and treatment of infection in the burn patient, Burns Incl. Therm. Inj. 1984, 11, 79–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Greefield E., McManus AT., Infection complication, prevention and strategies for their control, Nurs. Clin. North. Am., 1997, 32, 297–309Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    McManus A., Twenty-five year review of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia in a burn centre, Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol., 1985, 4, 219–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Botzenhart K., Doring G., Ecology and epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In., M. Campo, editor. Pseudomonas aeruginosa as an Opportunistic Pathogen., New York, Plenum Press, 1993, 1–18Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Revathi G., Puri J., Jain B., Bacteriology of burns., Burns., 1998, 24, 347–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Tredget E., Shankowsky H., Rennie R., Burrell R., Logsetty S., Pseudomonas infections in the thermally injured patient, Burns, 2004, 30, 3–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Walker HL., Mason AD., A standard animal burn, J. Trauma, 1968, 8, 1049–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Herndon DN., editor.Herndon’s total burn care. 2nd ed. London, W.B. Saunders Co., 2001, p. 98–169Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Houari A., Di Martino P., Effect of chlorhexidine and benzalkonium chloride on bacterial biofilm formation, Lett Appl Microbiol., 2007 Dec, 45(6), 652–6. Epub 2007 Oct 17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    DeQueiroz GA., Day DF., Antimicrobial activity and effectiveness of a combination of sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide in killing and removing Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms from surfaces, J. Appl Microbiol., 2007 Oct, 103(4), 794–802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Sreenivasan PK., Chorny RC., The effects of disinfectant foam on microbial biofilms, Biofouling. 2005, 21(2), 141–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Ulkür E., Oncül O., Karagöz H., Celiköz B., Cavu§lu S., Comparison of silver-coated dressing (Acticoat), chlorhexidine acetate 0.5% (Bactigrass), and silver sulfadiazine 1% (Silverdin) for topical antibacterial effect in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-contaminated, full-skin thickness burn wounds in rats, J. Burn Care Rehabil., 2005, 26(5), 430–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kramer A. et al., Comparison of the toxicity of Lavasept and selected antiseptic agents, Hyg. Med., 1993, 18, 9–16Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Harke HP., Octenidine dihydrochloride, properties of a new antimicrobial active agent, Zbl. Hyg., 1989, 188, 188–93Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Sedlock DM., Bailey DM., Microbicidal activity of octenidine hydrochloride, a new alkanediylbis[pyridine] germicidal agent, Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother., 1985, 28, 786–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Willenegger H., Local antiseptics in surgery — rebirth and advances, Unfallchirurgie., 1994, 20, 94–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Ikeda T., Tazuke S., Watanabe M., Interaction of biologically active molecules with phospholipid membranes, I. Fluorescence depolarization studies on the effect of polymeric biocide bearing biguanide groups in the main chain, Biochim. Biophys. Acta., 1983, 735, 380–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Broxton P., Woodcock PM., Heatley F., Gilbert P., Interaction of some polyhexamethylene biguanides and membrane phospholipids in Escherichia coli., J. Appl. Bacteriol., 1984, 57, 115–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Rietkötter J., Körber A., Grabbe S., Dissemond J., Eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a chronic wound by a new polyhexanide hydrogel. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol., 2007 Nov, 21(10), 1416–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Daeschlein G., Assadian O., Bruck JC., Meinl C., Kramer A., Koch Feasibility and clinical applicability of polihexanide for treatment of second-degree burn wounds, SSkin. Pharmacol. Physiol., 2007, 20(6), 292–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Burks RI., Povidone-iodine solution in wound treatment, Phys. Ther., 1998, 78, 212–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Harvey SC., Antiseptics and disinfectants, In, Gilman AG., Goodman LS., Rall TW., Murad F., eds. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 7th ed. New York, Macmillian Publishing Co. Inc. 1985, 959–973Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    LaRocca R., LaRocca MAK., Ansell JM., Microbiology of povidoneiodine, an oveniew. In, Digenis GA., Ansell JM., eds. Proceedings of the Intemational Symposium on Povidone. Lexington, Ky, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, 1983, 101–119Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Anderson RL., Iodophor antiseptics, intrinsic microbial contamination with resident bacteria, Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol., 1989, 10, 443–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatih Uygur
    • 1
  • Mustafa Özyurt
    • 2
  • Rahmi Evinç
    • 1
  • Tugrul Hosbul
    • 2
  • Bahattin Çeliköz
    • 1
  • Tuncer Haznedaroglu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Burn Unit, Gülhane Military Medical Academy and Medical FacultyHaydarpaşa Training HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology and Clinical Microbiology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy and Medical FacultyHaydarpaşa Training HospitalIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations