Do Different Sutures with Triclosan Have Different Antimicrobial Activities? A Pharmacodynamic Approach.
antimicrobial
contact killing
pharmacodynamics
surgical site infection
suture
time-kill
translational modelling
triclosan
Journal
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2079-6382
Titre abrégé: Antibiotics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101637404
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Sep 2022
03 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
26
07
2022
revised:
30
08
2022
accepted:
30
08
2022
entrez:
23
9
2022
pubmed:
24
9
2022
medline:
24
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
(1) Background: Three antimicrobial absorbable sutures have different triclosan (TS) loads, triclosan release kinetics and hydrolysis times. This in vitro study aims to analyse and compare their antimicrobial pharmacodynamics. (2) Methods: Time-kill assays were performed with eight triclosan-susceptible microorganisms common in surgical site infections (SSIs) and a segment of each TS. Microbial concentrations were measured at T0, T4, T8 and T24 h. Similar non-triclosan sutures (NTS) were used as controls. Microbial concentrations were plotted and analysed with panel analysis. They were predicted over time with a double-exponential model and four parameters fitted to each TS × microorganism combination. (3) Results: The microbial concentration was associated with the triclosan presence, timeslot and microorganism. It was not associated with the suture material. All combinations shared a common pattern with an early steep concentration reduction from baseline to 4-8 h, followed by a concentration up to a 24-h plateau in most cases with a mild concentration increase. (4) Conclusions: Microorganisms seem to be predominantly killed by contact or near-contact killing with the suture rather than the triclosan concentration in the culture medium. No significant in vitro antimicrobial pharmacodynamic difference between the three TS is identified. Triclosan can reduce the suture microbial colonisation and SSI risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36139974
pii: antibiotics11091195
doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11091195
pmc: PMC9494962
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ethicon Limited
ID : IIS15-216/2016-11-09
Références
Am J Infect Control. 1992 Oct;20(5):271-4
pubmed: 1332552
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2004 Fall;5(3):281-8
pubmed: 15684799
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 23;9(1):e86669
pubmed: 24466194
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008 Aug;9(4):451-7
pubmed: 18687027
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Feb;76(2):235-236
pubmed: 29154775
Pharmaceutics. 2019 Mar 21;11(3):
pubmed: 30901930
Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Feb;113(2):616-622
pubmed: 33794164
Pharmaceutics. 2022 Feb 28;14(3):
pubmed: 35335916
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003 Nov;52(5):750-63
pubmed: 14519671
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005 Jun;55(6):879-82
pubmed: 15860550
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 May 22;12(5):5657-84
pubmed: 26006133
Surg Clin North Am. 2009 Jun;89(3):627-41
pubmed: 19465201
J Biol Chem. 2000 Feb 18;275(7):4654-9
pubmed: 10671494
J Biol Chem. 2000 Dec 22;275(51):40128-33
pubmed: 11007778
Nature. 1999 Apr 1;398(6726):383-4
pubmed: 10201369
Eur Biophys J. 2004 Aug;33(5):448-53
pubmed: 14714154
J Nat Sci. 2015 Mar;1(3):
pubmed: 25879080
Microbiol Immunol. 1979;23(6):435-42
pubmed: 491988
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2002;3 Suppl 1:S79-87
pubmed: 12573042
Am J Infect Control. 2003 Apr;31(2):124-7
pubmed: 12665747
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 3;9(9):e029727
pubmed: 31481559
J Biol Chem. 1999 Apr 16;274(16):11110-4
pubmed: 10196195
Am J Vet Res. 2020 Jan;81(1):84-90
pubmed: 31887087
Arch Biochem Biophys. 2001 Jun 1;390(1):128-36
pubmed: 11368524
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2001 Aug 7;202(1):1-7
pubmed: 11506900
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Feb;54(2):689-98
pubmed: 19933806
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Oct;41(10):1275-9
pubmed: 22591717
J Periodontol. 1997 Aug;68(8):729-33
pubmed: 9287062
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jan;42(1):150-1
pubmed: 23165106
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012 Sep;40(3):210-20
pubmed: 22789727
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2007 Apr;8(2):201-8
pubmed: 17437365