• Kathrin Schedler, Ojan Assadian, Uta Brautferger, Gerald Müller, Torsten Koburger, Simon Classen, and Axel Kramer.
• Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany.
• Bmc Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 13; 17 (1): 143.

BackgroundCurrently, there is no agreed standard for exploring the antimicrobial activity of wound antiseptics in a phase 2/ step 2 test protocol. In the present study, a standardised in-vitro test is proposed, which allows to test potential antiseptics in a more realistically simulation of conditions found in wounds as in a suspension test. Furthermore, factors potentially influencing test results such as type of materials used as test carrier or various compositions of organic soil challenge were investigated in detail.MethodsThis proposed phase 2/ step 2 test method was modified on basis of the EN 14561 by drying the microbial test suspension on a metal carrier for 1 h, overlaying the test wound antiseptic, washing-off, neutralization, and dispersion at serial dilutions at the end of the required exposure time yielded reproducible, consistent test results.ResultsThe difference between the rapid onset of the antiseptic effect of PVP-I and the delayed onset especially of polihexanide was apparent. Among surface-active antimicrobial compounds, octenidine was more effective than chlorhexidine digluconate and polihexanide, with some differences depending on the test organisms. However, octenidine and PVP-I were approximately equivalent in efficiency and microbial spectrum, while polihexanide required longer exposure times or higher concentrations for a comparable antimicrobial efficacy.ConclusionOverall, this method allowed testing and comparing differ liquid and gel based antimicrobial compounds in a standardised setting.

28 keywords...

hide…