Skip to main content
. 2016 Jul 22;60(8):4670–4676. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00551-16

TABLE 4.

COMSTAT analysis of z stacks from 24-h-old biofilms of Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 15151(pGFP-apra) on glass coverslips exposed to antimicrobials at susceptibility breakpoint concentrationsa

Antimicrobial(s) Biomass (mm3/mm2) Maximum thickness (mm) Mean thickness (mm) Roughness coefficient
No antimicrobial 17.39 ± 4.50 40.52 ± 1.26 23.62 ± 5.61 0.36 ± 0.19
MEM 19.90 ± 6.63 36.84 ± 1.44b 26.92 ± 5.13 0.25 ± 0.18
IPM 17.20 ± 9.21 35.71 ± 2.42b 23.07 ± 9.60 0.34 ± 0.22
SUL 16.61 ± 8.20 40.89 ± 2.85 25.38 ± 6.97 0.43 ± 0.24
CST 17.18 ± 4.70 38.47 ± 3.21 22.87 ± 4.21 0.26 ± 0.12
TGC 16.90 ± 5.48 38.07 ± 3.19 22.63 ± 5.99 0.39 ± 0.18
MEM + SULc 8.32 ± 4.84b 34.92 ± 3.33b 13.70 ± 6.69b 0.73 ± 0.28b
SUL + TGCd 12.40 ± 4.50b 32.55 ± 2.58b 16.50 ± 3.84b 0.52 ± 0.19
a

All results are an average of the results from 8 image stacks acquired in 4 separate experiments. Values are mean ± standard deviation. Susceptibility breakpoint concentrations of antimicrobials were: meropenem (MEM), 2 mg/liter; imipenem (IPM), 2 mg/liter; sulbactam (SUL), 4 mg/liter; colistin (CST), 2 mg/liter; and tigecycline (TGC), 2 mg/liter.

b

P < 0.05 for the group with antimicrobials versus the group without antimicrobials.

c

The meropenem-plus-sulbactam group differed significantly (P < 0.05) from the sulbactam-only group in all four parameters and from the meropenem-only group in biomass, mean thickness, and roughness coefficient, but not in maximum thickness.

d

The sulbactam-plus-tigecycline group differed significantly (P < 0.05) from the sulbactam-only group and from the tigecycline-only group in maximum thickness and mean thickness.