Skip to main content
. 2013 Sep 13;12(4):469–483. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12142

Table 2.

Antimicrobial efficacy after 24 hours of continuous exposure to dressings on mature PA01 biofilms*

A: 24‐Hour exposure Mean log CFU/ml 95% CI log CFU/ml Log reduction Significance
Before treatment (0 hour) 7·076 6·221–7·931

0·751a

−1·001b

ns

ns

No dressing 6·075 5·439–6·711

1·752a

b

**

Wet gauze 7·827 7·072–8·583

a

−1·752b

**

Algisite®‐M (Ca Alginate) 9·051 8·650–9·451

−1·223a

−2·976b

*

***

Aquacel® (NaCMC) 7·719 7·447–7·992

0·108a

−1·644b

ns

*

Aquacel‐Ag (NaCMC‐Ag) 7·453 7·168–7·739

0·374a

−1·379b

ns

ns

Curity™ AMD (PHMB gauze) 7·388 7·171–7·604

0·439a

−1·313b

ns

ns

Medihoney®‐Ca alginate pad 6·733 6·228–7·237

1·095a

−0·658b

ns

ns

4% Ethanol (ETOH) 6·476 6·012–6·941

1·351a

−0·401b

ns

ns

Medihoney ointment 6·272 5·806–6·737

1·555a

−0·197b

*

ns

Cadesorb® (cadexomer) 6·549 5·054–8·044

1·279a

−0·474b

ns

ns

Acticoat®‐Absorb (Ca Alginate‐NanoAg) 6·206 5·924–6·487

1·622a

−0·131b

***

ns

Tegaderm®‐AgMesh (Ag Sulphate gauze) 6·018 5·412–6·623

1·81a

0·057b

***

ns

Acticoat 7 (Polyethylene‐NanoAg) 6·005 3·164–8·846

1·822a

0·07b

*

ns

Silvasorb® gel (Polyacrylate–AgCl) 5·161 4·833–5·488

2·666a

0·914b

***

ns

Povidone‐iodine (PVP‐I) 5·257 4·287–6·226

2·571a

0·818b

***

ns

Iodoflex™ (100% cadexomer iodine) 0 0–0

7·827a

6·075b

***

***

B: 24‐Hour exposure Mean log CFU/ml 95% CI log CFU/ml Log reduction Significance
Cadesorb (cadexomer)a 6·549 5·054–8·044
Iodoflex (100% cadexomer iodine) 0 0–0 6·549a ***
Algisite‐M (Ca Alginate)b 9·051 8·650–9·451
Acticoat‐Absorb (Ca Alginate‐NanoAg) 6·206 5·924–6·487 2·845b ***
Medihoney alginate pad 6·733 6·228–7·237 2·318b ***
Aquacel (NaCMC)c 7·719 7·447–7·992
Aquacel‐Ag (NaCMC‐Ag) 7·453 7·168–7·739 0·266c ns

CFU, colony‐forming unit; CI, confidence interval.

*

All biofilms were cultured for 3 days on porcine explants and pre‐treated for 24 hours with high antibiotic immersion treatment to kill planktonic bacteria before dressing application, including the before treatment (0 hour) condition. Microbial load reduction due to antimicrobial dressings (single application) was compared to (A) wet gauze or no dressing control or (B) companion (vehicle alone) dressing control.

Compared to awet (ddH20) gauze control or bno dressing control.

Compared to companion dressing as indicated in each demarcated set a,b,c.

* = (0·01 ≤ P< 0·05), ** = (0·001 ≤ P < 0·01), *** = (P < 0·001) and ns = (P ≥ 0·05).