Absorptive antibacterial dressings that assist in controlling bioburden without risks of cytotoxicity or residual absorption can be effectively used for prolonged periods throughout the wound healing continuum.
Recent Advances:
Until recently, gentian violet and methylene blue (GV/MB) antibacterial dressings have been commercially available only in polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) foam; polyurethane (PU) foam bonded with GV and MB with thin film backing is now commercially available. GV/MB PU foam does not require hydration or a necessary secondary dressing. GV/MB PVA and PU foam dressings were recently granted FDA clearance as antibacterial dressings, as opposed to bacteriostatic dressings as previously classified. Within the class of antibacterial dressings, GV/MB foam dressings are of lower cost alternative to silver- or iodine-based antibacterial dressings with no risk of absorption of any of the foam components into the tissues.
Critical Issues:
Control of wound bioburden levels by antibacterial agents and absorption of excess exudate are crucial in preventing infections that drastically increase the price of wound care. Use of GV/MB dressings may improve wound healing outcomes and decrease overall costs through super absorption, promotion of autolytic debridement, bioburden reduction, ease of use, and decreased dressing change frequency.
Future Directions:
Evolution in resistant bacterial strains will drive continual changes in advanced wound care products. Demand will increase for economically priced, versatile wound care dressings that assist in debridement, maintain a moist wound environment, absorb and trap bacterial debris, and decrease dressing change frequency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McDonnellG, RussellAD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev, 1999; 12:147–179.
2.
DrosouA, FalabellaA, KirsnerRS. Antiseptics on wounds: an area of controversy. Wounds, 2003; 15:149–166.
SibbaldRG, OvingtonL, AyelloE, GoodmanL, ElliottJ. Wound bed preparation 2014 update: management of critical colonization with a gentian violet and methylene blue absorbent antibacterial dressing and elevated levels of matrix metalloproteases with an ovine collagen extracellular matrix dressing. Adv Skin Wound Care, 2014; 27:s1–s6.
5.
BrownA. Prescribing and silver wound care products. J Commun Nursing, 2006; 20:23–26.
6.
ButcherM. Progression to healing. A pocket guide to clinical decision-making in wound management. In: BaleS, GrayD, eds. Wounds. Aberdeen, UK: Wound-UK Books, 2006:21–46.
7.
BurdA, KwokCH, HungSC, et al.A comparative study of the cytotoxicity of silver-based dressings in monolayer cell, tissue explant, and animal models. Wound Repair Regen, 2007; 15:94–104.
8.
JurczakF, DugréT, JohnstoneA, OfforiT, VujovicZ, HollanderD. Randomised clinical trial of hydrofiber dressing with silver versus povidone-iodine gauze in the management of open surgical and traumatic wounds. Int Wound J, 2007; 4:66–76.
9.
IngrahamMA. The bacteriostatic action of gentian violet and its dependence on the oxidation-reduction potential. J Bacteriol, 1933; 26:573–598.
10.
DubosR. The relation of the bacteriostatic action of certain dyes to oxidation-reduction processes. J Exp Med, 1929; 49:575–592.
11.
CouttsPM, RyanJ, SibbaldRG. Case series of lower-extremity chronic wounds managed with an antibacterial foam dressing bound with gentian violet and methylene blue. Adv Skin Wound Care, 2014; 27(3 Suppl 1):9–13.
12.
HoffmannCE, RahnO. The bactericidal and bacteriostatic action of crystal violet. J Bacteriol, 1944; 47:177–186.
13.
PBS. The epic story of blood. 2002. www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/innovators/bio_shanbrom.html (last accessed August8, 2014).
14.
ShiL, ErmisR, KiedaischB, CarsonD. The effect of various wound dressings on the activity of debriding enzymes. Adv Skin Wound Care, 2010; 23:456–463.
15.
CooperR. A review of the evidence for the use of topical antimicrobial agents in wound care. 2008. www.worldwidewounds.com/2004/february/Cooper/Topical-Antimicrobial-Agents (last accessed August11, 2014).
16.
BowlerPG, DuerdenBI, ArmstrongDG. Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2001; 14:244–269.
17.
NiednerR. Cytotoxicity and sensitization of povidone iodine and other frequently used anti-infective agents. Dermatology, 1997; 195(Suppl 2):89–92.
18.
BoltonLL, OleniaczW, ConstantineB, et al.Repair and antibacterial effects of topical antiseptic agents. In: MaibachHI, LoweNJ, eds. Models in Dermatology, Vol. 2. Karger: Basel, 1985:145–158.
19.
RennerR, WollinaU. Contact sensitization in patients with leg ulcers and/or leg eczema: comparison between centers. Int J Lower Extrem Wounds, 2002; 1:251–255.
20.
SaapL, FahimS, AresnaultE, PrattM, PierscianowskiT, FalangaV, et al.Contact sensitivity in patients with leg ulcerations: a North American study. Arch Dermatol, 2004; 140:1241–1246.
21.
GehrigK, WarshawE. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical antibiotics: epidemiology, responsible allergens, and management. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2008; 58:1–21.
22.
HammondAA, MillerKG, KruczekCJ, et al.An in vitro biofilm model to examine the effect of antibiotic ointments on biofilms produced by burn wound bacterial isolates. Burns, 2011; 37:312–321.
23.
WolcottRD, RhoadsDD. A study of bio-films based wound management in subjects with critical limb ischaemia. J Wound Care, 2008; 17:145–155.
HermansM. What you need to know about silver dressings. Ostomy Wound Manage, 2008; 54:10.
27.
Du ToitDF, PageBJ. An in vitro evaluation of the cell toxicity of honey and silver dressings. J Wound Care, 2009; 18:383–384, 386–389.
28.
WilkinsonLJ, WhiteRJ, ChipmanJK. Silver and nanoparticles of silver in wound dressings: a review of efficacy and safety. J Wound Care, 2011; 20:543–549.
29.
SibbaldRG, LeaperDJ, QueenD. Iodine made easy. Wounds Int, 2011; 2:s1–s6.
30.
ZhouLH, NahmWK, BadiavasE, et al.Slow release iodine preparation and wound healing: in vitro effects consistent with lack of in vivo toxicity in human chronic wounds. Br J Dermatol, 2002; 146:365–374.
31.
MurdochR, LaganKM. The role of povidone and cadexomer iodine in the management of acute and chronic wounds. Phys Ther Rev, 2013; 18:207–216.
32.
JamesGA, SwoggerE, WolcottR, et al.Biofilms in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen, 2008; 16:37–44.
33.
PercivalSL, HillKE, WilliamsDW, HooperSJ, ThomasDW, CostertonJW. A review of the scientific evidence for biofilms in wounds. Wound Repair Regen, 2012; 20:647–657.
34.
DavisS, RicottiC, CazzanigaA, WelshE, EaglesteinW, MertzP. Microscopic and physiologic evidence for biofilm associated wound colonization in vivo. Wound Repair Regen, 2008; 16:23–29.
35.
FedtkeI, GötzF, PeschelA. Bacterial evasion of innate host defenses—the Staphylococcus aureus lesson. Int J Med Microbiol, 2004; 294:189–194.
36.
HurlowJ, BowlerPG. Clinical experience with wound biofilm and management; a case series. Ostomy Wound Manage, 2009; 55:38–49.
What is PVA?. 2011. Advanced Meditech International, Inc.www.ameditech.com/medinfo/aboutpva.htm (last accessed August11, 2014).
39.
Solano-KiedaischS, JelfC, RamsayS, AustD, RocheE. Activity against wound pathogens and absorbency for silver dressings and a PVA sponge containing organic pigments. Poster presented at World Union of Wound Healing Societies Congress; June 4–8, 2008; Toronto, Canada.
40.
ConwellP, MikulskiL, TramontozziM. A comparison of two antimicrobial dressings: a randomized prospective trial comparing PVA foam with two organic pigments to a silver based wound dressing. Poster presented at Symposium on Advanced wound care, May 2–5, 2004; Lake Buena Vista, FL.
41.
LorymanC, MansbridgeJ. Inhibition of keratinocyte migration by lipopolysaccharide. Wound Repair Regen, 2008; 16:45–51.
42.
SwanH, TrovelaVJ. Case study review: use of an absorbent bacteriostatic dressing for multiple indications. Poster presented at Clinical Symposium on Advances in Skin and Wound Care; September 9–11, 2011; Washington, DC.
43.
MeaumeS, TeotL, LazarethI, MartiniJ, BohbotS. The importance of pain reduction through dressing selection in routine wound management: the MAPP study. J Wound Care, 2004; 13:409–413.
44.
CecilRL. Rheumatoid arthritis new method of approach to the disease. JAMA, 1933; 100:1220–1227.
45.
KonzE, NicholsT, LeonardM, OvermyerT. The role of “touch” in the assessment of new wound care dressings: 2346. JWOCN, 2008; 35:S44.
