The incidence of severe infectious complications after burn injury increases mortality by 40%. However, traditional approaches for managing burn infections are not always effective. High-voltage, pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment shortly after a burn injury has demonstrated an antimicrobial effect in vivo; however, the working parameters and long-term effects of PEF treatment have not yet been investigated.
Approach:
Nine sets of PEF parameters were investigated to optimize the applied voltage, pulse duration, and frequency or pulse repetition for disinfection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in a stable mouse burn wound model. The bacterial load after PEF administration was monitored for 3 days through bioluminescence imaging. Histological assessments and inflammation response analyses were performed at 1 and 24 h after the therapy.
Results:
Among all tested PEF parameters, the best disinfection efficacy of P. aeruginosa infection was achieved with a combination of 500 V, 100 μs, and 200 pulses delivered at 3 Hz through two plate electrodes positioned 1 mm apart for up to 3 days after the injury. Histological examinations revealed fewer inflammatory signs in PEF-treated wounds compared with untreated infected burns. Moreover, the expression levels of multiple inflammatory-related cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1α/β, IL-6, IL-10, leukemia inhibitory factor [LIF], and tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF-α]), chemokines (macrophage inflammatory protein [MIP]-1α/β and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 [MCP-1]), and inflammation-related factors (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], macrophage colony-stimulating factor [M-CSF], and granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) were significantly decreased in the infected burn wound after PEF treatment.
Innovation:
We showed that PEF treatment on infected wounds reduces the P. aeruginosa load and modulates inflammatory responses.
Conclusion:
The data presented in this study suggest that PEF treatment is a potent candidate for antimicrobial therapy for P. aeruginosa burn infections.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Burn Association. Burn Incidence Fact Sheet. Chicago, IL: American Burn Association, 2002.
2.
EvartsB. NFPA's “Fire Loss in the United States During 2017”. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 2018.
3.
SheridanRL.Burns. A Practical Approach to Immediate Treatment and Long-Term Care. London: Manson Publishing, 2012.
4.
KraftR, HerndonDN, FinnertyCC, CoxRA, SongJ, JeschkeMG. Predictive value of il-8 for sepsis and severe infections after burn injury: a clinical study. Shock, 2015; 43:222–227.
5.
DevrimI, KaraA, DuzgolM, et al.Burn-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric burn patients: time distribution of etiologic agents. Burns, 2017; 43:144–148.
6.
El ZowalatyME, Al ThaniAA, WebsterTJ, et al.Pseudomonas aeruginosa: arsenal of resistance mechanisms, decades of changing resistance profiles, and future antimicrobial therapies. Future Microbiol, 2015; 10:1683–1706.
7.
EstahbanatiHK, KashaniPP, GhanaatpishehF. Frequency of Pseudomonas aeruginosa serotypes in burn wound infections and their resistance to antibiotics. Burns, 2002; 28:340–348.
8.
ParcellBJ, OravcovaK, PinheiroM, et al.Pseudomonas aeruginosa intensive care unit outbreak: winnowing of transmissions with molecular and genomic typing. J Hosp Infect, 2018; 98:282–288.
9.
HerndonDN, SpiesM. Modern burn care. Semin Pediatr Surg, 2001; 10:28–31.
ZamparEF, AnamiEHT, KerbauyG, et al.Infectious complications in adult burn patients and antimicrobial resistance pattern of microorganisms isolated. Ann Burns Fire Disasters, 2017; 30:281–285.
12.
BassettiM, VenaA, CroxattoA, RighiE, GueryB. How to manage Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Drugs Context, 2018; 7:212527.
13.
OnculO, OksuzS, AcarA, et al.Nosocomial infection characteristics in a burn intensive care unit: analysis of an eleven-year active surveillance. Burns, 2014; 40:835–841.
14.
YoshinoY, OhtsukaM, KawaguchiM, et al.The wound/burn guidelines—6: guidelines for the management of burns. J Dermatol, 2016; 43:989–1010.
YarmushML, GolbergA, SersaG, KotnikT, MiklavcicD. Electroporation-based technologies for medicine: principles, applications, and challenges. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2014; 16:295–320.
17.
RubinskyB. Irreversible Electroporation. Verlag Berlin Heiderberg: Springer, 2010.
18.
GolbergA, YarmushML. Nonthermal irreversible electroporation: fundamentals, applications, and challenges. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2013; 60:707–714.
19.
GolbergA, RaeCS, RubinskyB. Listeria monocytogenes cell wall constituents exert a charge effect on electroporation threshold. Biochim Biophys Acta, 2012; 1818:689–694.
20.
GirgisB, DuarteJA. High voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC) for stage II-IV pressure ulcer healing. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Tissue Viability, 2018; 27:274–284.
21.
KlothLC.Electrical stimulation technologies for wound healing. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2014; 3:81–90.
22.
PolakA, KucioC, KlothLC, et al.A randomized, controlled clinical study to assess the effect of anodal and cathodal electrical stimulation on periwound skin blood flow and pressure ulcer size reduction in persons with neurological injuries. Ostomy Wound Manage, 2018; 64:10–29.
23.
PuciharG, KrmeljJ, RebersekM, NapotnikTB, MiklavcicD. Equivalent pulse parameters for electroporation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2011; 58:3279–3288.
24.
RemsL MD.Tutorial: electroporation of cells in complex materials and tissue. J Appl Phys, 2016; 119. DOI: 10.1063/1.4949264.
25.
JonesSA, JenkinsBJ. Recent insights into targeting the IL-6 cytokine family in inflammatory diseases and cancer. Nat Rev Immunol, 2018; 18:773–789.
26.
JeschkeMG, NorburyWB, FinnertyCC, et al.Age differences in inflammatory and hypermetabolic postburn responses. Pediatrics, 2008; 121:497–507.
27.
KhanSI, BlumrosenG, VecchioD, et al.Eradication of multidrug-resistant pseudomonas biofilm with pulsed electric fields. Biotechnol Bioeng, 2016; 113:643–650.
28.
GolbergA, KhanS, BelovV, et al.Skin rejuvenation with non-invasive pulsed electric fields. Sci Rep, 2015; 5:10187.
29.
LeanseLG, HarringtonOD, FangY, AhmedI, GohXS, DaiT. Evaluating the potential for resistance development to antimicrobial blue light (at 405 nm) in Gram-negative bacteria: in vitro and in vivo studies. Front Microbiol, 2018; 9:2403.
30.
DaiT, GuptaA, HuangYY, et al.Blue light rescues mice from potentially fatal Pseudomonas aeruginosa burn infection: efficacy, safety, and mechanism of action. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2013; 57:1238–1245.
31.
GolbergA, VilligerM, Felix BroelschG, et al.Skin regeneration with all accessory organs following ablation with irreversible electroporation. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2018; 12:98–113.
32.
RubinAE, UstaOB, SchlossR, YarmushM, GolbergA. Selective inactivation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus epidermidis with pulsed electric fields and antibiotics. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2019; 8:136–148.
33.
LeanseLG, DongPT, GohXS, et al.Quinine enhances photo-inactivation of Gram-negative bacteria. J Infect Dis, 2020; 221:618–626.
34.
ThornRM, NelsonSM, GreenmanJ. Use of a bioluminescent Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain within an in vitro microbiological system, as a model of wound infection, to assess the antimicrobial efficacy of wound dressings by monitoring light production. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2007; 51:3217–3224.
35.
GolbergA, BroelschGF, VecchioD, et al.Eradication of multidrug-resistant A. baumannii in burn wounds by antiseptic pulsed electric field. Technology (Singap World Sci), 2014; 2:153–160.
36.
FarinaJAJr., RosiqueMJ, RosiqueRG.Curbing inflammation in burn patients. Int J Inflam, 2013; 2013:715645.
37.
de VriesCR, SweereJM, IshakH, et al. A delayed inoculation model of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa wound infection. J Vis Exp 2020. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.3791/60599.
38.
SweereJM, IshakH, SunkariV, et al.The immune response to chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa wound infection in immunocompetent mice. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2020; 9:35–47.
39.
SenCK.Human wounds and its burden: an updated compendium of estimates. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2019; 8:39–48.
40.
OtunolaA, El-HagA, JayaramS, AndersonWA. Effectiveness of pulsed electric fields in controlling microbial growth in milk. Int J Food Eng, 2008; 4:1–14.
41.
Barbosa-CánovasGV, Gongora-NietoMM, PothakamuryUR, SwansonBG. Preservation of Foods with Pulsed Electric Fields. London: Academic Press Ltd., 1999.
42.
AlhabashS, McAlisterAR, HagerstromA, QuilliamET, RifonNJ, RichardsJI. Between likes and shares: effects of emotional appeal and virality on the persuasiveness of anticyberbullying messages on Facebook. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2013; 16:175–182.
43.
IaizzoPA.Engineering in Medicine: Advances and Challenges. London: Elsevier Science, 2018.
44.
RubinskyL, PatrickB, MikusP, RubinskyB. Germicide wound pad with active, in situ, electrolytically produced hypochlorous acid. Biomed Microdevices, 2016; 18:26.
45.
BarkiKG, DasA, DixithS, et al.Electric field based dressing disrupts mixed-species bacterial biofilm infection and restores functional wound healing. Ann Surg, 2019; 269:756–766.
46.
BanerjeeJ, Das GhatakP, RoyS, et al.Improvement of human keratinocyte migration by a redox active bioelectric dressing. PLoS One, 2014; 9:e89239.
47.
GhatakPD, SchlangerR, GaneshK, et al.A wireless electroceutical dressing lowers cost of negative pressure wound therapy. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2015; 4:302–311.
48.
BanerjeeJ, Das GhatakP, RoyS, et al.Silver-zinc redox-coupled electroceutical wound dressing disrupts bacterial biofilm. PLoS One, 2015; 10:e0119531.
49.
BenderHS, ChickeringWR. Superoxide, superoxide dismutase and the respiratory burst. Vet Clin Pathol, 1983; 12:7–14.
50.
RoyS, PrakashS, Mathew-SteinerSS, et al.Disposable patterned electroceutical dressing (PED-10) is safe for treatment of open clinical chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2019; 8:149–159.
51.
PilletF, Formosa-DagueC, BaazizH, DagueE, RolsMP. Cell wall as a target for bacteria inactivation by pulsed electric fields. Sci Rep, 2016; 6:19778.
52.
ChafaiDE, MehleA, TilmatineA, MaoucheB, MiklavcicD. Assessment of the electrochemical effects of pulsed electric fields in a biological cell suspension. Bioelectrochemistry, 2015; 106:249–257.
53.
Che-MinC, KeY-Y, ChouT-M, et al.Self-powered active antibacterial clothing through hybrid effects of nanowire-enhanced electric field electroporation and controllable hydrogen peroxide generation. Nano Energy, 2018; 53:1–10.
54.
RubinAE, LevkovK, UstaOB, YarmushM, GolbergA. IGBT-based pulsed electric fields generator for disinfection: design and in vitro studies on Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Ann Biomed Eng, 2019; 47:1314–1325.
55.
GolbergA, BroelschGF, VecchioD, et al.Pulsed electric fields for burn wound disinfection in a murine model. J Burn Care Res, 2015; 36:7–13.
56.
OngaroA, CampanaLG, De MatteiM, et al.Evaluation of the electroporation efficiency of a grid electrode for electrochemotherapy: from numerical model to in vitro tests. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2016; 15:296–307.
57.
WeiZ, HuangY, ZhaoD, HuZ, LiZ, LiangZ. A pliable electroporation patch (ep-Patch) for efficient delivery of nucleic acid molecules into animal tissues with irregular surface shapes. Sci Rep, 2015; 5:7618.
58.
GolbergA, RubinskyB. Towards electroporation based treatment planning considering electric field induced muscle contractions. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2012; 11:189–201.
59.
KotnikT, PuciharG, MiklavcicD. Induced transmembrane voltage and its correlation with electroporation-mediated molecular transport. J Membr Biol, 2010; 236:3–13.
60.
GolbergA, BruinsmaBG, UygunBE, YarmushML. Tissue heterogeneity in structure and conductivity contribute to cell survival during irreversible electroporation ablation by “electric field sinks.”. Sci Rep, 2015; 5:8485.
61.
ZhangY, LyuC, LiuY, LvY, ChangTT, RubinskyB. Molecular and histological study on the effects of non-thermal irreversible electroporation on the liver. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2018; 500:665–670.
62.
MauriceNM, BediB, SadikotRT. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms: host response and clinical implications in lung infections. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol, 2018; 58:428–439.
63.
JensenPO, GivskovM, BjarnsholtT, MoserC. The immune system vs. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol, 2010; 59:292–305.
64.
Baah-DwomohA, RolongA, GatenholmP, DavalosRV. The feasibility of using irreversible electroporation to introduce pores in bacterial cellulose scaffolds for tissue engineering. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2015; 99:4785–4794.
65.
KravezE, VilligerM, BoumaB, YarmushM, YakhiniZ, GolbergA. Prediction of scar size in rats six months after burns based on early post-injury polarization-sensitive optical frequency domain imaging. Front Physiol, 2017; 8:967.
66.
GolbergA, VilligerM, KhanS, et al.Preventing scars after injury with partial irreversible electroporation. J Invest Dermatol, 2016; 136:2297–2304.
67.
SakalliogluAE, BasaranO, KarakayaliH, et al.Interactions of systemic immune response and local wound healing in different burn depths: an experimental study on rats. J Burn Care Res, 2006; 27:357–366.
68.
Aguilera-SaezJ, MunozP, SerracantaJ, MonteA, BarretJP. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy role in the treatment of burn patients. A systematic literature review. Burns, 2019. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2019.07.023.
69.
LiX, SaeidiN, VilligerM, et al.Rejuvenation of aged rat skin with pulsed electric fields. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2018; 12:2309–2318.
70.
SerraMB, BarrosoWA, da SilvaNN, et al.From inflammation to current and alternative therapies involved in wound healing. Int J Inflam, 2017; 2017:3406215.
71.
SchwachaMG.Macrophages and post-burn immune dysfunction. Burns, 2003; 29:1–14.
72.
FeurinoLW, ZhangY, BharadwajU, et al.IL-6 stimulates Th2 type cytokine secretion and upregulates VEGF and NRP-1 expression in pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Biol Ther, 2007; 6:1096–1100.
73.
HunterCA, JonesSA. IL-6 as a keystone cytokine in health and disease. Nat Immunol, 2015; 16:448–457.
74.
BaoP, KodraA, Tomic-CanicM, GolinkoMS, EhrlichHP, BremH. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor in wound healing. J Surg Res, 2009; 153:347–358.
75.
BremH, FolkmanJ. Angiogenesis and Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor During Wound Healing. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 1994.
76.
GuptaM, ChaturvediR, JainA. Role of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) as an immune-diagnostic biomarker in the pathogenesis of chronic periodontal disease. Cytokine, 2013; 61:892–897.
77.
IyerSS, ChengG. Role of interleukin 10 transcriptional regulation in inflammation and autoimmune disease. Crit Rev Immunol, 2012; 32:23–63.
78.
NovickijV, LastauskieneE, StaigvilaG, et al.Low concentrations of acetic and formic acids enhance the inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with pulsed electric fields. BMC Microbiol, 2019; 19:73.
79.
TeissieJ. Involvement of reactive oxygen species in membrane electropermeabilization. In: MiklavcicD, ed. Handbook of Electroporation. Cham: Springer, 2017:1–15.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
