Department of Infectious Disease, Sultan Abdulhamid Han Training and Education Hospital, University of Health Science, Istanbul, Turkey.
Department of Surgery, NYU Winthrop Hospital, 222 Station Plaza North, Suite 603, Mineola, Long Island, NY, 11501, USA.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Jun;45(3):555-565. doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0957-0. Epub 2018 Apr 26.
Infected wounds, such as diabetic foot infections, are mostly polymicrobial and microorganisms have high resistance rates to antimicrobials. Infected wounds in diabetic patients have high cost, morbidity, and mortality rates. Based on these facts, there is a need for supportive localized treatment options such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) implementations. Demonstrating the in vitro antimicrobial effect, our aim was to lead up to clinical trials of localized PRP implementations in infected wounds such as diabetic foot infections. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the in vitro antibacterial activity of PRP against methicilin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and three more multi-drug resistant bacteria species that are important and hard-to-treat in wound infections.
In vitro antimicrobial activity of autologous PRP, platelet-poor plasma (PPP), and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp., extended spectrum beta lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa was compared by assessment of bacterial growth on agar plates and antimicrobial susceptibility test results.
When compared to control group, PRP and PPP significantly suppressed bacterial growth of MRSA, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa at 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th hours of incubation (p < 0.05). VRE was the only bacteria that PRP and PPP showed limited activity against. When compared to PPP, PRP showed higher activity against MRSA, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa. However, the differences between PRP and PPP were statistically significant only against MRSA and P. aeruginosa at the first hour of incubation.
Emerging PRP and other platelet-derived products seem to be promising alternative tools besides antibiotic treatment, debridement, negative pressure wound therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and other treatment options for treating diabetic foot infections.
感染性伤口,如糖尿病足感染,多为多微生物感染,微生物对抗生素的耐药率较高。糖尿病患者的感染性伤口治疗费用高、发病率和死亡率高。基于这些事实,需要有支持性的局部治疗方法,如血小板丰富的血浆(PRP)的应用。为了展示体外的抗菌效果,我们的目的是为局部 PRP 应用于感染性伤口(如糖尿病足感染)的临床试验提供依据。在这项研究中,我们旨在证明 PRP 对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)和三种更耐药的细菌物种的体外抗菌活性,这些细菌在伤口感染中很重要且难以治疗。
通过评估琼脂平板上的细菌生长和抗菌药敏试验结果,比较了自体 PRP、血小板少血浆(PPP)和磷酸盐缓冲盐水(PBS)对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌、万古霉素耐药肠球菌属、产超广谱β-内酰胺酶的肺炎克雷伯菌和耐碳青霉烯类铜绿假单胞菌的体外抗菌活性。
与对照组相比,PRP 和 PPP 在孵育第 1、2、5 和 10 小时时,显著抑制了 MRSA、K. pneumoniae 和 P. aeruginosa 的细菌生长(p<0.05)。VRE 是 PRP 和 PPP 仅显示出有限活性的唯一细菌。与 PPP 相比,PRP 对 MRSA、K. pneumoniae 和 P. aeruginosa 的活性更高。然而,PRP 和 PPP 之间的差异仅在孵育第 1 小时时对 MRSA 和 P. aeruginosa 有统计学意义。
新兴的 PRP 和其他血小板衍生产品似乎是治疗糖尿病足感染的抗生素治疗、清创、负压伤口治疗、高压氧治疗和其他治疗方法的有前途的替代工具。