Catch or Kill?
How DACC technology redeines
antimicrobial management
An educational supplement
in association with
© 2011 MA Healthcare Ltd
All rights reserved. No reproduction, transmission or copying of this publication is allowed without written
permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or
by any means, mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
MA Healthcare Ltd or in accordance with the relevant copyright legislation.
Although the editor and MA Healthcare Ltd have taken great care to ensure accuracy, MA Healthcare Ltd will not be
liable for any errors of omission or inaccuracies in this publication.
Published on behalf of BSN medical by MA Healthcare Ltd.
To reference this document, cite: Butcher M (2011) Catch or Kill? How DACC technology redeines antimicrobial
management. MA Healthcare, 2011.
Publisher: Anthony Kerr
Associate Publisher: Tracy Cowan
Designer: Claire Majury
Editor: Julie Smith
Printed by: Pensord, Blackwood, Newport, Wales, UK
Published by: MA Healthcare Ltd, St Jude’s Church, Dulwich Road, London SE24 0PB, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7738 5454 Email: info@markallengroup.com Web: www.markallengroup.com
2
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Foreword
K F Cutting
Clinical and Business
Director, Perfectus
Medical, Daresbury
Science and
Innovation Campus,
Daresbury, UK
kc@healthdirections.
co.uk
nfection is a major factor in delayed wound healing.
All open wounds are contaminated and although not
all wounds become infected, this state of
contamination is an obvious risk factor that increases
when the immune system is compromised. Some doubt
regarding the precise mechanisms by which
microorganisms cause infection remains (Bowler,
Durden and Armstrong, 2001), however, it is generally
accepted that the expression of microbial toxins and
enzymes destroys tissue cells and interferes with healing.
Polymorphonuclear leucocytes (PMNs), which arrive on
the scene soon after wounding takes place, express enzymes which can also be
detrimental to healthy tissue cells. These two factors help to explain the delay in
healing so often observed.
Increasing concern in respect of antimicrobial resistance has led clinicians to
reappraise the role of topical agents (antiseptics). It is possible that not all wounds
require intervention (systemic or topical) with such active agents. The clinical
objective in preventing or managing infection is to ensure the host’s defences are
able to out-compete microbial pathogens, leaving microbes unable to thrive and
proliferate. One means of providing host support is through the introduction of
‘passive’ antimicrobial mechanisms which may have a role to play in managing
wound bioburden.
Evidence already exists supporting the role that non-medicated dressings have to
play in managing wound bioburden. In vitro and in vivo studies show that alginates, hydrocolloids and Hydroibers promote reduction in the wound surface
bioburden. Alginates for example can retain bacteria within the dressing matrix
(Walker et al, 2003; Tachi et al, 2004).
A more recent development, hydrophobic interaction, has at its heart the fatty
acid dialkylcarbamoylchloride (DACC) that coats dressing ibres and interacts with
the surface bioburden. Microbes, including fungi, are irreversibly bound through
the physical mechanism of hydrophobic interaction to DACC coating on the dressing surface. These are then disposed of at dressing change. The risk of bacterial
resistance or sensitization is avoided as there are no active agents involved. Potentially damaging endotoxin release in the wound bed is also prevented as microorganisms are removed whole rather than destroyed.
A strategy to support healing lies in maintaining host immunological control of
the wound environment. This novel option of bacterial binding is available to clinicians and has the potential to decrease reliance on ‘traditional antimicrobials’ as the
primary mode of intervention
Eficacy of hydrophobic interaction in reducing the wound bioburden and facilitating healing has been demonstrated in vitro and in vivo. The value of ‘Catch’ is still
being evaluated and in due course we should learn that it is not always necessary or
desirable to ‘Kill’ when microbial resistance and expression of bacterial toxins can
dramatically upset the beneit/risk balance of speciic clinical interventions. As
always, more research would be welcomed to demonstrate the full beneits of hydrophobic interaction as an alternative to the more aggressive methods, but at the
moment this method of managing wound bioburden is worth full consideration.
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
I
3
Catch or Kill? How DACC
technology redeines
antimicrobial management
The prevention and management of local wound infection relies largely on the use of
topical antimicrobial dressings. These treatments achieve their effects by killing
bacteria, but this can result in the presence of bacterial cell debris in the wound and
the release of endotoxins, which may prolong inlammation. An alternative approach,
where bacteria and fungi bind irreversibly to the wound dressing as a result of a
hydrophobic interaction and are then removed at dressing change, avoids the risk of
prolonged inlammation and the potential for resistance. The fact that there is no risk
of toxicity to healthy tissue or systemic absorption is a further beneit.
wound infection • hydrophobic interaction • bacteria • binding • DACC • antimicrobial
Martyn Butcher
Independent Tissue
Viability and Wound
Care Consultant,
Associate Lecturer,
University of Plymouth
Honorary Tissue
Viability Research
Nurse, Northern
Devon Healthcare
Trust, UK
ound infection is one of the main challenges in wound management; clinicians must take action to control
bacteria and reduce the impact of infection on
healing outcomes. Traditionally this has relied on
a chemical approach with systemic treatments
such as antibiotics and antimicrobial dressings
aimed at eliminating bacterial colonies. However,
with greater understanding of the relationship
between the wound environment and colonizing
microbes, and in particular the role that endotoxins released by dead and damaged bacteria may
have in prolonging the inlammatory response, it
is becoming clear that these methods may have
less desirable implications for wound healing outcomes. It may therefore be time to re-evaluate and
reine this approach. This supplement looks at
some of the issues in the current approaches to the
problem and identiies how dialkylcarbamoylchloride (DACC) technology can be used to control
bioburden through the irreversible binding and
deactivation of bacteria and fungi in the wound,
without releasing cell debris and endotoxins into
the wound bed or the need to use potentially toxic
and resistance-inducing chemicals. Box 1 provides
some DACC facts which explains why the technology the technology is so effective.
W
reducing wound strength and inducing an undesirable inlammatory response (Wright et al, 1998;
Yin et al, 1999; Percival and Bowler, 2004).
Increased bacteria within the wound increase the
requirements for oxygen and nutrients. In addition, bacteria can secrete harmful chemicals, which
can lead to vasoconstriction, decreased blood low
to the wound (Warriner and Burrell, 2005) and
cause systemic toxicity (White et al, 2001). Even at
lower levels, the development of a critically coloFig 1: Spreading infection in a diabetic foot
What is the problem?
Wound infection complicates treatment and
impedes the healing process by damaging tissue,
4
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
nized wound state is a signiicant factor in delayed
wound healing (Warriner and Burrell, 2005),
increasing health-care costs and results in poor
patient outcomes and quality of life (Derbyshire,
2010b). Therefore, controlling or preventing infections and optimizing the potential for healing by
maintaining an ideal wound environment remains
central to good wound care (Schultz et al, 2003;
World Union of Wound Healing Societies
(WUWHS), 2008) and can yield signiicant cost
savings (Zhan and Miller, 2003).
Figure 2: Large necrotic pressure ulcer
Traditional approaches
to bacterial control: antibiotics
The presence of spreading infection is potentially
life and/or limb threatening and so requires aggressive treatment. Individuals demonstrating clinical
signs of systemic infection (Figure 1) should have
blood cultures taken and appropriate systemic antibiotic therapy should be implemented immediately
(Bowler et al, 2001; European Wound Management
Association (EWMA), 2006; WUWHS, 2008).
Antibiotics are administered orally, parenterally
and in some cases, topically. Most reduce bacterial
numbers by targeting bacterial functions or growth
processes (Calderon and Sabundayo, 2007). They
have a relatively narrow band of effectiveness,
with particular antibiotics being needed to treat
speciic species or strains of bacteria. However,
there are problems with their use:
• Systemic antibiotics treat the whole patient, not
just the wound. Therefore, they can affect
normal lora, leading to unpleasant side effects
and systemic complications such as Clostridium
dificile (C.dificile) infections
• They require an adequate blood supply to reach
the point of infection and so may be ineffective
in treating wounds with high amounts of debris
or in patients with underlying arterial disease
(Figure 2)
• Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem (White
et al, 2001). Widespread, indiscriminate use of
antibiotics is a major factor in the emergence of
drug-resistant bacteria (Easterbrook, 1998;
WUWHS, 2008) which has reduced the treatment
options for many systemic infections. New antibiotic options are urgently needed, but no new
antibiotic preparations are in development; this is
a potential time-bomb for both emerging nations
and the developed world (Tacconelli et al, 2009)
• Topical antibiotics can provoke delayed hypersensitivity reactions (Zaki et al, 1994)
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
• Systemic antibiotics have limited effect on bioilm colonies (Marr et al, 1997; Moss et al, 1990;
Costerton and Stewart, 2001).
Topical antimicrobials
Antibiotics are not normally recommended for
wounds that only show signs of local infection
(Bowler et al, 2001). Instead, recent guidelines on the
management of wound infection (EWMA, 2006;
WUWHS, 2008) have suggested that topical antimicrobial dressings may help reduce bacterial load
(bioburden) and may be indicated as an adjunct to
antibiotic use. Products incorporating iodine, silver,
honey and polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB)
are considered by many to be the irst line of treatment in the management of local bioburden, particularly in chronic wound care. They have advantages
over systemic antibiotics in many situations (Lawrence, 1998; Sibbald et al, 2001; White et al, 2001;
Cooper, 2004). However, their use needs to be targeted to wounds displaying signs of high bacterial
load and they should be used for limited time periods
(Bowler et al, 2001; EWMA, 2006; Best Practice Statement, 2010). These recommendations have been
Box 1. DACC FACTS
• DACC binds hydrophobic micro-organisms quickly including MRSA, P.
aeruginosa and C. Dificile, reducing harmful microbial load
• Binds bacterial toxins preventing further damage to the wound bed
• Bacteria are irreversibly bound to the dressing
• There is no upper binding capacity so single dressings are effective until
nursing protocols require they are changed
• The regime is safe to use for prolonged periods as no chemicals are
donated into the wound
• DACC can be used on babies, children, during pregnancy and breast
feeding and patients sensitized to silver, iodine or other chemical agents
5
developed following concerns over their widespread
misuse and the signiicant pressure this places on
healthcare budgets. Further concern has been raised
over the role that bacterial debris in the wound may
have in producing a chronic inlammatory state detrimental to wound repair. The signiicance of this
will be discussed later. There are a number of different forms of traditional topical antimicrobials products available.
Silver dressings
Silver-based products have been shown to have
multiple effects on bacterial function and replication (Thurman and Gerba, 1989; Russell and Hugo,
1994) and have been successfully used in burns
and in general wound care (Klasen 2000a, 2000b,
Demling and De Santi, 2001; Armstrong, 2002;
Clarke, 2003), with skin discolouration (argyria)
and irritation being the only visible side effects
(White, 2002). However, the various antimicrobial
properties of silver ultimately lead to bacterial cell
death and breakdown. In addition, questions have
been raised over the long-term use of these dressings, especially in infants (Denyer, 2009) with concern about silver toxicity and the systemic uptake
and deposition of silver in organs such as the liver
and kidney (Wan et al, 1991; Parsons et al, 2005;
Burd et al, 2007; Denyer, 2009; Wang et al, 2009).
Currently, little is known of the long-term consequences of this for patient safety. In addition, there
are fears over the emergence of silver resistance,
(Percival et al, 2005; Loh et al, 2009) and cost-effectiveness (Bergin and Wraight, 2006; Michaels et al,
2009; Chaby et al, 2007). Yet in the UK, silver
dressings represent one in seven of all wound
dressing prescriptions (Iheanado, 2010), with high
cost implications.
Iodine
Iodine-based products have been used in wound
care for many years. Like all antiseptics, iodine
simultaneously affects multiple sites in microbial
cells. These changes affect the structure and function of both bacterial enzymes and structural proteins. Following exposure to iodine, changes in the
bacterial cell walls, membranes and cytoplasm
result in cell disruption, rapid death, (Gottardi,
1983) and the exposure of debris in the tissues
(Schreier et al, 1997; Cooper, 2007).
Cooper (2007) indicates that not all iodine-based
products are the same and the chemical interaction
between the carrier and the wound environment
6
alters the availability of the element and therefore
its effect. Some forms of iodine are unstable and
there have been questions regarding toxicity to host
tissues and the ensuing effect on patient comfort
(Kramer, 1999; Wilson et al, 2005). Providoneiodine is not as effective as some other biocides in
eradicating S. epidermis within clinically-occurring
bioilms, (Presterl et al, 2007) but cadexomer iodine
provides enough iodine for bioilm suppression
without causing signiicant host damage (Akiyama
et al, 2004; Rhoads et al, 2008).
Polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB)
PHMB is a synthetic polymer that is structurally
similar to the body’s own antimicrobial peptides
(AMPs). These similarities mean that PHMB can
enter bacterial cell membranes and kill bacteria in
a similar way to AMPs (Moore and Gray, 2007).
PHMB is thought to adhere to and disrupt target
cell membranes, causing them to leak potassium
and other cellular components (Davies et al, 1968;
Davies and Field, 1969; Broxton et al, 1984; Yasuda
et al, 2003), resulting in bacterial cell death. There
is also evidence that PHMB binds to bacterial DNA
(Allen et al, 2004), damaging or inactivating them.
PHMB therefore disrupts the bacteria causing their
death and can result in the release of cell content
and debris into the wound.
Honey
Honey has been used in wound care for thousands
of years, but in recent times there has been resurgence in interest in honey-based wound care products for the management of wound infection
(White, 2002), though the exact effect of honey on
bacteria remains unclear. Honey does restrict the
access of water to bacteria and other organisms
(Molan, 2001), however, this effect is lessened as the
honey becomes diluted by wound exudate (Molan,
1999). One other antimicrobial property is the generation of hydrogen peroxide which is slowly
released as the honey is diluted by exudate (Molan
and Betts, 2004). Some honeys, particularly Leptospermum (Manuka honey), retain their bactericidal properties even without the presence of
hydrogen peroxide (Cooper et al, 2002a; 2002b).
Research has identiied that in Manuka honey this
is attributable to the compound methylglyoxal
(Adams et al, 2008; Mavric et al, 2008) which
appears to interrupt the cell division of S. aureus and
damages the cell membrane of gram-negative bacteria (Henriques et al, 2009). The antibacterial proper-
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
DACC antimicrobial
dressings
Applied directly to the
wound and surrounding
tissues (bactericidal)
Applied directly to the
wound bed. Action varies
according to speciic
active ingredient. Some
affect cell wall function,
others disrupts nucleic
function and DNA
replication (bactericidal)
Applied directly to the
wound bed
Irreversibly binds bacteria by
the process of hydrophobic
interaction
Bound microorganisms are
unable to replicate
Prevents the release of toxins
Effective in controlling
speciic bacterial strains
Only target the wound area
avoiding systemic side effects
Wide range of action
against bacteria, bacterial
spores, fungi and some
viruses
Easily available (several
listed on Drug Tariff)
Have a wide range of
action against bacteria,
bacterial spores, fungi and
some viruses
Available in a variety of
formats - products may
have multiple dressing
actions and indications
Available in a variety of
formats to suit most
wounds
Contains no toxic chemicals
No systemic absorption
Does not kill bacteria or
leave debris in the wound
Bound bacteria removed at
each dressing change
May be safely used for
wound prophylaxis
Binds wide variety of
microorganisms including
fungi
Species-speciic action
No effect on fungi or viruses
Affects normal lora as well as wound
bioburden
May adversely affect bacterial balance
in colonized but stable wounds leading
to pathogenic species proliferation
May induce allergic reaction
May induce side effects and systemic
complications.
May be ineffective in wounds with high
necrotic burden or arterial
insuficiency
Can select for strains with resistance
Limited effect on bioilm colonies
Leave bacterial debris and endotoxins
in the wound
Species-speciic action
No effect on fungi or viruses
May adversely affect bacterial
balance in colonized but
stable wounds leading to
pathogenic species
proliferation
Can select for strains with
resistance
Can provoke delayed
hypersensitivity reactions
Limited effect on bioilm
colonies
Leave bacterial debris and
endotoxins in the wound
Can provoke delayed
hypersensitivity reactions
Very short-term effect
Require repeated
applications to invoke
any beneit
Some have potential for
systemic absorption
Leave bacterial debris
and endotoxins in the
wound
Some can provoke delayed
hypersensitivity reactions
May interfere with thyroid
activity (Iodine)
May be absorbed
systemically and be
deposited in organs with
unknown long-term effect
Leaves bacterial debris in
the wound
Binding may be
compromised if the dressing
comes into contact with
oil-based emollients
Bacteriocidal with debris left in wound
Bacteriocidal with debris left
in wound
Bacteriocidal with debris
left in wound
Bacteriocidal with debris
left in wound
Bacteriostatic with removal
of bacteria at dressing
change
No cell debris
Topical antibiotics
Action
Administered orally, intramuscularly or
intravenously and delivered via the
bloodstream to the whole body
Target bacterial cell wall or membrane
interfering with essential bacterial
enzymes (bactericidal)
Or, target protein synthesis
(bacteriostatic)
Applied directly to the wound
bed
Target bacterial cell wall or
membrane interfering with
essential bacterial enzymes
(bactericidal)
Or, target protein synthesis
(bacteriostatic)
Advantages
Do not require changes to wound care
regimes
Effective in controlling speciic
bacterial strains
Disadvantages
Overall effect
Topical
antimicrobial
solutions
Table 1. Antimicrobial interventions
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Topical traditional
‘antimicrobial’
dressings
Systemic antibiotics
7
ties of honey therefore appear to affect the cellular
activity of bacteria but these properties vary according to its source. Ultimately, all honey-based products leave bacterial debris within the wound.
The problem of bioburden
As can be seen, the traditional interpretation of
‘antimicrobial’ is to assume biocidal action; that is
the ability of a chemical to kill bacteria. But what
negative effect might the death of bacteria within
the wound have on the wound healing cascade?
The destruction of bacteria reduces the level of
toxins they produce. However, their death results
in the release of endotoxins from within each cell
and the dumping of cell debris leading to further
inlammatory events. Neutrophils and macrophages are essential to health; they target and
destroy bacteria by enguling them (phagocytosis)
and breaking them down with lyosomal enzymes.
They also play a key role in growth factor production. However, neutrophils can also have a negative effect on wound healing; high levels become
highly destructive (Hallett, 2003; Sansonerri, 2006;
Friedl and Weigelin, 2008) with breakdown of
Figure 3: The principle of hydrophobic interaction
growth factors, damage to extracellular matrix proteins (Diegelmann and Evans, 2004; Dovi et al,
2004) and production of a hypoxic wound environment (Hopf and Rollins, 2007). This chemically
signals further neutrophil recruitment. This spiralling inlammatory state can cause tissue breakdown and the production of a chronic wound. It
can also herald systemic damage, even septic shock
(Cooper, 2002). Therefore, effective wound management should seek to avoid causing a prolonged
inlammatory state. Treatment modalities that
reduce wound bacterial numbers and proliferation
rates without inducing bacterial death and the
release of these toxins may be beneicial to longterm wound health. Wysocki (2002) claims that
the capacity of a dressing to absorb and retain (i.e.
sequester) bacteria is an important function, particularly in chronic wound management. However, few dressings — mainly Hydroiber and
alginates — sequester bacteria into the dressing
material, and then only as a mechanical by-product of their mode of action. However, if the binding of bacteria could be more effectively facilitated
as a primary dressing function by using naturallyoccurring processes, it would offer clinicians a safer
method of managing bioburden.
What is the solution?
Water
molecule
Hydrophobic
interaction
Hydrophobic
particle
8
The principle of hydrophobic interaction is a key
mechanism for bacterial attachment. In order for
invading pathogens to initiate an infection, they
need to adhere to underlying damaged tissues (Wadström et al, 1990; Ofek and Doyle, 1994). Doyle
(2000) showed there is a clear relationship between
hydrophobicity and infection. Microbes attach to
exposed proteins in a wound by hydrophobic and
charge interactions and with receptor-like cell surface proteins called hydrophobins (Wessels, 1997).
Hydrophobic (lacking an afinity for water molecules) interactions take place when cells expressing
cell-surface hydrophobicity (CSH) come into contact with each other in an aqueous environment.
This causes the molecules to ‘stick’ (Hjertén and
Wadström, 1990) and expel the water molecules
(Hjertén and Wadström, 1990; Curtis et al, 2002)
between them. In this way, they clump together,
held by the surrounding water molecules (Figure 3).
Common wound pathogens, including anaerobes have been shown to express hydrophobicity,
with the majority expressing high or moderate
CSH (Ljungh and Wadström, 1995; Doyle, 2000;
Ljungh et al, 1985; Ljungh et al, 1986; Cowan et al,
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
1992). This enables them to ‘stick’ to hydrophobic
proteins in the wound. Binding to the wound bed
appears to protect them from host defence mechanisms. They then produce enzymes and toxins,
enabling them to spread rapidly within and
degrade the tissues to obtain nutrients (initiating
the signs of infection) or to inactivate host defence
mechanisms. The expression of hydrophobicity is
therefore an important mechanism of microbial
attachment (Doyle, 2000). However, strains of the
same species may vary in their CSH (Eriksson et al,
1989). The expression of increased hydrophobicity
by bacteria is often a reaction to stress conditions
such as starvation and adverse environmental factors. These conditions may exist in many chronic
wounds where there may be a shortage of nutrients
and oxygen (Ljungh and Wadström, 1995) owing
to poor tissue perfusion or competition from other
bacterial species. These conditions may also affect
the bacterial growth phase, leading to some bacteria forming spores. These spores may express a
higher CSH than dormant cells (Ahimou et al,
2001). This is probably a general property of bacterial spores, which are much more resilient than
planktonic bacterial forms to environmental challenges such as lack of moisture and chemical attack
(including many antiseptics), making their control
and eradication more problematic.
As wound bacteria have hydrophobic characteristics, a dressing that is highly hydrophobic is able
to physically bind bacteria to the dressing ibres
enabling them to be removed from the wound
when the dressing is changed (Figure 4). This bacterial binding effect is already well established
(Ljungh et al, 2006) and is therefore of particular
interest in wound care but is not usually referred to
as ‘antimicrobial’ as the microorganisms are not
killed by this interaction. This is an important
change of perspective in antimicrobial care thinking and practice; it is now clear that the wound
does not need to be charged with chemically-active
agents to reduce its microbial load. The clear beneit to this is that there are no risks of cytotoxic
reactions, systemic uptake or development of bacterial resistance (Kammerlander et al, 2008).
Figure 4: Binding of microorganisms to DACC-coated dressings
Cutimed Sorbact
microbes
wound
Hydrophobic interaction
wound
Removal of Cutimed Sorbact and microbes
wound
Figure 5: Cutimed Sorbact
dressing range
DACC
DACC is a synthetic, manufactured derivative of a
naturally occurring fatty acid which is also found
in cobwebs. Historically, cobwebs have been used
to treat wound infection (Forrest, 1982). A visual
indication is seen as water droplets forming on
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Figure 6: Cutimed Sorbact gel
9
Figure 7: Binding action of Cutimed Sorbact:
Staphylococcus aureus (yellow), Pseudomonas
aeruginosa (purple), Enterococcus faecalis (blue),
Klebsiella spp (green) bound to the dressing at
4000 times magniication
cobwebs due to their hydrophobic nature. This
hydrophobic fatty acid derivative is coated to a
dressing material during its manufacture, resulting
in a dressing with highly hydrophobic properties.
Rather than being physically trapped within the
dressing material, microorganisms which also have
hydrophobic cell surfaces, when exposed to the
material are irreversibly bound to the dressing by
hydrophobic interaction. Once bound to the dressing, bacteria and fungi are rendered inert and so
are prevented from multiplying or releasing harmful toxins. At each dressing change, microorganisms are then removed from the wound bed along
with the dressing, thereby consistently reducing
the bacterial load.
Cutimed Sorbact dressings
DACC is a primary component of the bacterial
binding wound dressing, Cutimed Sorbact (BSN
medical Ltd, Hull). Designed as primary wound
contact dressings, these are effective when in close
contact with the wound bed in a moist environment. The product is most commonly used as a
green acetate swab and a green coloured cotton
ribbon (Figure 5). Swabs are available in a folded
lat sheet format or a 3D ball suitable for packing
wounds. For wounds with little or no exudate, an
amorphous hydrogel-coated swab is available
10
(Cutimed Sorbact gel) (Figure 6) and for wounds
with higher levels of exudate, Cutimed Sorbact
dressing pads and Cutimed Sorbact Hydroactive
with a gel sheet matrix are available. Both have a
coated acetate wound contact layer and highly
absorbent cores. If required, Cutimed Sorbact
swabs may be used in conjunction with secondary
absorbent products and devices such as compression bandages. However, care should be taken to
avoid contact with oily emollients as this can
reduce the effectiveness of the hydrophobic action.
DACC, and speciically the Cutimed Sorbact
product range as the pioneer of this technology,
offers a real alternative to traditional approaches to
bioburden management by using the natural binding characteristics of bacteria and avoiding many of
the limitations and drawbacks associated with the
alternative antimicrobial interventions (see Table 1).
Such binding means it is safe to use the dressing for
longer than the 2-week period advocated for active
topical antimicrobials in the Wounds UK Best Practice Statement. It can also, therefore, safely be used
as a prophylaxis. To assess how this is transferable to
the clinical situation, it is important to evaluate the
product’s effectiveness in bacterial binding in the
laboratory situation.
Supporting evidence for DACC
from laboratory studies
Over more than 30 years, multiple laboratory studies have demonstrated the effective binding of
microorganisms to DACC-coated wound dressings.
In one of the earliest, Wadström et al (1985) undertook a series of tests which studied the ability of a
variety of dressing materials to inluence bacterial
colonization with three commonly-encountered
wound pathogens. The team found that the DACCcoated sample showed greater bacterial uptake
than the other products tested (Wadström et al,
1985). In their subsequent in vivo experiments,
wounds treated with the DACC dressing showed
no signs of infection while all the comparators displayed continuous formation of pus.
Bowler et al (1999) showed that there is a correlation between a high hydrophobicity and eficacy
of binding. Dressing materials were exposed to different bacterial species over a 4-hour period. Even
in this relatively short period the DACC dressing
retained signiicantly more S. aureus and P. aeruginosa than both the alginate comparators (p<0.05).
In particular, it was highly effective in binding P.
aeruginosa (78.6%); this is thought to be related to
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Uncoated after 1 hour
Uncoated after 2 hours
Uncoated after 3 hours
Uncoated after 1 hour
Uncoated after 2 hours
Uncoated after 3 hours
Coated after 1 hour
Coated after 2 hours
Coated after 3 hours
Coated after 1 hour
Coated after 2 hours
Coated after 3 hours
Figure 8: Binding of MRSA and P. aeruginosa bioilms: DACC-coated dressings versus a control
the chemical nature of the bacteria and their relative hydrophobicity. Binding was also measured by
Hastings (2009) who reported on laboratory experiment. He clearly demonstrated the ability of bacteria and C. dificile spores to bind to the DACC
dressing material. Some bacterial binding occurred
immediately but increased signiicantly over prolonged exposure to the material. These indings
were supported in a study by Ljungh et al (2006)
who demonstrated that a variety of different bacteria and fungi bind to the DACC-coated dressings.
The numbers of bound organisms increased over
time and in a mixed culture of bacterial and fungal
species, microbes co-aggregate and bind to each
other as well as to the dressing. They concluded
that DACC-coated Cutimed Sorbact dressings can
be used on clinical infections because its binding
action (Figure 7) reduces the microbial load in a
wound without the need for antibiotics.
Eficacy against bioilms
The presence and activity of bioilms (colonies of
bacteria from different species living together
under a microbe-manufactured protective slime
ilm) in chronic wounds have recently been
thought to be of clinical signiicance in wound
healing. These bioilms have decreased sensitivity
to antimicrobial agents and antibiotic therapy,
making them particularly dificult to manage and
control (Ceri, et al, 1999; Wolcott and Rhoads,
2008). Cooper and Jenkins (2009) described tests
undertaken to determine whether DACC has a
potential role to play in bioilm management.
Samples of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA) and pseudomonas bioilms were
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
tested with Cutimed Sorbact dressing material.
Samples of the DACC-coated product were compared with uncoated dressings. These were examined under an electron microscope after 1, 2 and
3 hours of exposure. The images gave clear evidence that bioilms of MRSA and P. aeruginosa
bound more extensively to DACC-coated dressings
than uncoated product (Figure 8). These images
were then assessed by blinded volunteers to ensure
reliability. This test demonstrated that in vitro
DACC enhances bioilm binding.
DACC in real-world situations
The laboratory data on the effectiveness of DACC
appears compelling. However, laboratory conditions are very different to the relatively uncontrolled environments found in the clinical
environment. Since its introduction, DACC-coated
Cutimed Sorbact dressings have been successfully
used in the management of patients with wound
bioburden. The indings of a variety of published
comparative and non-comparative clinical trials,
along with multiple case-study series, have supported the indings of laboratory studies.
In a study of contaminated, colonized and
infected wounds, Von Hallern and Lang (2005)
reviewed 418 patients treated with DACC dressings
over a 22-month period. The study aimed to determine whether the dressing could reduce the microbial count without adversely affecting the wound
healing process and whether it could be removed
atraumatically and painlessly. The DACC-coated
dressings were applied between a few hours to
48 months after injury and the product was used for
between 2–53 days. Bacteriological analyses were
11
performed on deep-brush wound biopsy swab specimens from 38 patients with chronic and secondary
healing wounds which showed decreases in
common wound pathogens. In some cases, organisms were identiied from the removed dressing
materials that were no longer found in the direct
deep wound swabs. The investigators concluded
that DACC-coated dressing resulted in microbial
elimination. This was supported by clinical observations which noted that after 2-8 days there was
often a marked decrease in signs of infection. In
such cases, the DACC-coated dressings were
replaced by simple wound dressings. In patients
with arterial insuficiency, to keep the wounds
moist, the dressing was used in combination with a
hydrogel and an absorbent dressing compress, often
up to the end of treatment, otherwise it was discontinued after an average of 10-12 days. DACC therapy was found to be an effective bioburden control
method and did not prolong the total duration of
healing (Von Hallern and Lang, 2005).
Multicentre study
The eficacy of DACC in managing bacterial burden
is further supported in another large clinical study.
Kammerlander et al (2008) presented the indings
of a 116-patient multicentre study undertaken in
Figure 9. Underlying health problems in
study subjects
Figure 10. Clinical eficacy of a
DACC-coated dressing
four centres across Europe. A wide variety of
wounds healing by secondary intention were
treated using the wound management protocols of
the participating clinics. A standardized evaluation
form was used to monitor and record wound progression towards healing and the condition of the
surrounding skin. The tolerability of the dressing
was determined using a visual analogue scale (VAS)
pain assessment tool and documented at every
dressing change. Subjects were asked about their
subjective impression of the feel of the dressing.
Clinicians were also asked to comment on the handling and application of the trial product at each
dressing change. These could be rated as ‘very
good’, ‘good’, ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’.
Additional comments were also encouraged.
Patients with a systemic infection (which
showed symptoms in addition to the local wound
infection) were treated with antibiotics and clinicians chose the secondary dressing used (e.g hydrogels, alginates, hydrocolloids) depending on the
characteristics of the wound.
The patients included in the study had an average
age of 63 years (range 27-95 yrs) and had an average
wound duration of 6 months (range 1 day-54
months). They were treated for 37 days on average
(range 4-134 days) and had an average of 2.5 dressing changes a week. The subjects had a variety of
underlying health problems (see Figure 9). Wound
infection was diagnosed at the start of treatment in
84% of the patients enrolled. One patient developed a wound infection during the course of treatment. There were no incidents of a recurrence of a
successfully treated wound infection. Less than 10%
of the patients with a wound infection received
additional antibiotic treatment. Of the 98 infected
wounds at commencement, 79 (81%) were successfully treated at the study end. In seven cases (6%)
the wounds remained stagnant, one case (1%) deteriorated, 84 cases (72%) improved and 24 cases
(21%) were healed (Figure 10).
Table 2. Improvement of pain symptoms
Pain score (VAS)
12
Baseline
End of
study
0 (no pain)
52.2%
83.5%
1–3 (mild pain)
33.0%
14.8%
4–6 (moderate pain)
4.3%
0.9%
7–10 (severe pain)
10.4%
0.9%
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
A comparison of the pain data generated at the
beginning and end of treatment revealed a marked
improvement in pain symptoms during the course
of therapy as shown in Table 2.
Patients identiied the dressing as pleasant or
very pleasant with no pain, burning, skin irritation
or negative sensations in 71% of cases, and in only
2% of cases was the dressing identiied as ‘unpleasant’. Patients did not report any undesirable side
effects of the various dressing combinations. Furthermore, the DACC-coated dressing did not cause
discolouration in any of the wounds and no product-speciic odour was reported. During the study,
different presentations of the DACC-coated dressing were selected by clinicians according to individual wound presentation (location, depth,
topography, area). In 97% of cases, the dressing
change was rated as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Clinicians were extremely satisied with the handling
characteristics of the dressings.
In this study, the DACC-coated Cutimed Sorbact
dressing was tested under the conditions normally
found in the participating clinics. It achieved a
good level of eficacy in bacterial reduction and
management within a programme of wound care.
In the study, 81% of wounds showing signs of
infection at the start of treatment healed and in
93% of cases there was an improvement in wound
healing or a complete cure. The study demonstrated that Cutimed Sorbact can reduce signs of
inlammation, reduce or eliminate local infection,
achieve subjective tolerability by patients, has a
broad compatibility with other wound management products and provides easy product handling
during dressing changes. In particular, the consistently easy handling convinced health professionals of the versatility and value of this alternative to
current antimicrobial dressings.
Fungal infections
The treatment of foot conditions is a major focus in
managing patients with diabetes. Inter-digital skin
can provide the ideal environment for bacterial and
fungal growth, (Romano et al, 2001; Mayser et al,
2004) and provides a source of infection which can
have disastrous consequences to the individual. Traditional management of inter-digital fungal infections has relied on systemic or topical administration
of pharmaceutical antifungal agents. This has had
varying success and can cause potential adverse reactions (toxicity or allergy) plus the risk of the development of resistance (Martinez-Rossi et al, 2008).
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Johansson et al (2009) undertook a non-comparative
study of the ability of a DACC dressing to manage
inter-digital infections in 20 diabetic subjects with
conirmed fungal foot infections. All the subjects
received 10 daily treatments with the DACC-coated
dressing. Following treatment, 75% of the subjects
improved or healed, 20% remained unchanged, and
only one patient had deteriorated - in this case the
fungal skin reaction improved but the ulceration
present on the fourth toes had worsened, possibly
owing to the use of inappropriate footwear. When
asked, 83% of patients said they found the treatment
easy or very easy to apply. Laboratory investigations
revealed that a variety of fungi were present prior to
commencement of the dressing. However, in 55% of
subjects no fungi were cultured at the end of the
study (Johansson et al, 2009).
Case reports
A number of authors have presented a variety of
case studies to demonstrate the outcomes of the use
of DACC-coated Cutimed Sorbact dressings in the
clinical environment. Although these reports lack
the structure and rigour of formalized trials, they are
much closer to the clinical scenarios seen by most
clinicians and describe effectiveness in clinical practice in treating wounds of differing aetiologies.
Hampton (2007) reports a case series of 21 patients
treated with DACC-coated dressings. These patients,
with a mean age of 83 years (range 67–96 years),
had chronic non-responding wounds of at least
3 months duration with a variety of underlying aetiologies. All the patients were treated for at least
4 weeks; those healing but not yet closed were
treated for up to 10 weeks. Dressing change was
undertaken as often as considered necessary by the
care team. Frequency was determined by individual
clinical presentation and patient need.
After 4 weeks treatment, six wounds had healed
and 14 were progressing towards healing as characterized by an improvement within the Wound Healing Continuum (Gray et al, 2004). Malodour was
identiied in 56% of the wounds at the start of treatment, with 28% of wounds being recorded as
extremely malodorous and 28% as having some
malodour. This was reduced to 0% at the end of the
4-week evaluation. During this time improvements
in patients’ peri-wound skin condition was observed
with the proportion of patients with healthy skin
increasing from 38% to 68% by day 28. The Cutimed
Sorbact pads absorbed exudate well with no visible
maceration or excoriation, and in all patients exu-
13
Cutimed Sorbact
Infection
Management
in a New Light
®
®
CUTIMED SORBACT is the only range of dressings coated
with DACC that can reduce the bacterial load.1,2
In a moist environment, bacteria and fungi irreversibly BINDS
to the dressing helping to kick start the healing process.1,2
Dressings can be used SAFELY on all patients and on all
moist wounds with none of the drawbacks of conventional
antimicrobial dressings1,2:
n
n
Wound bacteria and fungi binding to Cutimed Sorbact
n
no cytotoxicity
no bacterial toxin release
no contraindications
Cutimed Sorbact - a SAFE and
innovative antimicrobial dressings
range for your Formulary.
For further information please go to:
www.cutimed.com or contact us at
advancedwoundcare.uk@bsnmedical.com
1) Ljungh et al (2006) Using the principle of hydrophobic interaction to bind and remove wound bacteria. Journal
of Wound Care, 15 (4): 175 80 2) Powell G (2009) Evaluating Cutimed Sorbact: using a Case Study Approach.
British Journal of Nursing 18 (15): S30. S32-S36
® Registered trade mark
© BSN medical Limited, June 2011
SR/JWCAD/000989/0611
date levels reduced with product use. Consequently,
dressing change intervals were also extended from
three dressing changes per week (on average) to one
or two per week (on average), making the dressing
increasingly cost effective. Pain scale scores, which
were assessed weekly throughout the study, were
signiicantly reduced possibly owing to a reduction
in wound bioburden and inlammation. Clinicians
reported that the product was easy to use, with the
Cutimed Sorbact dressings staying in place over the
wounds between dressing changes and being easy
to remove without inducing wound bed trauma.
Powell (2009) reported on a series of case studies
using DACC-coated dressings. Three patients with
indolent, highly exuding chronic leg ulcers were
treated with DACC in combination with compression therapy and absorbent dressings. In each case,
odour, exudate and pain reduced signiicantly shortly
after the introduction of the product. In one of these
cases, the DACC-coated dressings were safely used for
approximately 4 months and kick started healing in
a previously recalcitrant wound. Two patients were
treated with Cutimed Sorbact following the breakdown of wide excision and surgical closure wounds
to correct pilonidal sinus. These wounds are notoriously painful (Stephen-Haynes, 2008) and because of
the anatomical position rapidly become heavily colonized with bacteria. In both cases, the application of
Cutimed Sorbact ribbon brought about a rapid
improvement in wound healing with rapid closure
by secondary intention. Finally, Powell reported on
the treatment of a patient with multiple fungating
lesions to the breast and abdomen. Prior to treatment, these wounds were heavily exuding, sloughy
and extremely malodorous. A palliative regime was
implemented using daily DACC-coated ribbon and
absorbent dressing pads. This was highly successful
and within 3 days the offensive odour was no longer
a problem. Two weeks of treatment witnessed marked
reduction in exudate and an improvement in the surrounding skin condition. By this time, the dressing
only needed to be changed twice a week. Powell
(2009) concluded that DACC-coated Cutimed Sorbact was an effective treatment when critical colonization and signs of infection are observed and should
be considered for wounds at risk of infection because
of location and aetiology. The product is now
included within the trust’s wound care formulary
(Bristol Community Health, 2011).
Riley (2010) adopted a case study approach to the
treatment of two patients with diabetes and foot
wounds. Both patients had serious arterial occlusion
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
and exposed bone in their wounds. Patient 1 was
advised that amputation of his lower limb was
required and patient 2 had already undergone a
forefoot amputation. DACC-coated dressings were
introduced to manage the bacterial burden in both
patients. Despite the poor vascularization and
extent of the two wounds (patient 1 measured
4.5x3.5cm at presentation, and patient 2 was
13.5cm in length) both healed following 20 weeks
of treatment with Cutimed Sorbact. During therapy
no other form of antimicrobial was required.
Case studies
Haycocks and Chadwick reported the use of
Cutimed Sorbact on a diabetic patient with a foot
wound (Figure 11) and a previous history of recurrent foot ulceration and osteomyelitis (Haycocks et
al, 2011). He had developed further ulceration with
underlying osteomyelitis in the head and distal
three quarters of the irst metatarsal. This had been
resistant to therapy, so he was taken to theatre for
resection of the infected bone. The patient was
Figure 11: Start of Cutimed Sorbact
Figure 12: Two weeks after commencing DACC
15
Figure 13: Fifteen weeks later: healed
home treated with intravenous antibiotics and had
gentamicin beads inserted into the wound bed.
DACC-coated dressings were initiated 2 weeks
postoperatively when the gentamicin beads were
removed. The dressing was changed three times a
week and he was reviewed at the podiatry clinic
weekly. The dressing was found to be easy to use
and was said to be comfortable by the patient.
Throughout treatment, the wound remained clean
and infection free (Figure 12), with complete closure being achieved in 15 weeks (Figure 13). Haycocks and Chadwick reported that bioburden
management is a vitally important consideration
in high-risk patients. There were no side effects
and no risks of cytotoxic or irritative reactions. The
ability of DACC in Cutimed Sorbact to bind effectively to the hydrophobic, pathogenic bacteria and
fungi found in many diabetic wounds makes
Cutimed Sorbact ‘an important, safe and innovative newcomer to the antimicrobial dressing
toolkit’ (Haycocks et al, 2011).
Derbyshire reported on a series of three case studies (Deryshire, 2010a; b). Two of these involved
highly exuding and painful leg ulcers, which had
been present for a number of years and one involved
a gentleman with extensive solar skin damage to his
scalp. All the patients’ wounds had been resistant to
conventional therapies and had involved considerable nursing intervention and years of dressing prescriptions. In all cases, the use of DACC-coated
dressings resulted in reduced bacterial bioburden
with resultant reductions in pain, exudation and
maceration (Figure 14 and Figure 15). Due to the
chronic nature of these wounds healing is slow but
ongoing; however, the author has identiied substantial cost savings in the use of Cutimed Sorbact
as well as improved wound healing outcomes.
16
Figure 14: Head prior to application of Cutimed
Sorbact dressings
Figure 15: Formation of granulation tissue
New case study evidence
For this supplement, two new case studies are presented which provide further evidence on the eficacy of DACC-coated dressings.
Diabetic foot ulcer
Haycocks and Chadwick present data from a
44-year-old female with type 1 diabetes, renal disease and who had a below-the-knee amputation in
2004 following infection. In 2005, the patient also
had a Charcot foot and a kidney/pancreas transplant. The patient developed an ulcer during a holi-
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Figure 16: Patient B: On presentation
Figure 17: Patient B: 5 day review
On presentation, the wound had been present
for a week, it was necrotic with sloughy areas, and
measured 40mmx10mmx2mm deep. There were
low amounts of exudate and localized cellulitis.
On review 5 days after commencement of DACCcoated dressing (Figure 17), the cellulitis had
resolved and the wound had reduced by 50%. As
exudate levels were nil, Cutimed Sorbact gel dressings were commenced. By week 4 there had been a
99% reduction in the wound size. The wound had
healed 5 weeks after starting use of DACC-coated
dressing (Figure 18).
Haycocks and Chadwick’s case study shows that
DACC is recommended as an alternative antimicrobial option to reduce bacterial load. It is useful
for complex, chronic wounds which require longer
periods of antimicrobial dressing use than the
2 weeks described in the recent Best Practice Statement (Wounds UK, 2010) as no chemicals are
donated into the wound bed from the dressing.
The above case study was provided by Samantha Haycocks, Specialist Podiatrist and Paul Chadwick, Principle Podiatrist, Salford Primary Care Trust, Podiatry
and Foot Health, Hope Hospital, Salford
Leg ulcer
Figure 18: Patient B: Healed
day (Figure 16) with antibiotics started. Infection
was a concern with this patient as she had a history
of infection and was immunosupressed as a result of
the transplant and her background diabetes.
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Derbyshire presents data from a 93-year-old male
who was referred to his district nursing team as he
was no longer able to attend the surgery for leg ulcer
treatment. Initially, he was seen twice a week by the
practice nurse with family members padding the leg
daily between visits. Exudate management was
poor, with maceration and complaints from family
members regarding frequent washing of bedding
and clothes. Pain management was uncontrolled,
impacting severely on his quality of life. A referral to
the hospital to help clear the blockages in his leg
and improve circulation was unsuccessful, with the
consultant suggesting amputation – an option not
favoured by the patient. The patient was accepted
onto Derbyshire’s caseload for support and to help
family members with the dressing regime until surgery was accepted.
The wound was circumferential on the left leg,
with extensive areas of slough, some small patches
of necrosis and high exudate levels (Figure 19 and
Figure 20). Wound swabs showed mixed growth.
The previous dressing regime was Aquacel Ag covered with an absorbent secondary dressing. Upon
taking the case, the irst priority was to manage
the exudate levels and eliminate any infection
17
Figure 19: Initial presentation
of wound outer left leg
Figure 22: Outer left leg 5
weeks later
Figure 23: Inner left leg
5 weeks later
Figure 20: Initial presentation
of wound. Rear and inner left
leg view
Figure 24: Outer left leg
Following 8 weeks
of treatment
present. Cutimed Sorbact swabs were commenced
(Figure 21) with gauze padding and Zetuvit as secondary dressing and secured with a retention
bandage. The secondary dressings were changed
daily and Cutimed Sorbact every three days.
No emollient was applied as this can reduce the
binding eficacy of the dressings.
Five weeks after referral, the wounds were
clearly continuing to improve (see Figure 22 and
Figure 23), as had pain levels.
The regime of DACC-coated dressings was continued because of the ongoing improvement seen,
with the dressings changed twice per week. At this
stage, the patient was happy and chose not to
18
Figure 21: Initial application
of Cutimed Sorbact swab
Figure 25: Inner left leg
Following 8 weeks
of treatment
proceed with the amputation; a decision that has
been vindicated by the visible improvement in
his wounds.
Within a further 3 weeks the wounds had substantially improved (Figure 24 and Figure 25).
Twice weekly dressing changes continued.
Unfortunately, a month after the photos in
Figure 24 and Figure 25, the patient fell from his
chair and fractured his hip. He died in hospital
48 hours later. At the post-bereavement visit, the
patient’s family were keen to share how his quality of life had dramatically improved in recent
months owing to the healing progression
achieved with DACC-coated dressings.
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
The above case study was provided by Adam Derbyshire, Senior District Nurse, Advanced Nurse Practitioner and Practice Educator, Albany House Medical
Centre, Northampton Primary Care Trust
Conclusion
The effective management of wound bioburden will
remain an important feature of wound care for the
foreseeable future and the need to ind alternative
methods of pathogen control via topical antimicrobials, is likely to grow. As clinicians, we need to
explore new avenues that work in combination
with the body’s own defences to bring about optimal wound healing outcomes.
Treatment with a technology that can bind bacteria to it (Catch it) rather than just kill it represents a
distinct and new shift from previous held approaches
to bioburden management. As has been shown, traditional methods of control that aim to destroy
microbes can be problematic as the chemical arsenal developed can turn against the environment it
were designed to protect. Patient sensitization, the
development of resistant pathogens, cellular and
systemic toxicity and the promotion of extended
inlammatory response are all very real issues for the
wound care clinician. Patient quality of life and cost
implications are also signiicant daily challenges
that need to be recognized.
Cutimed Sorbact is the irst DACC-coated dressing range that uses the hydrophobic properties
inherent in a wide variety of wound pathogens,
including multi-resistant organisms and bioilms, to
bring about control and the beneit of reduced pain
and odour for the patient. By irreversibly binding
microbes to its DACC coating, Cutimed Sorbact is
able to provide a safe and effective method for clinicians to reduce bacterial load within the wound at
every dressing change. By providing bioburden containment and control, DACC technology offers a
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
new treatment for wounds that are either infected
or susceptible to the development of infection. This
has particular relevance where such infection can be
catastrophic, such as in the diabetic foot and pressure ulcer wounds. It enables the balance of wound
bioburden to be tipped back in favour of the body’s
own defence systems without the risk of cytotoxic
reactions or development of bacterial resistance. It
should therefore always be considered alongside
other topical dressings, as a new way of providing
antimicrobial care.
Key points
• Most antimicrobial dressings reduce bioburden
by killing bacteria
• Effective wound management seeks to avoid
eliciting a prolonged inlammatory state, but the
chemicals used in most topical antimicrobial
dressings can promote inlammation because of
the endotoxins released by the ensuing bacterial
debris in the wound
• DACC is a hydrophobic fatty acid derivative that
is coated to a dressing material during its
manufacture, resulting in a dressing with highly
hydrophobic properties
• Microorganisms which have naturally
hydrophobic surfaces, are irreversibly bound to
the dressing’s surface by the principle of
hydrophobic interaction
• With each dressing change, more bacteria are
removed from the wound bed along with the
dressing, thereby consistently reducing the
bacterial load
• Case studies have shown that a DACC-coated
dressing can be used on chronic wounds for
prolonged lenths of time with no toxicity to
healthy tissue or systemic absorption making
them suitable both for episodes of infection and
for long-term prophylactic use
19
References
Adams CJ, Boult CH, Deadman BJ, Farr
JM, Grainger MNC, Manley-Harris
M, Snow MJ (2008) Isolation of
HPLC and characterisation of the
bioactive fraction of New Zealand
manuka (Leptospormum
scoparium) honey. Carbohydr Res
17;343(4): 651-9
Ahimou F, Paquot M, Jacques P, et al.
(2001) Inluence of electrical
properties on the evaluation of the
surface hydrophobicity of Bacillus
subtilis. J Microbiol Meth 45:
119-126
Akiyama H, Oono T, Saito M, Iwatsuki
K, (2004) Assessment of cadexomer
iodine against Staphylococcus
aureus bioilm in vivo and in vitro
using confocal laser scanning
microscopy. J Dermatol 31(7):
529-534
Allen MJ, Morby AP, White GF (2004)
Cooperativity in the binding of the
cationic biocide polyhexamethylene biguanide to nucleic acids.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun
318(2): 397–404
Armstrong D (2002) The Use of Silver as
an Anti-microbial. Alpha&Omega
Worldwide. LLC, New Jersey USA.
Barret S et al (2010) Best Practice
Statement - The use of topical
antiseptic/antimicrobial agents in
wound management. Wounds UK
June 2010
Bergin S, Wraight P (2006) Silver based
wound dressings and topical agents
for treating diabetic foot ulcers
Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews Issue 1 Art. No.:
CD005082. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD005082.
pub2
Best Practice Statement: The use of
topical antimicrobial agents in
wound management (2010)
Wounds UK, Aberdeen. http://
tinyurl.com/4yxwzf8 (Accessed 1
June 2011)
Bowler P, Jones SA, Davies BJ, Coyle E
(1999) Infection control properties
of some wound dressings. J Wound
Care 8(10): 499-502
Bowler PG, Duerden BI, Armstrong DG
(2001) Wound microbiology and
associated approaches to wound
management. Clin Microbiol Rev 14:
244–69
Bristol Community Health (2011)
Wound care Formulary.
Broxton P, Woodcock PM, Heatley F,
Gilbert P (1984) Interaction of
some polyhexamethylene
biguanides and membrane
phospholipids in Escherichia coli. J
Appl Bacteriol 57(1): 115–24
Burd A, Kwok C, Hung S (2007) A
comparative study of the
cytotoxicity of silver-based
dressings in monolayer cell, tissue
20
explant and animal models. Wound
Repair Regen. 15(1): 94–104
Calderon CB, Sabundayo BP (2007).
A’ntimicrobial Classiications:
Drugs for Bugs’. In: Schwalbe R,
Steele-Moore L, Goodwin AC.
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
Protocols. CRC Press. Taylor &
Frances Group, London
Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick C et al
(1999) The Calgary bioilm device:
New technology for rapid
determination of antibiotic
susceptibilities of bacterial
bioilms. J Clin Micro 37(6): 1771–6
Chaby G, Senet P, Vaneau M et al
(2007) Dressings For Acute and
Chronic Wounds. A Systematic
Review. Arch Dermatol 143(10):
1297–304
Clarke S (2003) The Silver Solution.
Journal of Community Nursing 17(1):
25–8
Cooper R, Jenkins L (2009) Binding of
bioilm to Cutimed Sorbact. Poster
presentation. Wounds UK
Cooper RA (2002) The contribution of
microbial virulence to wound
infection Br J Community Nurs 7(12
(Silver Suppl 3)): 10-14
Cooper RA (2004) A review of the
evidence for the use of topical
antimicrobial agents in wound
care. WorldWide Wounds.
Cooper RA (2007) Iodine revisited. Int
Wound J 4(2): 124–37
Cooper RA, Halas E, Molan PC (2002b)
The eficacy of honey in inhibiting
strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
from infected burns. J Burn Care
Rehabil 23(6): 366–70
Cooper RA, Molan PC, Harding KG
(2002a) The sensitivity to honey of
Gram-positive cocci of clinical
signiicance isolated from wounds.
J Appl Microbiol 93(5): 857–63
Costerton JW, Stewart PS (2001)
Battling bioilms. Sci Am 285(1):
74-81
Cowan MM, van der Mei HC, Rouscher
PG, Busscher HJ, (1992) Physicochemical and structural properties
of the surfaces of Peptostreptococcus micros and Streptococcus mitis
as compared to those of mutans
streptococci, Streptococcus sanguis
and Streptococcus salivarius. J Gen
Microbiol 138: 2707-14
Curtis RA, Steinbrecher C, Heinemann
M, et al. (2002) Hydrophobic forces
between protein molecules in
aqueous solutions of concentrated
electrolyte. Biophys Chem 98:
249-65
Davies A, Bentley M, Field BS (1968)
Comparison of the action of
vantocil, cetrimide and chlorhexidine on Escherichia coli and its
spheroplasts and the protoplasts of
Gram-positive bacteria. J Appl
Bacteriol 31(4): 448–61
Davies A, Field BS (1969) Action of
biguanides, phenols and detergents
on Escherichia coli and its
sphereoplasts. J Appl Bacteriol 32(2):
233–43
Dehaut F, Maingault M (1994) Kinetic
binding of bacteria on two types of
dressing: Algosteril (calcium
alginate) and gauze (poster
presentation). 1st European
Workshop Surgery-Engineering:
Synergy in Biomaterial Applications. Montpellier, France Demling
R, DeSanti L (2001) The Role of
Silver in Wound Healing: Part 1.
Effects of Silver on Wound
Management. Wounds 13(1 Suppl
A): 4–15
Denyer J (2009) Management of the
infant with epidermolysis bullosa.
Infant 5(6): 168–71
Derbyshire A (2010a) Innovative
solutions to daily challenges. Br J
Comm Nurs
15(9( (Suppl.)): S38–S45
Derbyshire A (2010b) Innovative
solutions to daily challenges:
Cutimed Sorbact follow-up case
studies. Br J Comm Nurs
15(12(Suppl.)): S24-28
Diegelmann RF, Evans MC. (2004)
Wound healing: an overview of
acute, ibrotic and delayed healing.
Front Biosci 9: 283–9
Dovi JV, Szpaderska AM, DiPietro LA.
(2004) Neutrophil function in the
healing wound: adding insult to
injury? Thromb Haemost 92(2):
275–80
Doyle RJ,(2000) Contribution of the
hydrophobic effect to microbial
adhesion. Microbes Infect 2(4):
391-400
Easterbrook PJ (1998) Superbugs: are
we at the threshold of a new Dark
Age? Hospital Medicine 59(7):
524-526
Eriksson K-O, Naidu AS, Kilár F et al
(1989) Surface hydrophobicity and
electrophoretic mobilities of
staphylococcal exotoxins with
special reference to toxic shock
syndrome, toxin-1. APMIS 97(12):
1081-7
European Wound Management
Association (2006) Position
Document: Management of wound
infection. MEP Ltd, London
Friedl P,Weigelin B. (2008) Interstitial
leukocyte migration and immune
function. Nat Immun 9: 960–9
Forrest RD (1982) Early history of
wound treatment. JR Soc Med 75:
198-205
Gray D, White R, Kingsley A, Cooper P
(2004) Using the wound healing
continuum to identify treatment
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
objectives. In: Applied wound
management supplement: Part 2
Implementation. Wounds UK,
Aberdeen
Gottardi W (1983) ‘Chapter 8: iodine
and iodine compounds’. In: Block
SS (ed) Disinfection, sterilization and
preservation. Lea & Febiger,
Philadelphia: 183–96
Hallett MB. (2003) Holding back
neutrophil aggression; the oxidase
has potential. Clin Exp Immunol
132(2): 181–4
Hampton S (2007). An evaluation of
the eficacy of Cutimed Sorbact in
different types of non-healing
wounds. Wounds-UK 3(4):113-19
Hastings R (2009) Binding of
Clostridium dificile and
Staphylococcus to the hydrophobic
wound dressing Cutimed Sorbact.
Poster presentation. Wounds UK
conference.
Henriques AF, Jenkins RE, Burton NF,
Cooper RA (2009) The intracellular
effects of manuka honey on
Staphylococcus aureus. Eur J Clin
Microbiol Infect Dis 29(1): 45-50
Hjertén S, Wadström T (1990) ‘What
types of bonds are responsible for
the adhesion of bacteria and
viruses to native and artiicial
surfaces?’ In: Wadström T, Eliasson
I, Holder I, Ljungh Å (eds)
Pathogenesis of Wound and
Biomaterial-associated Infections.
Springer Verlag, Berlin
Hopf HW, Rollins MD. (2007) Wounds:
an overview of the role of oxygen.
Antioxid Redox Signal 9: 83–92
Iheanado I (2010) Silver dressings – do
they work? Drug Ther Bull 48(4):
38–42
Johansson A, Ljungh Å, Apelqvist J
(2009) Open study on the topical
treatment of interdigital fungal
infections in diabetic patients. J
Wound Care 18(11): 470-3
Kammerlander G, Locher E, SuessBurghart A, von Hallern B,
Wipplinger P (2008) An investigation of Cutimed® Sorbact® as an
antimicrobial alternative in wound
management Wounds-UK 4(2):
10-20
Klasen H (2000a) Historical review of
the use of silver in the treatment of
burns. I. Early uses. Burns 26(2):
117–30
Klasen H (2000b) A historical review of
the use of silver in the treatment of
burns. II. Renewed interest for
silver. Burns 26(2): 131–8
Kramer SA, (1999) Effect of povidoneiodine on wound healing: a review.
J Vasc Nurs 17(1): 17-23
Lawrence JC (1998) The use of iodine
as an antiseptic agent. J Wound
Care 7(8): 421–5
Ljungh Å, Hjertén S, Wadström T,
(1985) High surface hydrophobicity of aggregating Staphylococcus
aureus strains isolated from human
infections studied with the salt
aggregation test, SAT. Infect Immun
47(2): 522-6
Ljungh Å, Wadström T (1995) Growth
conditions inluence expression of
cell surface hydrophobicity of
staphylococci and other wound
infection pathogens. Microbiol
Immunol 39: 753-757
Ljungh A, Yanagisawa N, Wadström T
(2006) Using the principle of
hydrophobic interaction to bind
and remove wound bacteria. J
Wound Care 15(4): 175–80
Loh JV, Percival SL, Woods EJ, Williams
NJ, Cochrane CA, (2009) Silver
resistance in MRSA isolated from
wound and nasal sources in
humans and animals. Int Wound J
6(1): 32-8
Marr KA, Sexton DJ, Conlon PJ et al.
(1997) Catheter-related bacteremia
and outcome of attempted catheter
salvage in patients undergoing
hemodialysis. Ann Intern Med
127(4): 275-80
Martinez-Rossi NM, Peres NT, Ross, A.
(2008) Antifungal resistance
mechanisms in dermatophytes.
Mycopathologia 166(5-6): 369-83
Mavric E, Wittmann S, Barth G, Henle T
(2008) Indentiication and
quantiication of methylglyoxal as
the dominent antimicrobial
constituent of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honeys from New
Zealand. Mol Nutr Food Res 52: 1-7
Mayser P, Hensel J, Thoma W et al
(2004) Prevalence of fungal foot
infections in patients with diabetes
mellitus type 1 - underestimation
of moccasin-type tinea. Exp Clin
Endocrinol Diabetes 112(5): 264-8
Michaels J, Campbell B, King B,
Palfreyman S, Shackley P,
Stevenson M (2009) Randomised
controlled trial and cost effectiveness analysis of silver donating
antimicrobial dressings for venous
leg ulcers (VULCAN trial). Br J Surg
96(10): 1147–56
Molan PC (1999) The role of honey in
the management of wounds. J
Wound Care 8(8): 415–8
Molan PC (2001) Honey as a topical
antibacterial agent for treatment of
infected wounds. World Wide
Wounds. http://tinyurl.com/ncs3k
(Accessed 1 June 2011)
Molan PC, Betts JA (2004) Clinical
usage of honey as a wound
dressing: an update. J Wound Care
13(9): 353–6
Moore K, Gray D (2007) Using PHMB
antimicrobial to prevent wound
infection. Wounds UK 3(2): 96–102
Moss AH, Vasilakis C, Holley JL et al
(1990) Use of a silicone dual lumen
catheter with a Dacron cuff as a
long-term vascular access for
hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney
Dis 16(3): 211-5
Ofek I, Doyle RJ (1994) Bacterial
adhesion to cells and tissues.
Chapman and Hall, New York
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Parsons D, Bowler P, Myles V, Jones S
(2005) Silver Antimicrobial
Dressings in Wound Management:
A Comparison of Antibacterial,
Physical, and Chemical Characteristics. Wounds 17(8): 222–32
Percival S, Bowler P (2004) Impact of
bacterial communities and bioilms
on wound healing. Worldwidewounds. http://tinyurl.
com/3cl28o8 (Accessed 1 June
2011)
Percival S, Bowler P, Russell A (2005)
Bacterial resistance to silver in
wound care. Journal of Hospital
Infection 60(1): 1–7
Powell G (2009) Evaluating Cutimed
Sorbact: using a case study
approach. Br J Nurs 18(15 Suppl):
S30 - S36
Presterl E, Suchomel M, Eder M, et al.
(2007)Effects of alcohols,
povidone-iodine and hydrogen
peroxide on bioilms of Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Antimicrob
Chemother 60(2): 417-20
Rhoads DD, Wolcott RD, Percival SL
(2008) Bioilms in wounds:
management strategies. J Wound
Care 17(11): 502-8
Riley S (2010) Managing wound
infection in diabetic patients using
Cutimed Sorbact. Poster presentation. Wounds UK conference.
Romano C, Massai L, Asta F, Signorini
AM (2001) Prevalence of
dermatophytic skin and nail
infections in diabetic patients.
Mycoses 44(3-4): 83-6
Russell AD, Hugo WB (1994)
Antimicrobial activity and action
of silver. Prog Med Chem 31: 351-70
Sansonerri PJ (2006) The innate
signalling of dangers and the
dangers of innate signalling. Nat
Immunol 7: 1237–4
Schreier H, Erdos G, Reimer K, Konig B,
Konig W, Fleischer W (1997)
Molecular effects of povidoneiodine on relevant micro-organisms: an electron-microscopic and
biochemical study. Dermatology
195(Suppl): 111–6
Schultz GS, Sibbald RG, Falanga V, et al
(2003) Wound bed preparation: a
systematic approach to wound
management. Wound Rep Regen
11(Suppl 1): S1–S28
Sibbald RG, Browne AC, Coutts P,
Queen D (2001) Screening
evaluation of ionised nanocrystalline silver dressing in chronic
wound care. Ostomy Wound
Manage 47(10): 38–43
Stephen-Haynes J (2008) Pilonidal
sinuses: aetiology and nursing
management. Wound Essentials 3:
128–33
Tacconelli E, De Angelis G, Cataldo
MA, Mantengoli E, Spanu T, Pan A
et al (2009)Antibiotic usage and
risk of colonization and infection
with antibiotic-resistant bacteria: a
hospital population-based study.
21
Antimicrob Agents Chemother.
53(10): 4264-9
Tachi M, Hirabayashi S, Yonehara Y et
al (2004) Comparison of bacteriaretaining ability of absorbent
wound dressings. Int Wound J 1(3):
177-81
Thurman RB, Gerba CP (1989) The
molecular mechanisms of copper
and silver ion disinfection of
bacteria and viruses. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Control
18(4): 295-315
Von Hallern B, Lang F (2005) Has
Cutisorb® Sorbact® proved its
practical value as an antibacterial
dressing? Medizin and Praxis
Spezial – Infected wounds. http://
tinyurl.com/3pdyy8r (Accessed 1
June 2011)
Wadström T, Björnberg S, Hjerten S
(1985) Hydrophobized wound
dressing in the treatment of
experimental staphylococcus
aureus infections in the young pig.
Acta Path Microbiol Immunol Scan
Sect B 93(5):359-63
Wadstrom T, Eliasson I, Holder I,
Ljungh A (1990) Pathogenesis of
Wound and Biomaterial-associated
Infections. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Walker M, Hobot JA, Newman GR,
Bowler PG (2003) Scanning
electron microscopic examination
of bacterial immobilisation in a
carboxymethylcellulose (Aquacel)
and alginate dressings. Biomaterials
24(5): 883-90
22
Wan AT, Conyers RAJ, Coombs CJ,
Masterton JP (1991) Determination
of silver in blood, urine and tissues
of volunteers and burn patients.
Clin Chem 37(10): 1683-7
Wang X-Q, Kempf M, Mott J et al
(2009) Silver absorption on burns
after the application of Acticoat:
data from pediatric patients and a
porcine burn model. J Burn Care
Res 30(2): 341-8
Warriner R, Burrell R (2005) Infection
and the chronic wound: a focus on
silver. Adv Skin Wound Care.
18(Suppl 1): 2-12
Wessels JGH (1997) Hydrophobins:
proteins that change the nature of
a fungal surface. Adv Microb Physiol
38: 1-45
White RJ (2002) The use of topical
antimicrobials in wound
bioburden control. Br J Community
Nurs 7(12 (Silver Suppl 3)): 20-6
White RJ, Cooper R, Kingsley A (2001)
Wound colonisation and infection:
the role of topical antimicrobials.
Br J Nurs 10(9): 563-78
Wilson JR, Mills JG, Prather ID,
Dimitrijevich SD, (2005) A toxicity
index of skin and wound cleansers
used on in vitro ibroblasts and
keratinocytes. Adv Skin Wound Care
18(7): 373-8
Wolcott RD, Rhoads DD, (2008) A
study of bioilm-based wound
management in subjects with
critical limb ischaemia. J Wound
Care 17(4): 145-55
World Union of Wound Healing
Societies (2008) Wound Infection in
Clinical Practice: An International
Consensus. Medical Education
Partnership Ltd, London
Wright JB, Hansen DL, Burrell RE
(1998) The comparative eficacy of
two antimicrobial barrier dressings:
in vitro examination of two
controlled release silver dressings.
Wounds 10(6): 179-88
Wysocki AB (2002) Evaluating and
managing open skin wounds:
colonization versus infection.
AACN Clin Issues 13(3): 382-97
Yasuda K, Ohmizo C, Katsu T (2003)
Potassium and tetraphenylphosphonium ion selective electrodes
for monitoring changes in the
permeability of bacterial outer and
cytoplasmic membranes. J
Microbiol Methods 54(1): 111–5
Yin HQ, Langford R, Burrell RE (1999)
Comparative evaluation of the
antimicrobial activity of Acticoat
antimicrobial barrier dressing. J
Burn Care Rehabil 20(3): 195-200
Zaki I, Shall L, Dalziel KL (1994)
Bacitracin: a signiicant sensitizer
in leg ulcer patients? Contact
Dermatitis 31(2): 92–4
Zhan C, Miller MR. (2003) Excess
length of stay, charges, and
mortality attributable to medical
injuries during hospitalization.
JAMA 290(14): 1868-73
BJN/BJCN | BSN Supplement Summer 2011
Cutimed Siltec
Exudate
Management
in a New Light
®
®
Sorbact
d
e
m
ti
u
C
partner to
ent is
The perfect
te managem
a
d
u
x
e
l
a
n
io
where addit
required.
A range of foam dressings that offer the benefits
of a gentle silicone wound contact layer, a
super-absorbent layer and a highly breathable
top film.
• Pain-free, atraumatic dressing changes1
Cutimed Siltec
• Excellent exudate management2
For moderately to highly
exuding wounds
• Minimal risk of maceration even under
compression1,2
Cutimed Siltec L
For low to moderately exuding wounds
Cutimed Siltec B
d
crum shape
Heel and Sa
.
le
b
ila
va
oa
dressings als
With a gently adhering border, for
moderately exuding wounds
For further information please go to:
www.cutimed.com or contact us at
advancedwoundcare.uk@bsnmedical.com
1) Data on ile. 2) Laboratory indings on the exudate-handling capabilities of cavity foam and foam-ilm
dressings, Steve Thomas, JWC Vol 19, No 5, May 2010
® Registered trade mark
© BSN medical Limited, June 2011
SR/BJON/000990/0611