Complete Growth Inhibition of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by Organo-Selenium-Incorporated Urinary Catheter Material. (2024)

Link/Page Citation

Author(s): Phat L. Tran [1]; Caroline L. Presson [2]; Md Nayeem Hasan Kashem [3]; Wei Li [3]; Ted W. Reid (corresponding author) [1,*]; Werner T. W. de Riese [2]

1. Introduction

Urinary catheters are frequently used in hospitalized patients and cause one of the most prevalent infections, called catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) [1]. Urinary tract infections are the fourth most common nosocomial infection in healthcare settings [2]. The most common organisms responsible for CAUTIs are Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (in more than 90–95%) [2,3]. Multiple attempts with antiseptic and antibiotic-coated catheters have been made to lower the incidence of CAUTIs by controlling colonization and biofilm formation [4]; however, their use has not become the standard of care [5].

An interesting new approach of using organo-selenium-incorporated catheters has demonstrated excellent inhibition of growth and biofilm formation for bacteria [6]. Selenium has the unique ability to catalyze the formation of superoxide radicals as outlined in Figure 1. Selenium takes an electron from sulfur-containing molecules such as glutathione, which is universally available in all biological tissues, and gives it to oxygen, resulting in the formation of a superoxide radical. This radical causes oxidative stress for bacterial cells, with secondary cell death [7]. These radicals have a short half-life due to fast dismutation and, thus, have no adverse effect on the surrounding human tissue. The bacterial growth and biofilm inhibition and the lack of in vivo toxicity are well documented in studies on organo-selenium-coated contact lenses, tooth sealant, and hemodialysis catheters [8,9,10]. A recent study using 1% selenium-incorporated catheter tubing has shown excellent inhibition of growth and biofilm formation for E. coli, K. pneumonia, Haemophilus influenzae, and S. aureus, but it failed for P. aeruginosa [6]. Thus, this study focuses on a dose–response study to provide adequate in vitro inhibition of P. aeruginosa as well as C. albicans.

2. Results

2.1. Staphylococcus aureus Growth on Thermoplastic and Tin-Catalyzed Polyurethane

For Staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria grew over 7 logs in 24 h on the control tubing, while S. aureus did not grow on the tin-catalyzed selenium polyurethane at a 1% selenium concentration (Figure 2). This was also demonstrated by the confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) visualization of the thermoplastic polyurethane surfaces in control and organo-selenium-coated catheters following a 24 h bacterial incubation with S. aureus (Figure 3).

2.2. P. aeruginosa Growth on Polyurethane Using a Tin Catalyst

The in vitro results for P. aeruginosa obtained with the PU samples using tin as a metal catalyst showed no inhibition of cell growth at concentrations of selenium up to 3% of the polymer (Figure 4). These results were very different compared to the results obtained with Staphylococcus aureus in which total inhibition was seen with only 1% selenium in the polymer.

2.3. P. aeruginosa Growth on Thermoplastic Polyurethane

The results for the thermoplastic PU are seen in Figure 5: the 1.5% by weight selenium showed approximately 4 logs of inhibition and the 2% selenium showed 5 logs of inhibition; the 2.5% selenium showed 8 logs of inhibition (total growth inhibition).

2.4. Candida albicans Growth on Thermoplastic Polyurethane

The thermoplastic polyurethane catheter also showed complete inhibition (8 logs) of in vitro growth of the multidrug-resistant fungal strain of C. albicans even at a 1% selenium concentration as seen in Figure 6.

3. Discussion

As is well known and documented in healthcare, urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common nosocomial infections. Up to 80% of UTIs are due to indwelling catheters, also called catheter-associated UTIs (CAUTIs), as they provide an attachment surface for microbial adhesion and ascending migration [11]. Previous studies have attempted to use different antiseptic and antimicrobial coatings to inhibit bacterial growth and biofilm formation and thus prevent CAUTIs [3]. Coating technologies covering only the surface of the catheter material, as implemented with antibiotics, have brought up concerns such as substance instability and leaching over time [12]. Therefore, complete incorporation by polymerization of the antimicrobial substance within the catheter material (as implemented in this study with an organo-selenium-polymerized catheter material) is considered superior to more superficial, less stable modifications such as coating techniques. Furthermore, the previous studies on selenium-incorporated catheters [6] have demonstrated consistent antimicrobial efficacy for 12 weeks under in vivo conditions, which is reassuring as indwelling catheters are currently replaced every 4 weeks.

Nosocomial UTIs often have unusual antibiotic-resistance patterns; therefore, cultures are recommended for appropriate antibiotic selection in covering the pathogen. Furthermore, best practice limits the duration of antibiotic use in order to lower the chances of developing drug-resistant bacteria under treatment [1]. Despite these measures drug-resistant bacteria are causing increasing clinical issues in CAUTIs. In this context, catheters with direct antimicrobial properties, such as organo-selenium-incorporated catheters, may be very advantageous in preventing bacterial colonization and biofilm formation.

Human clinical trials have demonstrated that organo-selenium coatings on teeth are non-toxic to the surrounding gum tissue after a year [13], and animal trials using selenium-coated contact lenses showed no effect on the cornea after 3 months [8]. This supports the idea of implementing organo-selenium-incorporated catheters in future clinical trials. Previous in vitro studies have also demonstrated that 1% organo-selenium-incorporated catheters provide excellent growth inhibition for E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus, and H. influenzae but have failed for P. aeruginosa [6]. The current in vitro study analyzes modified organo-selenium concentrations for inhibiting P. aeruginosa growth and biofilm formation.

In attempting to incorporate organo-selenium into PU, we used a tin catalyst. As seen in Figure 2, at concentrations of selenium as low as 1%, this polymer resulted in the complete (8 logs) of inhibition of the attachment of Staphylococcus aureus to the polymer. However, even at concentrations as high as 3%, selenium showed no inhibition of P. aeruginosa (Figure 4) in the tin-catalyzed polymer. Apparently, tin added to selenium caused some inhibition of the ability of selenium to catalyze the formation of superoxide radicals. Thus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which requires higher concentrations of superoxide, was not adequately growth inhibited in the presence of the tin-catalyzed polymer.

Considering these results with the tin catalyst, we tried a thermoplastic method of polymerizing the incorporation of the organo-selenium into PU. The study inhibition data for thermoplastic incorporation in Figure 5 show that complete inhibition (8 logs) was seen with 2.5% selenium.

From a clinical standpoint, it is also interesting that this thermoplastic catheter material optimally inhibited the in vitro growth of the multidrug-resistant fungal strain of Candida albicans even at a 1% selenium concentration, as seen in Figure 6.

Based on the above results, organo-selenium-incorporated catheters should be studied further in vivo, as well as clinically investigated, to determine their therapeutic potential in preventing CAUTIs. While the presented results are promising, we are aware of relevant limitations. Although the presented results of in vitro growth and biofilm inhibition suggest a reduction in CAUTIs caused by P. aeruginosa, future clinical studies in patients with indwelling catheters are still needed to prove this clinical assumption. Additionally, while previous in vivo studies have well demonstrated the non-toxicity of selenium in other, non-urological medical devices, future in vivo studies on organo-selenium-incorporated catheters must confirm this prior to implementing clinical trials in patients.

Other studies with selenium and devices to inhibit biofilms on devices have used different methods to add the selenium. One study used selenium nanoparticles to coat a polycarbonate device [14], one used ZnO/selenium nanoparticles embedded in a chitosan-based anti-bacterial wound dressing [15], one coated sodium selenite on titanium orthopedic implants [16], and two used selenium nanoparticles to coat medical devices [17,18]. The problem with these methods is that, in each case, the selenium was not covalently attached to the device. Thus, with time it will leach off. This is not the case with the current study because the organo-selenium is covalently polymerized into the polymeric material of the catheter.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Selenium-Incorporated Polyurethane

Organo-selenium was polymerized into polyurethane using two different methods. One method used a thermoplastic polyurethane resin, and the second method used tin as a catalyst. In each case, the organo-selenium molecule (this molecule was a diol) was added to the polyurethane resin to produce a mixture that contained a specific percent by weight of selenium. The weight percent of the selenium ranged from 0% to 3%. This was the weight of the selenium atom and not of the selenium-containing molecule. The percentage of selenium in the diol molecule used to coat the pellets was 52%. The coated pellets were processed and polymerized with the organo-selenium into polyurethane, where the organo-selenium formed a co-polymer. The material was then tested for chemical and microbiological properties. The control non-selenium material was produced by the same process as the selenium-containing material.

4.2. Bacterial Strains, Media, and Growth Conditions

The bacterial strains tested were Staphylococcus aureus strain GFP AH133 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 GFP strain MM294, both of which express a green fluorescent protein from the plasmids pCM11 and pMRP9-1, respectively. Additionally, we also tested the multidrug-resistant Candida albicans strain ATCC 10231. The tested strains were grown in Luria Bertani (LB) broth at 37 °C with shaking (250 rpm) except for Candida albicans, which was gown in yeast extract peptone dextrose (YDP). The S. aureus GFP AH1333 strain was used as a control with excellent in vitro growth inhibition when exposed to the 1% organo-selenium-incorporated catheter material as proven in a recent study [6]. This Staphylococcus strain incorporates the pCM11 plasmid, in which the gene for the green fluorescent protein (GFP) is constitutively expressed [9]. The P. aeruginosa strain PAO1/pMRP9-1, which was used, also constitutively expresses the green fluorescent protein from plasmid pMRP9-1. All the studied strains were grown in LB broth at 37 °C with shaking (250 rpm) except that for Candida albicans, which was grown in YPD. Biofilm formation was examined using trypticase soy broth (TSB) (MP Biomedicals, Solon, OH, USA) as the medium. To maintain pCM11 in S. aureus GFP AH1333, both LB and TSB broths were supplemented with erythromycin (1 µg/mL), and to maintain pMRP9-1 in P. aeruginosa strain PAO1/pMRP9-1, the media were supplemented with 300 µg/mL carbenicillin.

4.3. Colony Forming Unit (CFU) Determination

This was achieved as previously described, with some modifications [9]. Two pieces (1 cm in diameter and 3 mm thick) of the control or selenium-PU (polyurethane) were placed into individual wells of sterile Falcon 24-well polystyrene plates (Becton Dickinson Labware, Bedford, MA, USA). Each well contained 1 mL of TSB (tryptic soy broth) inoculated with approximately 10[sup.3] to 10[sup.4] colony forming units (CFUs) of bacteria, either S. aureus or P. aeruginosa. Three wells containing TSB only were used as negative controls. The plates were covered and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h with slight shaking on a Titer Plate Shaker (Lab-line Instruments; Melrose Park, IL, USA). For Candida albicans [strain 3147 (ATCC 10231), 10[sup.3] to 10[sup.4] colony forming units (CFUs) in one mL of YPD (yeast extract peptone dextrose) were inoculated into each well and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. Three wells containing only YPD were used as negative controls. The biofilms were quantified by determining the number of microorganisms (CFUs) per two pieces. To determine the CFUs, the two pieces were carefully removed from each well of the 24-well plates with sterile forceps, rinsed gently several times with distilled H[sub.2]O, and placed into a 15 mL conical tube containing 2 mL PBS. The tubes were vigorously vortexed three times, for 2–3 min each time, to disrupt the biofilm and detach the bacteria from the pieces. Suspended cells were then serially diluted (10-fold) in PBS and 10 µL aliquots of each dilution were spotted on LB agar plates for S. aureus and P. aeruginosa or YPD agar plates for Candida albicans. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h, and the number of CFUs was counted. The number of CFU per two pieces was determined using the following formula: CFU counted × dilution factor × 200. The experiments were performed in triplicate. This procedure was completed for all reported selenium concentrations.

4.4. Biofilm Image Quantification

The biofilms were visualized using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) [19]. The in vitro biofilms were developed as described above. After 24 h of incubation at 37 °C, the pieces were gently rinsed to remove loosely attached bacteria. Visualization of the biofilms was accomplished by using a Nikon A1+/AIR+ confocal microscope (Nikon Inc., Melville, NY, USA) with images acquired at 2 µm intervals through the biofilms. Two-dimensional images were acquired using the Nis Elements Imaging software v. 4.20 (Nikon Inc., Melville, NY, USA). The experiments were performed in triplicate.

4.5. Graphing Analysis

The results of the CFU assays were graphed with Prism[sup.®] version 4.03 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). All the experiments were performed in triplicate.

5. Conclusions

Urinary tract infections associated with indwelling catheters are very common nosocomial infections causing significant morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. Thus, different antiseptic and antimicrobial catheter coatings have been previously investigated to inhibit bacterial growth and biofilm formation. These antimicrobial catheter coating techniques have proven effective in lowering the incidence of CAUTIs; however, their clinical implementation has been limited by many factors, preventing their wide acceptance in current clinical practice.

Recent studies with organo-selenium-incorporated catheters confirmed excellent inhibition of growth and biofilm formation for E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus, and H. influenzae but failed for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The presented in vitro study results demonstrate that organo-selenium-incorporated catheter tubing added with glutathione inhibits bacterial attachment, growth, and biofilm formation of P. aeruginosa and the previously mentioned bacteria, as well as Candida albicans. Glutathione is available throughout the body, and it functions as an electron donor for selenium, which is required for its antimicrobial activity. Our study results should encourage other investigators to proceed with in vivo and randomized clinical trials in order to further verify the prophylactic value of organo-selenium-incorporated catheters with the long-term clinical goal of reducing complications associated with CAUTIs. We plan to carry out these in vivo studies.

Author Contributions

P.L.T.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing—Reviewing and editing C.L.P.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing M.N.H.K.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing—Review and Editing W.L.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing—Review & Editing. T.W.R.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing—Reviewing and Editing W.T.W.d.R.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Reviewing and Editing, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. #793508 June 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

This manuscript does not contain any studies involving human participants.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

1. P. Singha; J. Locklin; H. Handa A Review of the Recent Advances in Antimicrobial Coatings for Urinary Catheters., 2017, 50,pp. 20-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.11.070. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27916738.

2. L.E. Nicolle Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections., 2014, 3,p. 23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-3-23. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25075308.

3. M.M.I. Majumder; T. Ahmed; S. Ahmed; A.R. Khan Microbiology of Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection., IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022, Volume 11,p. 156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-022-01197-6. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36496392.

4. S.K. Wassil; C.M. Crill; S.J. Phelps Antimicrobial Impregnated Catheters in the Prevention of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection in Hospitalized Patients., 2007, 12,pp. 77-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-12.2.77. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23055845.

5. V. Gauhar; D. Castellani; J.Y.-C. Teoh; C. Nedbal; G. Chiacchio; A.T. Gabrielson; F.L. Heldwein; M.L. Wroclawski; J. de la Rosette; R. Donalisio da Silva et al. Catheter-Associated Urinary Infections and Consequences of Using Coated versus Non-Coated Urethral Catheters—Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials., 2022, 11, 4463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154463. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35956080.

6. U. Jacobo; R. Vopni; P. Tran; S. Patel; S. Jain; C. de Riese; T.W. Reid; W. de Riese Efficacy of organo-selenium-incorporated urinary catheter tubing for in vitro growth inhibition of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and H. influenzae., 2022, 55,pp. 503-510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-022-03422-y. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36462116.

7. F. Vatansever; W.C.M.A. de Melo; P. Avci; D. Vecchio; M. Sadasivam; A. Gupta; R. Chandran; M. Karimi; N.A. Parizotto; R. Yin et al. Antimicrobial Strategies Centered around Reactive Oxygen Species–Bactericidal Antibiotics, Photodynamic Therapy, and Beyond., 2013, 37,pp. 955-989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12026. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802986.

8. S.M. Mathews; J.E. Spallholz; M.J. Grimson; R.R. Dubielzig; T. Gray; T.W. Reid Prevention of Bacterial Colonization of Contact Lenses with Covalently Attached Selenium and Effects on the Rabbit Cornea., 2006, 25,pp. 806-814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ico.0000224636.57062.90. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17068458.

9. P.L. Tran; N. Lowry; T. Campbell; T.W. Reid; D.R. Webster; E. Tobin; A. Aslani; T. Mosley; J. Dertien; J.A. Colmer-Hamood et al. An Organoselenium Compound Inhibits Staphylococcus Aureus Biofilms on Hemodialysis CathetersIn Vivo., 2011, 56,pp. 972-978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.05680-11. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22123688.

10. N. AlMojel; P.A. AbdulAzees; E.M. Lamb; B.T. Amaechi Determining growth inhibition of Candida albicans biofilm on denture materials after application of an organo-selenium containing dental sealant., 2021, 129,pp. 205-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.04.015. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34078547.

11. S. Geerlings Clinical Presentations and Epidemiology of Urinary Tract Infections., 2016, 4, 1128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.UTI-0002-2012. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27780014.

12. M.L.W. Knetsch; L.H. Koole New Strategies in the Development of Antimicrobial Coatings: The Example of Increasing Usage of Silver and Silver Nanoparticles., 2011, 3,pp. 340-366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym3010340.

13. B.T. Amaechi; H. Kasundra; L.O. Okoye; P.L. Tran; T.W. Reid Comparative Efficacy in Preventing Plaque Formation around Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Clinical Trial., 2019, 20,pp. 531-536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2552. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31316012.

14. Q. Wang; T.J. Webster Nanostructred selenium for preventing biofilm formation on polycarbonate medical devices., 2012, 100,pp. 3205-3210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34262. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22707390.

15. Q. Ruan; L. Yuan; S. Gao; X. Ji; W. Shao; J. Ma; D. Jiang Development of ZnO/selenium nanoparticles embedded chitosan-based anti-bacterial wound dressing for potential healing ability and nursing care after paediatric fracture surgery., 2023, 29,pp. 1819-1831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13947. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36992557.

16. J. Holinka; M. Pilz; B. Kubista; E. Presterl; R. Windhager Effects of selenium coating of orthopaedic implant surfaces on bacterial adherence and osteoblastic cell growth., 2013, 95B,pp. 678-682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.31216. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23632681.

17. P.A. Tran; N. O’Brien-Simpson; J.A. Palmer; N. Bock; E.C. Reynolds; T.J. Webster; A. Deva; W.A. Morrison; A.J. O’Connor Selenium nanoparticles as anti-infective implant coatings for trauma orthopedics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and epidermidis: In vitro and in vivo assessment., 2019, 14,pp. 4613-4624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S197737. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31308651.

18. P.A. Tran; T.J. Webster Antimicrobial selenium nanoparticle coatings on polymeric medical devices., 2013, 24,p. 155101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/24/15/155101. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23519147.

19. C.L. Malone; B.R. Boles; K.J. Lauderdale; M. Thoendel; J.S. Kavanaugh; A.R. Horswill Fluorescent Reporters for Staphylococcus Aureus., 2009, 77,pp. 251-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2009.02.011. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19264102.

Figures

Figure 1: Equation of the selenide anion reduction pathway for generating superoxide. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Figure 2: Growth of Staphylococcus aureus AH133 green fluorescent protein (GFP) on catheter tubing without and with different concentrations of selenium incorporated using a tin catalyst. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Figure 3: Visualization of surfaces by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) in control and 1% selenium catheter tubing following 24 h incubation with Staphylococcus aureus strain GFP AH133. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Figure 4: Growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01 GFP on catheter tubing without and with different concentrations of selenium incorporated using a tin catalyst. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Figure 5: Growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01 GFP on catheter tubing without and with different concentrations of selenium incorporated using a thermoplastic monomer. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Figure 6: Growth of the multidrug-resistant strain Candida albicans ATCC 10231 on catheter tubing without and with different concentrations of selenium incorporated using a thermoplastic monomer. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Author Affiliation(s):

[1] Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX 79430, USA; [emailprotected]

[2] Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX 79430, USA; [emailprotected] (C.L.P.); [emailprotected] (W.T.W.d.R.)

[3] Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA; [emailprotected] (M.N.H.K.); [emailprotected] (W.L.)

Author Note(s):

[*] Correspondence: [emailprotected]; Tel.: +1-806-743-9982 or +1-512-913-1898

DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13080736

COPYRIGHT 2024 MDPI AG
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.

Copyright 2024 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.


Complete Growth Inhibition of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by Organo-Selenium-Incorporated Urinary Catheter Material. (2024)

FAQs

What is the prognosis for Pseudomonas aeruginosa in urine? ›

Outlook / Prognosis

In many cases, the outlook for a Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection is good if you have a healthy immune system. Minor cases usually clear up within a few days with proper treatment. But you must take your entire course of antibiotics.

What kills Pseudomonas aeruginosa in urine? ›

Pseudomonas infection can be treated with a combination of an antipseudomonal beta-lactam (eg, penicillin or cephalosporin) and an aminoglycoside. Carbapenems (eg, imipenem, meropenem) with antipseudomonal quinolones may be used in conjunction with an aminoglycoside.

What is the significance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in urine culture? ›

P. aeruginosa is an opportunistic Gram-negative pathogen frequently isolated in urinary tract infections (UTI) affecting elderly and catheterized patients and associated with ineffective antibiotic treatment and poor clinical outcomes.

What is growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa? ›

It is a facultative aerobe that grows via aerobic respiration and anaerobic respiration with nitrate as the terminal electron acceptor. P. aeruginosa can also grow anaerobically with arginine and has limited fermentative abilities that generally support very slow or no growth.

How serious is a pseudomonas infection? ›

If you're in good health, you may not get sick from it. Other people only get a mild skin rash or an ear or eye infection. But if you're sick or your immune system is already weakened, pseudomonas can cause a severe infection. In people with cystic fibrosis, cancer, or burns, it can be life-threatening.

What are the symptoms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in urine? ›

Symptoms of P. aeruginosa depend on the type of infection you have. Pneumonia may cause coughing and difficulty breathing; urinary tract infections, pain, and frequent urination; wound infections, fluid leakage and inflammation; ear infections, pain, and decreased hearing.

What is the fastest way to get rid of Pseudomonas? ›

Infections caused by pseudomonas are usually treated using a suitable antibiotic in hospital. Pseudomonas colonisation (when it is found only on the skin) may not necessarily require treatment. Hospital staff take special precautions with patients who have pseudomonas in order to stop it spreading.

What kills Pseudomonas naturally? ›

Medical grade manuka honeys are well known to be efficacious against Pseudomonas aeruginosa being bactericidal and inhibiting the development of biofilms; moreover manuka honey effectively kills P. aeruginosa embedded within an established biofilm.

What is the normal range of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in urine? ›

Optimal Result: 0 - 500 Units.

Can a catheter cause Pseudomonas aeruginosa? ›

The organisms most commonly responsible for catheter-associated UTIs are Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Streptococcus faecalis[6], [24], [25], [26].

Is Pseudomonas a complicated UTI? ›

Background: Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been an important uropathogen that causes complicated urinary tract infection.

What Colour is urine with Pseudomonas infection? ›

Urinary tract infection caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa can cause green urine through the liberation of the pigment pyocyanin. In chronic obstructive jaundice green and blue urine may arise attributable to biliverdin excretion, an oxidation product of bilirubin.

How do you treat Pseudomonas aeruginosa UTI? ›

UTI can be treated with a single agent, except in cases of bacteremia and upper tract infections with abscess formation. Alternative antibiotics include antipseudomonal penicillins and cephalosporins, carbapenems (eg, imipenem, meropenem), and aztreonam. Ciprofloxacin continues to be the preferred oral agent.

How long does it take for Pseudomonas aeruginosa to go away? ›

Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia is a severe infection, often treated with long-course (~ 14 days) antibiotics. We aimed to assess whether 6–10 days of antibiotics would be as effective as 11–15 days for this infection.

What illness is caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa? ›

The most serious infections include malignant external otitis, endophthalmitis, endocarditis, meningitis, pneumonia, and septicemia. The likelihood of recovery from pseudomonas infection is related to the severity of the patient's underlying disease process.

What is the mortality rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa UTI? ›

The organism has a tendency to cause multi-site infections, of which bacteremia is fatal, with a mortality rate ranging from 18% to 61%.

What is the success rate of treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa? ›

Our meta-analysis found a 12-month P. aeruginosa eradication rate of 40% (95% CI 34–45%; p<0.00001), with no significant heterogeneity (I2=0%). Combined systemic and inhaled antibiotic treatment was associated with a higher eradication rate (48%, 95% CI 41–55%) than systemic antibiotics alone (27%, 13–45%).

How long is the treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa UTI? ›

Duration of therapy is 3-5 days for uncomplicated infections limited to the bladder; 7-10 days for complicated infections, especially with indwelling catheters; 10 days for urosepsis; and 2-3 weeks for pyelonephritis. Longer duration of treatment is necessary for those patients with perinephric or intrarenal abscesses.

Is a Pseudomonas UTI considered complicated? ›

Background: Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been an important uropathogen that causes complicated urinary tract infection.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Frankie Dare

Last Updated:

Views: 6422

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (53 voted)

Reviews: 92% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Frankie Dare

Birthday: 2000-01-27

Address: Suite 313 45115 Caridad Freeway, Port Barabaraville, MS 66713

Phone: +3769542039359

Job: Sales Manager

Hobby: Baton twirling, Stand-up comedy, Leather crafting, Rugby, tabletop games, Jigsaw puzzles, Air sports

Introduction: My name is Frankie Dare, I am a funny, beautiful, proud, fair, pleasant, cheerful, enthusiastic person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.