Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Polihexanide (3) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
- S. Karger AG (3)
Wound antisepsis has undergone a renaissance due to the introduction of highly effective wound-compatible antimicrobial agents and the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). However, a strict indication must be set for the application of these agents. An infected or critically colonized wound must be treated antiseptically. In addition, systemic antibiotic therapy is required in case the infection spreads. If applied preventively, the Wounds-at-Risk Score allows an assessment of the risk for infection and thus appropriateness of the indication. The content of this updated consensus recommendation still largely consists of discussing properties of octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT), polihexanide, and iodophores. The evaluations of hypochlorite, taurolidine, and silver ions have been updated. For critically colonized and infected chronic wounds as well as for burns, polihexanide is classified as the active agent of choice. The combination 0.1% OCT/phenoxyethanol (PE) solution is suitable for acute, contaminated, and traumatic wounds, including MRSA-colonized wounds due to its deep action. For chronic wounds, preparations with 0.05% OCT are preferable. For bite, stab/puncture, and gunshot wounds, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)-iodine is the first choice, while polihexanide and hypochlorite are superior to PVP-iodine for the treatment of contaminated acute and chronic wounds. For the decolonization of wounds colonized or infected with MDROs, the combination of OCT/PE is preferred. For peritoneal rinsing or rinsing of other cavities with a lack of drainage potential as well as the risk of central nervous system exposure, hypochlorite is the superior active agent. Silver-sulfadiazine is classified as dispensable, while dyes, organic mercury compounds, and hydrogen peroxide alone are classified as obsolete. As promising prospects, acetic acid, the combination of negative pressure wound therapy with the instillation of antiseptics (NPWTi), and cold atmospheric plasma are also subjects of this assessment.
Background: In clinical practice, treatment of genital tract infections is based on administration of either antibiotics or antiseptics. While antibiotics may be applied systemically or topically, antiseptics may be applied only topically. In case of bacterial vaginosis (BV), antibiotic therapy may often be limited and side effects due to systemic administration may develop. Polihexanide (PHMB) is a promising option for the topical treatment of genital tract infections, in particular BV and vaginitis. Method: A systematic search for publications on the use of PHMB for the treatment of genital infections in two electronic databases was performed. Titles, abstracts and citations were imported into a reference database. Duplicates were removed and two reviewers assessed each identified publication separately. Results: Among a total of 204 references, 3 prospective randomized trials were identified. Two trials treated BV infections with PHMB in comparison to clindamycin as antibiotic standard therapy with no significant differences either in safety or in efficacy. The third controlled trial investigated the clinical efficacy of PHMB compared to placebo in the treatment of human papilloma virus. Patients treated with PHMB daily for up to 16-weeks showed significantly higher (52%) clearance of genital warts as compared to patients treated with placebo (4%). Conclusion: PHMB may be a clinically effective alternative for the treatment of BV and human papilloma virus. Although PHMB-based antiseptics are available since the late 90s, controlled trials to investigate its clinical potential for antiseptic treatment are scant. Clinical use of antiseptics for the treatment of infectious diseases should be explored and supported further.
Currently, there are no generally accepted definitions for wounds at risk of infection. In clinical practice, too many chronic wounds are regarded as being at risk of infection, and therefore many topical antimicrobials – in terms of frequency and duration of use – are applied to wounds. Based on expert discussion and current knowledge, a clinical assessment score was developed. The objective of this wounds at risk (W.A.R.) score is to allow decision-making on the indication for the use of antiseptics on the basis of polihexanide. The proposed clinical classification of W.A.R. shall facilitate the decision for wound antisepsis and allow an appropriate general treatment regimen with the focus on the prevention of wound infection. The W.A.R. score is based on a clinically oriented risk assessment using concrete patient circumstances. The indication for the use of antiseptics results from the addition of differently weighted risk causes, for which points are assigned. Antimicrobial treatment is justified in the case of 3 or more points.