Matthew P Rowan1, Krista L Niece1, Julie A Rizzo2, Kevin S Akers3. 1. United States Army Institute of Surgical Research , JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas. 2. United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas.; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas.; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.; Infectious Disease Service, Department of Medicine, San Antonio Military Medical Center, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Abstract
Objective: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) uses subatmospheric pressure as a noninvasive adjunct to treat wounds and has demonstrated clinical efficacy by accelerating healing of a variety of acute and chronic wounds. NPWT may also play a role in preventing or treating wound infections, possibly by increasing wound penetration of antibiotics. However, clinical data in patients undergoing antibiotic and NPWT treatment are limited. Approach: To evaluate the wound penetration of antibiotics in NPWT patients, we conducted a prospective, observational study of burn and trauma patients treated with NPWT and systemic antibiotics. We evaluated the plasma pharmacokinetic profile of systemic vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, and piperacillin/tazobactam, as well as total and unbound antibiotic concentrations in wound exudate from the same patients. Results: Data from 32 patients with 37 wounds undergoing NPWT demonstrated that vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin/tazobactam all penetrated wounds with exudate to plasma concentration ratios more than 0.8. Cefazolin did not penetrate wounds in patients undergoing NPWT as effectively, with an average exudate to plasma concentration ratio of 0.51. Innovation: Clinical data on the wound penetration of antibiotics in patients undergoing NPWT are limited, but these data suggest that antibiotics have different capacities for wound penetration during NPWT that should be considered when making clinical decisions. Conclusion: This initial report suggests that (1) vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin/tazobactam effectively penetrate wounds during NPWT and (2) cefazolin as well as other antibiotics may not penetrate wounds during NPWT.
Objective: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) uses subatmospheric pressure as a noninvasive adjunct to treat wounds and has demonstrated clinical efficacy by accelerating healing of a variety of acute and chronic wounds. NPWT may also play a role in preventing or treating wound infections, possibly by increasing wound penetration of antibiotics. However, clinical data in patients undergoing antibiotic and NPWT treatment are limited. Approach: To evaluate the wound penetration of antibiotics in NPWT patients, we conducted a prospective, observational study of burn and traumapatients treated with NPWT and systemic antibiotics. We evaluated the plasma pharmacokinetic profile of systemic vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, and piperacillin/tazobactam, as well as total and unbound antibiotic concentrations in wound exudate from the same patients. Results: Data from 32 patients with 37 wounds undergoing NPWT demonstrated that vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin/tazobactam all penetrated wounds with exudate to plasma concentration ratios more than 0.8. Cefazolin did not penetrate wounds in patients undergoing NPWT as effectively, with an average exudate to plasma concentration ratio of 0.51. Innovation: Clinical data on the wound penetration of antibiotics in patients undergoing NPWT are limited, but these data suggest that antibiotics have different capacities for wound penetration during NPWT that should be considered when making clinical decisions. Conclusion: This initial report suggests that (1) vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin/tazobactam effectively penetrate wounds during NPWT and (2) cefazolin as well as other antibiotics may not penetrate wounds during NPWT.
Authors: Ola Borgquist; Erik Anesäter; Erik Hedström; Charles K Lee; Richard Ingemansson; Malin Malmsjö Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Seth R Bauer; Charbel Salem; Michael J Connor; Joseph Groszek; Maria E Taylor; Peilin Wei; Ashita J Tolwani; William H Fissell Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Thomas P Lodise; Ben Lomaestro; Keith A Rodvold; Larry H Danziger; George L Drusano Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jane W A Vella-Brincat; Evan J Begg; Carl M J Kirkpatrick; Mei Zhang; Stephen T Chambers; Kate Gallagher Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2007-01-12 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Nicolas Kairinos; Andrew McKune; Michael Solomons; Donald A Hudson; Delawir Kahn Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Julia V Coutin; Otto I Lanz; Geraldine C Magnin-Bissel; Marion F Ehrich; Emily I Miller; Stephen R Werre; Thomas O Riegel Journal: Vet Surg Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 1.495
Authors: C Jongmans; A E Muller; P Van Den Broek; B De Melo Cruz De Almeida; C Van Den Berg; J Van Oldenrijk; P K Bos; B C P Koch Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 5.988