Glenn T Werneburg1,2, Anh Nguyen3, Nadine S Henderson1, Raymond R Rackley2, Daniel A Shoskes2, Amanda L Le Sueur4, Anthony T Corcoran4, Aaron E Katz4, Jason Kim5, Annie J Rohan6, David G Thanassi1. 1. Center for Infectious Diseases, Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York. 2. Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York. 4. Department of Urology, New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, New York. 5. Department of Urology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York. 6. School of Nursing, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to determine the composition and initiation site of bacterial biofilm on indwelling urinary catheters and to track biofilm progression with time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Indwelling urinary catheters were collected from 2 tertiary care centers following removal from patients. Indwelling time was noted and catheters were de-identified. Catheters were sectioned, stained for biofilms and analyzed by spectrophotometry and visualization. Biofilm colonization patterns were analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and bacterial composition was determined using next generation sequencing. RESULTS: We collected and analyzed a total of 33 catheters from 26 males and 7 females with indwelling time ranging from 15 minutes to 43 days. Biofilm colonization was consistently high on the region of the balloon for all indwelling times. After week 1 the distal third of the catheter had higher biofilm colonization than the proximal third (week 2 p=0.034). At all indwelling times the intraluminal surface of the catheter had greater biofilm colonization than the outer surface. Next generation sequencing detected potential uropathogenic bacteria in all 10 analyzed samples. CONCLUSIONS: The catheter balloon, its distal aspect and its lumen were the predominant locations of biofilm comprising uropathogenic bacteria. Strategies to prevent or treat biofilm should be targeted to these areas.
PURPOSE: We sought to determine the composition and initiation site of bacterial biofilm on indwelling urinary catheters and to track biofilm progression with time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Indwelling urinary catheters were collected from 2 tertiary care centers following removal from patients. Indwelling time was noted and catheters were de-identified. Catheters were sectioned, stained for biofilms and analyzed by spectrophotometry and visualization. Biofilm colonization patterns were analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and bacterial composition was determined using next generation sequencing. RESULTS: We collected and analyzed a total of 33 catheters from 26 males and 7 females with indwelling time ranging from 15 minutes to 43 days. Biofilm colonization was consistently high on the region of the balloon for all indwelling times. After week 1 the distal third of the catheter had higher biofilm colonization than the proximal third (week 2 p=0.034). At all indwelling times the intraluminal surface of the catheter had greater biofilm colonization than the outer surface. Next generation sequencing detected potential uropathogenic bacteria in all 10 analyzed samples. CONCLUSIONS: The catheter balloon, its distal aspect and its lumen were the predominant locations of biofilm comprising uropathogenic bacteria. Strategies to prevent or treat biofilm should be targeted to these areas.
Authors: M Guembe; M Marín; P Martín-Rabadán; A Echenagusia; F Camúñez; G Rodríguez-Rosales; G Simó; M Echenagusia; E Bouza Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Evelyn Lo; Lindsay E Nicolle; Susan E Coffin; Carolyn Gould; Lisa L Maragakis; Jennifer Meddings; David A Pegues; Ann Marie Pettis; Sanjay Saint; Deborah S Yokoe Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Thomas M Hooton; Suzanne F Bradley; Diana D Cardenas; Richard Colgan; Suzanne E Geerlings; James C Rice; Sanjay Saint; Anthony J Schaeffer; Paul A Tambayh; Peter Tenke; Lindsay E Nicolle Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Trine R Thomsen; Martin S Aasholm; Vibeke B Rudkjøbing; Aaron M Saunders; Thomas Bjarnsholt; Michael Givskov; Klaus Kirketerp-Møller; Per H Nielsen Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Jennifer N Walker; Ana L Flores-Mireles; Chloe L Pinkner; Henry L Schreiber; Matthew S Joens; Alyssa M Park; Aaron M Potretzke; Tyler M Bauman; Jerome S Pinkner; James A J Fitzpatrick; Alana Desai; Michael G Caparon; Scott J Hultgren Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Stefania Musco; Alessandro Giammò; Francesco Savoca; Luca Gemma; Paolo Geretto; Marco Soligo; Emilio Sacco; Giulio Del Popolo; Vincenzo Li Marzi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Nylev Vargas-Cruz; Joel Rosenblatt; Ruth A Reitzel; Anne-Marie Chaftari; Ray Hachem; Issam Raad Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.411