In vitro effect of chlorhexidine and amikacin on oral gram-negative bacilli from bone marrow transplant recipients

Brown, Albert T.; Shupe, James A.; Sims, R.; Matheny, James L.; Lillich, Thomas T.; Douglass, J. Burton; Henslee, P. Jean; Raybould, Ted P.; Ferretti, Gerald A.

doi:10.1016/0030-4220(90)90006-e

Cited by 28 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chlorhexidine seems to be the most widely used oral disinfectant 8 and, as a result, more and more evidence of resistance to chlorhexidine is emerging. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] In 2002, one research study indicated that strains of microorganisms resistant to antibiotics were also less susceptible to chlorhexidine. 24 The number of antimicrobial Table 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 However, other research projects have found that the effectiveness of chlorhexidine against K. pneumonia is greatly reduced. [17][18][19][20] A study in a hospital environment in China observed that isolates of S. aureus showed reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine 21 and was confirmed in Taiwan. 22 It was also stated that the "reduced microbial susceptibility to biocides represents a serious cause for concern in the clinical environment".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Descriptive Study of Chlorhexidine as a Disinfectant in Cleft Palate Surgery

Roode¹,

Bütow²

2018

Clin Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Chlorhexidine is seen as the golden standard of disinfectants. It is widely used to clean surgical sites; however, many studies indicate resistance of pathogens to chlorhexidine. One study indicated that pathogenic microorganisms were isolated from the soft palate cleft region in 57% of patients with facial clefts. The objectives of our study were to determine (1) if chlorhexidine application is effective in removing pathogens from the surgical site in these patients, and (2) if any pathogens are isolated, determine if they are resistant to other antimicrobials. Design:A descriptive observational study. Settings:A private practice that specializes in facial cleft surgery, with a country-wide patient base. All procedures were executed by one oral and maxillofacial surgeon.Participants: All patients (N=50) who presented for primary repair of the soft palate cleft were included in the study. Inclusion criteria: written consent from parent(s), and patient cleared as systemically healthy by a pediatric physician. Exclusion criteria: patient(s) with systemic infections (eg, flu) and/or any local infections (eg, tonsillitis). There were 25 males and 25 females with an average age of 7 months and 16 days included in the study.Methods: Swabs were taken from the surgical site of all 50 patients with cleft soft palate and were sent for culture, identification and antimicrobial sensitivity. The swabs were taken before disinfecting the site as well as after 2 minutes of disinfecting the surgical site with chlorhexidine. Results were compared against each other.Results: Positive cultures with 28 different pathogenic microorganisms that were identified in 47 patients before cleaning the surgical site with the chlorhexidine. The most dominant pathogens were K. pneumonia (n=22), H. influenza (n=18) and S. aureus (n=10). Of the pathogens found, 13 (46%) were still present on the swabs taken after disinfecting with chlorhexidine. K. pneumonia (n= 13), H. influenza (n=11) and S. aureus (n=9) were still the most prevalent pathogens. Conclusions:This study demonstrated that 61 of the total of 113 pathogens isolated (54%), survived after 2 minutes of disinfecting the surgical and surrounding area with chlorhexidine, thus intensifying the chances of post-operative infection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Descriptive Study of Chlorhexidine as a Disinfectant in Cleft Palate Surgery

Roode¹,

Bütow²

2018

Clin Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aqueous mouthrinses of chlorhexidine gluconate have, in some single centre studies, been reported to prevent acute oral infections and/or mucositis during cancer therapy (Ferretti et al , 1987, 1988; Brown et al , 1990; Thurmond et al , 1991). They are acceptable to children (Cheng, 2004).…”

Section: Prophylaxis Of Mucositismentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral mucositis

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mucositis and xerostomia are the most common oral complications of the non-surgical therapy of cancer. Mucositis, a common sequel of radio- (DXR), chemo-(CXR) and radiochemo-therapy in patients with cancer, or patients requiring haemopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), has a direct and significant impact on the quality of life and cost of care, and also affects survival--because of the risk of infection. Apart from dose reduction, preventive and treatment options for mucositis are scarce, although multiple agents have been tested. Evidence suggests that cryotherapy, topical benzydamine and amifostine might provide some benefit in specific situations. The recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor Palifermin (Kepivance) was recently approved as a mucositis intervention in patients receiving conditioning regimens before HSCT for the treatment of haematological malignancies. A number of mechanistically based interventions are in various stages of development. Unfortunately, many other approaches have not been rigorously tested. This paper reviews the clinical features, prevalence, diagnosis, complications, pathogenesis, prophylaxis and management of mucositis.

show abstract

“…Such rinsing is an adjunct to ideal oral periodontal care and can also be used when indications arise, such as oral mucosal changes secondary to chemotherapy and subsequent increased soft tissue sensitivity. 12,[125][126][127][128][129][130]138 Patients undergoing chemotherapy should be encouraged to rinse with a dilute saline and sodium bicarbonate solution (5%) to reduce adherent mucoid debris on oral soft tissues, lubricate oral mucosal and oropharyngeal tissues, and elevate the pH of oral fluids. 13,139 Patients encountering nausea and anorexia should be encouraged to rinse with the sodium bicarbonate and salt water solution several times throughout the day to reduce oral acidity and minimize the mucosal insult.…”

Section: Chemotherapy and Bone Marrow Transplantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients with bone marrow transplantation (BMT) are at high risk for the development of candidiasis, viral infections (most commonly HSV, varicella zoster, and cytomegalovirus), 29,138,[174][175][176][177][178][179] and bacterial infections, including those associated with microorganisms of periodontal origin. 123,180,181 Workers have reported hairy leukoplakia caused by Epstein-Barr viral infection in human immunodeficiency virus-negative BMT patients.…”

Section: Mucositismentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Complications of Cancer Therapy

Chambers

Garden

Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

any patients receive cytotoxic therapies that result in complications to the oral mucosa. Other patients receive either radiation or surgery as treatment of malignancies involving the head and neck region, with resultant consequences to the normal structures of the oral cavity and pharynx.Strategies for managing these sequelae of therapy include a combination of preventive measures, treatment directed at reversal of the insults to the oral tissues, and supportive care interventions. Few objective scales on oral morbidity have been reliably evaluated in clinical measure studies. General ConsiderationsOverview Evaluation, treatment, and prevention of any oral and dental preexisting pathology is an important aspect of the overall treatment outcome for cancer patients. 1,2 Patients undergoing aggressive anticancer treatment encounter preventable, if not treatable, oral mucosal and dental sequelae that could produce morbid events. 3 Complications vary with each patient, depending on the individual's oral and dental status, the type of malignancy, and the therapeutic approach (i.e., surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of these treatments). 4 Oral complications associated with cancer therapy can be classified into seven general types: stomatitis, infection, bleeding, mucositis, pain, loss of function, and xerostomia. 5 Such complications arise primarily in three anatomic sites: the mucosa, periodontium, and teeth. 4 Management algorithms for these complications are reviewed in the following sections dedicated to the causative modalities.

show abstract

In vitro effect of chlorhexidine and amikacin on oral gram-negative bacilli from bone marrow transplant recipients

Cited by 28 publications

References 26 publications

A Descriptive Study of Chlorhexidine as a Disinfectant in Cleft Palate Surgery

A Descriptive Study of Chlorhexidine as a Disinfectant in Cleft Palate Surgery

Oral mucositis

Oral Complications of Cancer Therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About