Biofilm is present in 78% of hard-to-heal wounds1
Biofilm is more likely to develop if exudate management is poor.2 The unique combination of Hydrofiber® technology and MORE THAN SILVER™ technology contributes to the removal of exudate, debris, and bacteria from the wound and locking them within the dressing. This aids in optimizing the wound environment to promote healing.3-5
Surfactants help to dissolve and remove contamination from surfaces by lowering the surface tension and can be found in products such as skin wipes. MORE THAN SILVER™ technology incorporates BEC (Benzethonium chloride).
BEC reduces the surface tension within a biofilm to enhance the ability of EDTA to remove metal ions in biofilm. BEC and EDTA synergistically work together to disrupt biofilm structures aiding the absorption and removal of the EPS and microorganisms by the dressing.6-10
Chelating agents are compounds that strongly attract and bind certain metal ions, boosting the action of surfactants. MORE THAN SILVER™ technology incorporates EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt).
EDTA helps disrupt biofilm by removing metal ions that hold the EPS matrix together to expose microorganisms to the antimicrobial effects of the ionic silver.6-9
Winning the battle against hard-to-heal wounds
A multicenter clinical study following the use of AQUACEL® Ag Advantage on 111 patients with hard-to-heal wounds.
Results indicated that:
- 78% progressed toward healing
- 13% healed
- 3.9 weeks average healing time
- 83% progressed in key healing parameters
To learn more about AQUACEL® Ag Advantage or request a sample, please complete your details here and we will be in touch.
References
1. Malone M et al. 2017. The prevalence of biofilm in chronic wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. JWC; 20-25.
2. Hurlow, Bowler. Potential implications of bio¬film in chronic wounds: a case series. J Wound Care 2012; 21: 109-119
3. Bowler PG, Parsons, D. Combatting wound bio¬ lm and recalcitrance with a novel anti-bio¬film Hydro¬fiber® wound dressing. Wound Medicine 14 (2016) 6–11
4. Parsons D, Meredith K, Rowlands VJ, Short D, Metcalf DG, Bowler PG. Enhanced Performance and Mode of Action of a Novel Antibiofilm Hydrofiber® Wound Dressing. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:7616471.
5. Metcalf DG, Parsons D, Bowler PG. Clinical safety and effectiveness evaluation of a new antimicrobial wound dressing designed to manage exudate, infection and biofilm. Int Wound J 2017; 14: 203-213
6. Said J, Walker M, Parsons D, Stapleton P, Beezer AE, Gaisford S. An in vitro test of the efficacy of an anti-biofilm wound dressing. Int J Pharmaceutics. 2014; 474: 177–181. DOI: 10.1016/jijpharm.2014.08.034.
7. Composition comprising antimicrobial metal ions and a quaternary cationic surfactant WO12136968 Parsons World patent application 11th October 2012.
8. Banin E., Brady K.M. & Greenberg E.P. (2006). Chelator Induced Dispersal and Killing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Cells in Biofilm. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72. 2064 2069.
9. Chen X, Stewart PS, 2000. Biofilm removal caused by chemical treatments. Wat. Res.,34: 4229 4233.
10. Seth AK, Zhong A, Nguyen KT, Hong SJ, Leung KP, Galiano RD, Mustoe TA. Impact of a novel, antimicrobial dressing on in vivo, Pseudomonas aeruginosa wound biofilm: quantitative comparative analysis using a rabbit ear model. Wound Repair Regen. 2014; 22: 712–719. DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12232.
11. Hobot JA, Walker M, Newman GN, Bowler PG, 2008. Effect of Hydrofiber® wound dressings on bacterial ultrastructure. J Electr Micro; 57: 67-75.
12. T. J. Beveridge, W. S. Fyfe. Metal fixation by bacterial cell walls. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 1985, 22(12): 1893-1898, https://doi.org/10.1139/e85-204.