Evaluation of Antimicrobial Durability and Anti-Biofilm Effects in Urinary Catheters Against Enterococcus faecalis Clinical Isolates and Reference Strains

Abstract

Background: Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans biofilms are major causes of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Antimicrobial-coated or impregnated urinary catheters are seen as a possible way to prevent these infections. Aims: To determine the biofilm-forming ability of 89 E. faecalis isolates from urinary tract infections and to compare several urinary catheters for antimicrobial durability and the inhibitory effects on biofilm formation of different laboratory strains and clinical isolates of E. faecalis.Study Design: In vitro experimental study.Methods: The biofilm forming ability of E. faecalis isolates was determined by the crystal violet staining and plate counting methods. For comparison of urinary catheters, biofilms of 45 E. faecalis isolates from the catheter samples of hospitalized patients and five laboratory strains of E. coli ATCC25922, S. epidermidis ATCC35984, P. aeruginosa ATCC27853, E. faecalis ATCC29212 and C. albicans ATCC90028 were formed on the catheters in 24-well tissue culture plates. Scanning electron microscopy analysis was performed to observe biofilms. Results: All 89 E. faecalis isolates were found to be biofilm positive. Nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters significantly reduced the cell counts of E. faecalis isolates and completely inhibited the formation of P. aeruginosa and S. epidermidis biofilms compared with the others. Regarding reduction of biofilm cell counts, a hydrophilic-coated catheter was more effective against P. aeruginosa, whereas a silver-coated catheter was found to be more effective against S. epidermidis. The nitrofurazone-impregnated catheter had the best antimicrobial durability. Conclusion: Urine isolates of E. faecalis had considerable ability with respect to biofilm formation. The nitrofurazone-impregnated catheter was the most effective against all tested bacteria; however, the effect of a hydrophilic or silver-coated catheter depends on the species present in it.

Keywords

• Biofilm, Enterococcus faecalis, gelatinase, urinary catheter, nitrofurazone, silver

Kaynakça

1. 1. Choe HS, Son SW, Choi HA, Kim HJ, Ahn SG, Bang JH, et al. Analysis of the distribution of bacteria within urinary catheter biofilms using four different molecular techniques. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:249-54.
2. 2. Coenye T, Nelis HJ. In vitro and in vivo model systems to study microbial biofilm formation. J Microbiol Methods 2010;83:89-105.
3. 3. Pereira UA, Barbosa LC, Maltha CR, Demuner AJ, Masood MA, Pimenta AL. Inhibition of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm formation by highly active lactones and lactams analogues of rubrolides. Eur J Med Chem 2014;82:127-38.
4. 4. Tenke P, Kovacs B, Bjerklund Johansen TE, Matsumoto T, Tambyah PA, Naber KG. European and Asian guidelines on management and prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008;31(Suppl 1):68-78.
5. 5. Pratt RJ, Pellowe CM, Wilson JA, Loveday HP, Harper PJ, Jones SR, et al. epic2: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcareassociated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 2007;65(Suppl 1):1-64.
6. 6. Schumm K, Lam TB. Types of urethral catheters for management of shortterm voiding problems in hospitalized adults: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn 2008;27:738-46.
7. 7. Desai DG, Liao KS, Cevallos ME, Trautner BW. Silver or nitrofurazone impregnation of urinary catheters has a minimal effect on uropathogen adherence. J Urol 2010;184:2565-71.
8. 8. Arciola CR, Baldassarri L, Campoccia D, Creti R, Pirini V, Huebner J, et al. Strong biofilm production, antibiotic multi-resistance and high gelE expression in epidemic clones of Enterococcus faecalis from orthopaedic implant infections. Biomaterials 2008;29:580-6.

9. 9. Guiton PS, Hung CS, Hancock LE, Caparon MG, Hultgren SJ. Enterococcal biofilm formation and virulence in an optimized murine model of foreign body-associated urinary tract infections. Infect Immun 2010;78:4166-75.
10. 10. Stickler DJ. Bacterial biofilmsin patients with indwelling urinary catheters. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2008;5:598-608.
11. 11. Extremina CI, Costa L, Aguiar AI, Peixe L, Fonseca AP. Optimization of processing conditions for the quantification of enterococci biofilms using microtitre-plates. J Microbiol Methods 2011;84:167-73.
12. 12. Chaiban G, Hanna H, Dvorak T, Raad I. A rapid method of impregnating endotracheal tubes and urinary catheters with gendine: a novel antiseptic agent. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;55:51-6.
13. 13. Wang L, Dong M, Zheng J, Song Q, Yin W, Li J, et al. Relationship of biofilm formation and gelE gene expression in Enterococcus faecalis recovered from root canals in patients requiring endodontic retreatment. J Endod 2011;37:631-6.
14. 14. Salvarci A, Koroglu M, Erayman B. Investigation of Antibacterial Activity and Biofilm Formation of Silicones Coated with Minocycline-Rifampicin, Silver Nitrate, and Nitrofurantoin for Short-term Utilization in In Vitro Urinary System Models. Urology 2016;88:66-75.
15. 15. Johnson JR, Johnston B, Kuskowski MA. In vitro comparison of nitrofurazone-and silver alloy-coated Foley catheters for contactdependent and diffusible inhibition of urinary tract infection-associated microorganisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:4969-72.
16. 16. Chavant P, Gaillard-Martinie B, Talon R, Hébraud M, Bernardi T. A new device for rapid evaluation of biofilm formation potential by bacteria. J Microbiol Methods 2007;68:605-12.
17. 17. Naves P, del Prado G, Huelves L, Gracia M, Ruiz V, Blanco J, et al. Correlation between virulence factors and in vitro biofilm formation by Escherichia coli strains. Microb Pathog 2008;45:86-91.
18. 18. Reisner A, Krogfelt KA, Klein BM, Zechner EL, Molin S. In vitro biofilm formation of commensal and pathogenic Escherichia coli strains: impact of environmental and genetic factors. J Bacteriol 2006;188:3572- 81.
19. 19. Skyberg JA, Siek KE, Doetkott C, Nolan LK. Biofilm formation by avian Escherichia coli in relation to media, source and phylogeny. J Appl Microbial 2007;102:548-54.
20. 20. Evliyaoglu Y, Kobaner M, Celebi H, Yelsel K, Dogan A. The efficacy of a novel antibacterial hydroxyapatite nanoparticle-coated indwelling urinary catheter in preventing biofilm formation and catheter-associated urinary tract infection in rabbits. Urol Res 2011;39:443-9.
21. 21. Teke T, Yavuz Z, Atalay H, Maden E, Solak Y, Uzun K. Yoğun Bakımda Kateter Nedenli İdrar Yolu Enfeksiyonlarını Önlemede Gümüş Kaplı İdrar Sondasının Etkinliği. Yoğun Bakım Derg 2010;2:45-7.
22. 22. Gaonkar TA, Sampath LA, Modak SM. Evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of urinary catheters impregnated with antiseptics in an in vitro urinary tract model. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:506-13.
23. 23. Lee SJ, Kim SW, Cho YH, Shin WS, Lee SE, Kim CS, et al. A comparative multicentre study on the incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infection between nitrofurazone-coated and silicone catheters. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004;24(Suppl 1):65-9.
24. 24. Johnson JR, Delavari P, Azar M. Activities of a Nitrofurazone-Containing Urinary Catheter and a Silver Hydrogel Catheter against MultidrugResistant Bacteria Characteristic of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43:2990-5.
25. 25. Seno Y, Kariyama R, Mitsuhata R, Monden K, Kumon H. Clinical implications of biofilm formation by Enterococcus faecalis in the urinary tract. Acta Med Okayama 2005;59:79-87