Novel Effects of Chlorhexidine Gluconate on Gram-Positive vs Gram-Negative Microorganisms

Abstract

Abstract Introduction/Objective Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) is a widely used antiseptic for the skin, oral areas, and cleansing oneself for surgery. Uses of CHG throughout healthcare centers have proven to reduce potential pathogens and lessen risks of central venous catheter blood infections. Gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms can lead to major diseases such as prostatitis, candidiasis, endocarditis, and more. It is crucial to understand the effects that CHG has on these organisms so we can accurately apply it to treat these various illnesses. It also allows us to better understand the source of surgical site infections (SSIs) and prevent them. Methods/Case Report A minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) was employed to see how various CHG concentrations (0% (control), 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, and 9%) would affect the gram-positive (C. albicans and S. aureus) and gram-negative (P. aeruginosa and E. coli) microorganisms. First, a 1.0 McFarland suspension was created for each organism. Then, the various CHG concentration wells for each microorganism would be created within 96 well plates. In each well, there was always 300 μL of solution (containing the McFarland suspension and CHG liquid formula (HibiClensTM). After 4 minutes of CHG exposure in each well, an inoculating loop was used to streak a petri dish. One trial was completed after all concentrations were done for each microoganism. Each trial was incubated for 24 hours and there were a total of 6 trials. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) The substantial results challenged the previously assumed hypothesis that gram- negative microorganisms are more resistant to CHG. The separation between the two types of microorganisms became evident at even the 1% CHG concentration. C. albicans and S. aureus are thriving with averages of approximately 74,333 CFU/mL and 70,333.3 CFU/mL respectively for 1% CHG in comparison to the 1% CHG concentration for P. aeruginosa (2,500 CFU/mL) and E. coli (22,334.3 CFU/mL). Additionally. P. aeruginosa and E. coli had no colonies in any of the trials at 7% and 9% CHG, while C. albicans and S. aureus were present in numerous amounts. Conclusion Through numerous trials using an MBC as a new method, dose response curves for E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, and C. albicans were deduced. The curves displayed how gram-positive microorganisms are more resistant to CHG than gram-negative microorganisms, defying what was previously assumed. In regards to various diseases and infections caused by these various bacteria, CHG may now be assesed for potential forms of treatment.