June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
2.5, 5, and 10% Betadine solution is not effective in inhibiting the growth of different Gram Negative and Gram Positive Pathogens in vitro
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Akash Desai
    Opthalmology, Texas Tech Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Lubbock, TX
  • Phat Tran
    Opthalmology, Texas Tech Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Lubbock, TX
  • Abdul Hamood
    Immunology and Molecular Microbiology, Texas Tech Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX
  • Kelly Thrush Mitchell
    Opthalmology, Texas Tech Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Lubbock, TX
  • Ted W Reid
    Opthalmology, Texas Tech Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Lubbock, TX
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Akash Desai, None; Phat Tran, None; Abdul Hamood, None; Kelly Mitchell, None; Ted Reid, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 285. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Akash Desai, Phat Tran, Abdul Hamood, Kelly Thrush Mitchell, Ted W Reid; 2.5, 5, and 10% Betadine solution is not effective in inhibiting the growth of different Gram Negative and Gram Positive Pathogens in vitro. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):285.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: Injections of intravitreal medications have become routine care in ophthalmology officies throughout the world for the treatment of several retinal diseases. Studies estimate that the rate of endophthalmitis from intraocular injections ranges from .006% to 1.67%. Providone-iodine (Betadine) is widely accepted as the main antiseptic to decrease this risk. This study was undertaken to measure the effectiveness of different Betadine concentrations in inhibiting the growth of both Gram negative and Gram positive bacteria.

Methods: The bacteria tested were laboratory strains of Staphylococcus aureus GFP and Pseudomonas aeruginosa GFP, clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and two strains of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Betadine disks were prepared by adding 20 μl of 2.5, 5, or 10% Betadine solution onto 6 mm diameter BBL blank paper disks. Disks were allowed to dry before use, and three disks were distributed evenly onto a lawn of bacteria on the LB Agar surface. The plates were incubated at 37oC for 24 h. The diameters of the zones of inhibition were measured to the nearest millimeter with a ruler. Moreover, the disks from the S. aureus GFP and P. aeruginosa GFP plates were examined under the Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM). In addition, the remaining microorganisms on the disks were quantified by the colony forming unit (CFU) assay. All experiments were done at least in triplicate.

Results: All the bacteria except P. aeruginosa GFP laboratory strain showed zones of inhibition when using 2.5% Betadine. At 5 and 10% Betadine concentrations, all bacteria showed zones of inhibition. However, when the disks were tested for bacteria after the zone of inhibition study using CFU assays, only Gram positive bacteria showed killing at 10% Betadine. The CLSM confirmed the CFU results for S. aureus GFP AH133 and P. aeruginosa GFP.

Conclusions: The three main conclusions are: 1) the zone of inhibition assay does not give a realistic assessment of the ability of an antimicrobial to kill bacteria; 2) In vitro, 2.5 and 5% Betadine are not effective at killing all the bacterial species associated with post procedure endophthalmitis; and 3) In vitro, 10% Betadine is only effective against the Gram positive bacteria tested.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×