PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Effectiveness of polihexanide vs chlorhexidine on dog skin germs

By Banovic, Frane et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2013·Department of Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: In vitro comparison of the effectiveness of polihexanide and chlorhexidine against canine isolates of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Malassezia pachydermatis.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A study tested two antiseptics, polihexanide and chlorhexidine, against bacteria and yeast that can cause skin infections in dogs. Both antiseptics were effective at killing the germs, with no major differences in how well they worked. They were both able to eliminate the bacteria and yeast at similar concentrations, making them good options for treating infected wounds or skin problems in dogs. This suggests that polihexanide could be a useful alternative to chlorhexidine for keeping dog skin clean and preventing infections.

People also search for: dog skin infection treatment · antiseptic for dog wounds · chlorhexidine vs polihexanide for dogs

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Polihexanide (polyhexamethylene biguanide) is an antiseptic substance that plays a prominent role in the treatment of critically colonized or infected acute and chronic wounds in humans. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of polihexanide against canine isolates of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Malassezia pachydermatis and compare it with 4.5% chlorhexidine digluconate for two different contact times. METHODS: Ten isolates of each organism were incubated at 37°C for 3 and 5 min, respectively, with each antiseptic diluted 1:2 to 1:4096 in phosphate-buffered saline. RESULTS: Both products showed excellent antimicrobial activity against all isolates tested. No significant differences in antimicrobial efficacy between antiseptics for all isolates were found. With the exception of one isolate of M. pachydermatis at 3 min exposure time, all isolates were completely killed by a dilution of 1:32 of polihexanide as well as chlorhexidine at both exposure times. Although the mean values of break-point concentrations for both antiseptics increased with the longer exposure time of 5 min, there were no significant differences between the two exposure times. The P. aeruginosa isolates were more susceptible than S. pseudintermedius for both antiseptics, and break-point dilutions were significantly higher compared with break-point dilutions obtained by all other treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The results indicate that polihexanide has comparable in vitro antimicrobial efficacy to chlorhexidine and presents a potential alternative agent for skin and wound antisepsis in veterinary medicine.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23789723/