Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Biofilm-associated microbial burden is a major barrier to wound healing and is increasingly difficult to control in the era of antimicrobial resistance. This translational study evaluated the antimicrobial performance and tissue compatibility of a commercially available large-area cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) system (CPTpatch®/CPTcube®; Coldplasmatech GmbH, Greifswald, Germany) across in vitro, porcine, and clinical patient settings. Methods: CAP was tested against seven wound-relevant bacterial species, including multidrug-resistant strains, and the fungus Candida albicans in vitro, in two porcine MRSA-infected deep dermal wound models, and in a clinical service-evaluation cohort of 20 chronic lower-limb wounds in 14 patients; 17 wounds had evaluable longitudinal MolecuLight® (Toronto, ON, Canada) fluorescence series. Results: In vitro, CAP induced rapid multi-log killing across the bacterial panel and showed a marked antifungal effect against C. albicans. In porcine MRSA wounds, CAP reduced bacterial burden versus sham by 1.65, 1.89, and 2.04 log10 CFU/g on Days 4, 8, and 11, equivalent to 97.8%, 98.7%, and 99.1% reductions. In a 72-h post-inoculation MRSA biofilm model, the strongest 5×/week regimen achieved 2.51 log10 (99.69%) and 3.18 log10 (99.93%) reductions versus baseline after 2- and 4-min CAP exposures, respectively. Clinically, twice-weekly CAP was associated with a significant decline in MolecuLight® fluorescence grades over 5 weeks (p < 0.001); effective surface disinfection at 5 weeks was observed in 16/17 evaluable wounds. Conclusions: From bench to bedside, the investigated CAP system delivered rapid broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, reduced MRSA burden in biofilm-infected porcine wounds, and was associated with clinically measurable suppression of wound surface bioburden while remaining tissue-sparing. These findings support further controlled studies to define clinical benefit in wound care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeffery et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: