Ethacridine lactate (Acrinol)
(Synonyms: 乳酸依沙吖啶; Acrinol) 目录号 : GC32679
Ethacridine lactate (Acrinol) is an aromatic organic compound based on acridine used as an antiseptic agent. Ethacridine lactate is also a poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) inhibitor.
Cas No.:1837-57-6
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >99.50%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
Ethacridine lactate (Acrinol) is an aromatic organic compound based on acridine used as an antiseptic agent. Ethacridine lactate is also a poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) inhibitor.
[1] Lianne E Rotin, et al. Haematologica. 2016 Nov;101(11):e449-e453. [2] S Gupta, et al. Indian J Matern Child Health. 1993;4(2):59-61.
| Cas No. | 1837-57-6 | SDF | |
| 别名 | 乳酸依沙吖啶; Acrinol | ||
| Canonical SMILES | CC(O)C(O)=O.NC1=CC2=NC3=CC=C(OCC)C=C3C(N)=C2C=C1 | ||
| 分子式 | C18H21N3O4 | 分子量 | 343.38 |
| 溶解度 | DMSO : ≥ 100 mg/mL (291.22 mM) | 储存条件 | Store at -20°C |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 2.9122 mL | 14.5611 mL | 29.1223 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.5824 mL | 2.9122 mL | 5.8245 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.2912 mL | 1.4561 mL | 2.9122 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
Wound Antiseptics and European Guidelines for Antiseptic Application in Wound Treatment
Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2021 Dec 2;14(12):1253.PMID:34959654DOI:10.3390/ph14121253.
Issues arising in wound healing are very common, and chronic wound infections affect approximately 1.5% of the population. The main substances used in wound washing, cleansing and treatment are antiseptics. Today, there are many compounds with a known antiseptic activity. Older antiseptics (e.g., boric acid, Ethacridine lactate, potassium permanganate, hydrogen peroxide, iodoform, iodine and dyes) are not recommended for wound treatment due to a number of disadvantages. According to the newest guidelines of the Polish Society for Wound Treatment and the German Consensus on Wound Antisepsis, only the following antiseptics should be taken into account for wound treatment: octenidine (OCT), polihexanide (PHMB), povidone-iodine (PVP-I), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and nanosilver. This article provides an overview of the five antiseptics mentioned above, their chemical properties, wound applications, side effects and safety.
Antiseptics for burns
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 Jul 12;7(7):CD011821.PMID:28700086DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD011821.pub2.
Background: Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after initial resuscitation) result from infection. Antiseptics are topical agents that act to prevent growth of micro-organisms. A wide range are used with the intention of preventing infection and promoting healing of burn wounds. Objectives: To assess the effects and safety of antiseptics for the treatment of burns in any care setting. Search methods: In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any burn wound and assessed the use of a topical treatment with antiseptic properties. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main results: We included 56 RCTs with 5807 randomised participants. Almost all trials had poorly reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. In many cases the primary review outcomes, wound healing and infection, were not reported, or were reported incompletely.Most trials enrolled people with recent burns, described as second-degree and less than 40% of total body surface area; most participants were adults. Antiseptic agents assessed were: silver-based, honey, Aloe Vera, iodine-based, chlorhexidine or polyhexanide (biguanides), sodium hypochlorite, merbromin, Ethacridine lactate, cerium nitrate and Arnebia euchroma. Most studies compared antiseptic with a topical antibiotic, primarily silver sulfadiazine (SSD); others compared antiseptic with a non-antibacterial treatment or another antiseptic. Most evidence was assessed as low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, often in single studies. Antiseptics versus topical antibioticsCompared with the topical antibiotic, SSD, there is low certainty evidence that, on average, there is no clear difference in the hazard of healing (chance of healing over time), between silver-based antiseptics and SSD (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; 259 participants); silver-based antiseptics may, on average, increase the number of healing events over 21 or 28 days' follow-up (RR 1.17 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37; I2 = 45%; 5 studies; 408 participants) and may, on average, reduce mean time to healing (difference in means -3.33 days; 95% CI -4.96 to -1.70; I2 = 87%; 10 studies; 979 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with honey are probably more likely to heal over time compared with topical antibiotics (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52; I2 = 66%; 5 studies; 140 participants).There is low certainty evidence from single trials that sodium hypochlorite may, on average, slightly reduce mean time to healing compared with SSD (difference in means -2.10 days, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.33, 10 participants (20 burns)) as may merbromin compared with zinc sulfadiazine (difference in means -3.48 days, 95% CI -6.85 to -0.11, 50 relevant participants). Other comparisons with low or very low certainty evidence did not find clear differences between groups.Most comparisons did not report data on infection. Based on the available data we cannot be certain if antiseptic treatments increase or reduce the risk of infection compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty evidence). Antiseptics versus alternative antisepticsThere may be some reduction in mean time to healing for wounds treated with povidone iodine compared with chlorhexidine (MD -2.21 days, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.08). Other evidence showed no clear differences and is of low or very low certainty. Antiseptics versus non-antibacterial comparatorsWe found high certainty evidence that treating burns with honey, on average, reduced mean times to healing in comparison with non-antibacterial treatments (difference in means -5.3 days, 95% CI -6.30 to -4.34; I2 = 71%; 4 studies; 1156 participants) but this comparison included some unconventional treatments such as amniotic membrane and potato peel. There is moderate certainty evidence that honey probably also increases the likelihood of wounds healing over time compared to unconventional anti-bacterial treatments (HR 2.86, 95% C 1.60 to 5.11; I2 = 50%; 2 studies; 154 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings probably have a slightly shorter mean time to healing than those treated with Vaseline gauze (difference in means -3.49 days, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.52; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 204 participants), but low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference in numbers of healing events at 14 days between burns treated with silver xenograft or paraffin gauze (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16 1 study; 32 participants). Other comparisons represented low or very low certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether infection rates in burns treated with either silver-based antiseptics or honey differ compared with non-antimicrobial treatments (very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in infection rates between an iodine-based treatment compared with moist exposed burn ointment (moderate certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether infection rates differ for SSD plus cerium nitrate, compared with SSD alone (low certainty evidence).Mortality was low where reported. Most comparisons provided low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between many treatments. There may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus SSD compared with SSD alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 214 participants) (low certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: It was often uncertain whether antiseptics were associated with any difference in healing, infections, or other outcomes. Where there is moderate or high certainty evidence, decision makers need to consider the applicability of the evidence from the comparison to their patients. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias.
Bacterial contamination of commercially available Ethacridine lactate (Acrinol) products
J Hosp Infect 1996 Sep;34(1):51-8.PMID:8880550DOI:10.1016/s0195-6701(96)90125-5.
Bacterial contamination of commercially available Ethacridine lactate (Acrinol) solutions and cotton gauze soaked in ethacridine lactate solution was investigated. Of 56 samples from ethacridine lactate solutions (eight products, seven manufacturers), seven samples (12.5%) of two products (two manufacturers) were contaminated with 10(1)-10(4) colony forming units (cfu)/mL of Burkholderia pickettii. Of 67 samples obtained from gauze soaked in ethacridine lactate solution (seven products, seven manufacturers), 41 (61.2%) of six products (six manufacturers) were contaminated with 10(2)-10(6) cfu/mL of bacteria. The major bacteria detected were Burkholderia cepacia and Burkholderia pickettii. This relatively high incidence of bacterial contamination in commercially available cotton gauze soaked in ethacridine lactate solution may be due to the presence of gauze in ethacridine lactate solution.
Mifepristone combined with Ethacridine lactate for third-trimester stillbirth induction: a 5-year experience from Shanghai
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022 Oct 26;22(1):790.PMID:36289479DOI:10.1186/s12884-022-05104-0.
Objective: To review and analyze the efficacy and safety of mifepristone combined with Ethacridine lactate for induction of stillbirth in the third trimester. Methods: All patients with stillbirth in late pregnancy (≥ 28 weeks) in a university-affiliated maternity center from October 2016 to September 2021 were included in this study. After exclusion, patients were divided into Ethacridine lactate and non-ethacridine lactate groups according to induction methods. Logistic regression was conducted to identify the risks of complications. Results: We identified 122 patients that experienced stillbirth (5' Apgar score = 0) in third-trimester from the 5-year total deliveries in the hospital, among whom 39 stillbirths that resulted from termination of pregnancy for severe fetal anomalies and 1 stillbirth that was in twin pregnancy were excluded. Thus, 82 cases with stillbirths (dead before induction) were included in the analyses. In the 82 cases, 49 (59.76%) accepted intra-amniotic Ethacridine lactate induction with 47 (95.92%, 47/49) successfully induced. No statistical difference was observed in induction failure rate between ethacridine dosage groups of < 75mg and ≥ 75mg (0/25, vs. 2/24, respectively; P > 0.05). The Ethacridine lactate induction group showed no increased risks in complications (6.12%, 3/49), compared with non-ethacridine lactate group (12.12%, 4/33) (P = 0.35, OR, 0.47, 95%CI, 0.10 to 2.27). Conclusion: Mifepristone combined with Ethacridine lactate is a safe and low-risk induction method for patients with stillbirth in the third trimester.
Comparison of Ethacridine lactate and prostaglandin E2 in second trimester medical abortion
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997 Aug;76(7):680-3.PMID:9292644DOI:10.3109/00016349709024610.
Background: A comparison of Ethacridine lactate and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) with or without oxytocin infusion in second trimester medical abortion cases. Methods: A prospective study was performed on 151 women requiring second trimester medical abortions between 1989 and 1995. Patients were randomly assigned to PGE2 group (n = 30), Ethacridine lactate group (n = 48), Ethacridine lactate combined with oxytocin infusion group (n = 49) and PGE2 combined with oxytocin infusion group (n = 24). Rates of successful abortion (i.e., complete evacuation of fetal and placental tissues from the uterus) within 24 hours for each group were determined and compared by chi2 and the Student t-test. Results: Statistically significant difference concerning successful abortion rates was observed between Ethacridine lactate and PGE2 groups, PGE2 and PGE2+oxytocin infusion groups, and Ethacridine lactate+oxytocin infusion and PGE2 groups, while there was no significant difference between Ethacridine lactate and Ethacridine lactate+oxytocin infusion groups, Ethacridine lactate and PGE2+oxytocin infusion groups, and PGE2+oxytocin infusion and Ethacridine lactate+oxytocin infusion groups. Conclusions: Extra-amniotic Ethacridine lactate instillation alone and intracervical PGE2 gel application are effective and safe methods for second trimester abortion.