The Use of a Topical Sulfonamide in the Control of Burn Wound Sepsis

Ja, Moncrief; Rb, Lindberg; We, Switzer; Ba, Pruitt

doi:10.1097/00005373-196605000-00010

Cited by 73 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shortly after the introduction of the original 10% Mafenide cream in burn clinical practice, drastic mortality benefits were observed with a marked reduction in the rate of invasive burn wound infections, particularly in patients with TBSA ranging from 20% to 79% 1,4,18,29 . Mafenide has a wide range of antibacterial activity against both gram (+) and gram (−) organisms as well as anaerobes, but with no fungal coverage 30–33 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With its bacteriostatic action, via inhibition of nucleotide synthesis 2,16–18 , it was shown to reduce total bacterial counts in burn wounds to very low levels and thought to contribute to reduced mortality rates 18,19 . Side effects included significant discomfort/pain, due to its high osmolality and hypertonicity, especially when applied to superficial burns 5,20 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Simple Cost-Saving Measure

Ibrahim

Fagan

Keaney³

et al. 2014

Journal of Burn Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The optimal concentration of mafenide acetate solution for use in the treatment of burns is unknown. Despite data supporting the use of a 2.5% solution, 5% formulation is traditionally used, and has been the highest costing medication on formulary. The aim of the current study is to evaluate cost and patient outcomes associated with a new policy implementing the use of 2.5% solution in burn patients and restricting the 5% formulation to specific indications only. Methods A retrospective review of all patients receiving mafenide acetate solution at a single pediatric burn hospital was performed before and after the initiation of the new policy on the use of 5% versus 2.5% solution. Duration of therapy, adverse events, cost, incidence of wound infection and bacteremia were analysed. Results In 2009, 69 patients were treated with 5% mafenide acetate solution for a total cost of $125,000 ($1811/patient). In 2010, following the initiation of the policy, 48 patients were treated: 19 received 5% mafenide acetate solution with appropriate indication, while the remaining 29 received 2.5% solution for a total cost of $38,632 ($804/patient). There were no significant changes in the incidence of bacteremia or wound infection. No side effects of either solution were noted. Conclusions Under certain conditions, a 2.5% mafenide acetate solution appears sufficient. In this multinational pediatric burn hospital, the use of a 2.5% solution was not associated with increased bacteremia or wound infection and proved to be more cost-effective.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Simple Cost-Saving Measure

Ibrahim

Fagan

Keaney³

et al. 2014

Journal of Burn Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This accounts for its lack of systemic activity (25,29,36,37). This accounts for its lack of systemic activity (25,29,36,37).…”

Section: Mafenide Acetate (Para-aminomethylbenzene Sulphonamide Acetate)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapy for Burn Wound Infection

Richards¹,

Mahlangu²

1981

J Clin Pharm Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regardless of the in vitro effectiveness of antibacterial agents, they could not be delivered in effective concentrations to the site of bacterial proliferation in the avascular burn wound since there was no effective circulation to the area. Therefore, to be effective in controlling the bacterial population of the burn wound antibacterial agents, of necessity, must be applied locally and must penetrate actively in effective concentrations deep into the tissues of the burn wound, including into the subjacent unburned tissue where the bacterial population is prone to spread [8][9][10][11]. Other characteristics of an ideal agent are ease of application, economy of cost, a wide spectrum of antibacterial activity which encompasses the wide range of organisms encountered within Since bacteria are regularly present within the burn wound, the mere ability to culture them from the burn wound does not constitute "burn wound sepsis" [6].…”

Section: -20% Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Topical therapy for control of bacteria in the burn wound

Moncrief

1978

World j. surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of burn wound sepsis and the demonstration of the avascular nature of the burn wound paved the way for the development of effective antibacterial therapy of the burn wound. Many agents have been tried, but the most effective are those with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity, lack of developing resistance, low toxicity, and active penetration of the wound. The resultant lowering of mortality and improvement in patient care have dramatically altered the prognosis of burn injury. The primary drugs in use today, their advantages and limitations, and the pathophysiology of the burn wound and burn wound sepsis are presented.

show abstract

The Use of a Topical Sulfonamide in the Control of Burn Wound Sepsis

Cited by 73 publications

References 0 publications

A Simple Cost-Saving Measure

A Simple Cost-Saving Measure

Therapy for Burn Wound Infection

Topical therapy for control of bacteria in the burn wound

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About