The Optimal Treatment for Partial Thickness Burns: A Cost-Utility Analysis of Skin Allograft vs. Topical Silver Dressings.

INTRODUCTION: Partial thickness burns not undergoing surgical excision are treated with topical silver products including silver sulfadiazine (SSD) and Mepilex Ag. Skin allograft is a more costly alternative that acts as definitive wound coverage until autogenous epithelialization. Economic constraints and the movement toward value-based care demand cost and outcome justification prior to adopting more costly products. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing skin allograft to SSD and Mepilex Ag using decision tree analysis. The base case modeled a superficial partial thickness 20% total body surface area burn. Utilities were derived from expert opinion on the basis of personal experience. Costs were derived from 2019 Medicare payments. Quality adjusted life years were calculated using rollback method assuming standard life expectancies in the United States. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to asses model robustness. RESULTS: The incremental costs of skin allograft to Mepilex Ag and SSD were $907.71 and $1257.86, respectively. The incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains from allograft over Mepilex Ag and SSD were 0.011 and 0.016. This yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio for allograft vs. Mepilex Ag of $84,189.29/QALY compared with an incremental cost-utility ratio of $79,684.63/QALY for allograft vs. SSD. Assuming willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that allograft was cost effective to Mepilex Ag in 62.1% of scenarios, and cost effective to SSD in 64.9% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Skin allograft showed greater QALYs compared with topical silver dressings at a higher cost. Depending on willingness-to-pay thresholds, skin allograft may be a considered a cost-effective treatment of partial-thickness burns.

Long-term quality of life and cost-effectiveness of treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel vs silver sulfadiazine (FLAM study).

The clinical effectiveness and scar quality of the randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) for treatment of partial thickness burns were previously reported. Enzyme alginogel did not lead to faster wound healing (primary outcome) or less scar formation. In the current study, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), costs, and cost-effectiveness of enzyme alginogel compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns were studied. HRQoL was evaluated using the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire 1 week before discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postburn. Costs were studied from a societal perspective (health care and nonhealth-care costs) for a follow-up period of 1 year. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and comparing differences in societal costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at 1 year postburn. Forty-one patients were analyzed in the enzyme alginogel group and 48 patients in the SSD group. None of the domains of BSHS-B showed a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups. Also, no statistically significant difference in QALYs was found between enzyme alginogel and SSD (difference -0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.09 to 0.03; P = .30). From both the health care and the societal perspective, the difference in costs between enzyme alginogel and SSD was not statistically significant: the difference in health-care costs was €3210 (95% CI, €-1247 to €7667; P = .47) and in societal costs was €3377 (95% CI €-6229 to €12 982; P = .49). The nonsignificant differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years in favor of SSD resulted in a low probability (<25%) that enzyme alginogel is cost-effective compared to SSD. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in quality of life between both treatment groups. Enzyme alginogel is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns.

Chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-impregnated venous catheters are efficient even at subclavian sites without tracheostomy.

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine (CHSS)-impregnated catheters have been found to decrease the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and central venous catheter (CVC)-related costs. However, there are no published data about cost-effectiveness of the use of CHSS-impregnated catheters in subclavian venous access without the presence of tracheostomy (thus, with a very low risk of CRBSI). That was the objective of this study. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients admitted to a mixed intensive care unit who underwent placement of subclavian venous catheters without the presence of tracheostomy. RESULTS: Patients with standard catheters (n = 747) showed a higher CRBSI incidence density (0.95 vs 0/1,000 catheter-days; P = .02) and higher CVC-related cost per day ($3.78 ± $7.43 vs $3.31 ± $2.72; P < .001) than patients with a CHSS-impregnated catheter (n = 879). Exact logistic regression analysis showed that catheter duration (P = .02) and the type of catheter used (P = .01) were associated with the risk of CRBSI. Kaplan-Meier method showed that CHSS-impregnated catheters were associated with more prolonged CRBSI-free time than standard catheters (log-rank = 9.76; P = .002). Poisson regression analysis showed that CHSS-impregnated catheters were associated with a lower central venous catheter-related cost per day than standard catheters (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.903; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CHSS-impregnated catheters is an effective and efficient measure for the prevention of CRBSI even at subclavian venous access sites without the presence of tracheostomy.

Clinical effectiveness, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of Flaminal® versus Flamazine® in the treatment of partial thickness burns: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Partial thickness burns are painful, difficult to manage and can have a negative effect on quality of life through scarring, permanent disfigurement and loss of function. The aim of burn treatment in partial thickness burns is to save lives, stimulate wound healing by creating an optimumly moist wound environment, to have debriding and analgesic effects, protect the wound from infection and be convenient for the patient and caregivers. However, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment of partial thickness wounds. Flaminal® and Flamazine® are two standard treatment options that provide the above mentioned properties in burn treatment. Nevertheless, no randomized controlled study has yet compared these two common treatment modalities in partial thickness burns. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of Flaminal® versus Flamazine® in the treatment of partial thickness burns. METHODS/DESIGN: In this two-arm open multi-center randomized controlled trial, 90 patients will be randomized between Flaminal® and Flamazine® and followed for 12 months. The study population will consist of competent or temporarily non-competent (because of sedation and/or intubation) patients, 18 years of age or older, with acute partial thickness burns and a total body surface area (TBSA) of less than 30 %. The main study outcome is time to complete re-epithelialization (greater than 95 %). Secondary outcome measures include need for grafting, wound colonization/infection, number of dressing changes, pain and anxiety, scar formation, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and costs. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the optimal treatment of patients with partial thickness burn wounds and will provide evidence on the (cost-)effectiveness and quality of life of Flaminal® versus Flamazine® in the treatment of partial thickness burns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4486 , registered on 2 April 2014.

Clinical evaluation comparing the efficacy of aquacel Ag with vaseline gauze versus 1% silver sulfadiazine cream in toxic epidermal necrolysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether using Aquacel Ag (ConvaTec, Skillman, New Jersey) with Vaseline (Unilever, London, England) gauze instead of silver sulfadiazine cream (SSD) as the wound care protocol to treat toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) can improve wound healing, pain control, and reduction of labor costs. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review. SETTING: A burn center with 2 plastic surgeons and 11 nursing staff. PATIENTS: A pathologist diagnosed TEN in 35 patients admitted to the burn center from 1995 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Parameters included the patient's profile, dressing choice, severity-of-illness score for TEN, time to 95% re-epithelialization, visual analog scale pain scores before second dressing change, and labor cost. The exclusion criterion was wound care with neither Aquacel Ag with Vaseline nor SSD exclusively. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled in this study. In the group using Aquacel Ag with Vaseline gauze, the visual analog scale score was significantly less than that of the SSD group (P = .02). Labor costs were significantly lower in the Aquacel Ag with Vaseline gauze group (P < .01). Commencement of specific dressing to 95% re-epithelialization (P = .09) and time spent in the second dressing change (P = .05) had no statistical significance between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that Aquacel Ag with Vaseline gauze decreased pain and labor costs but did not shorten wound healing time. Thus, Aquacel Ag with Vaseline gauze can be an efficient method for treating TEN wounds.

Cost-effectiveness comparison between topical silver sulfadiazine and enclosed silver dressing for partial-thickness burn treatment.

The standard treatment of partial-thickness burns includes topical silver products such as silver sulfadiazine (SSD) cream and enclosed dressings including silver-impregnated foam (Mepilex Ag; Molnlycke Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden) and silver-laden sheets (Aquacel Ag; ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ). The current state of health care is limited by resources, with an emphasis on evidence-based outcomes and cost-effective treatments. This study includes a decision analysis with an incremental cost-utility ratio comparing enclosed silver dressings with SSD in partial-thickness burn patients with TBSA less than 20%. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify clinically relevant health states in partial-thickness burn patients. These health states include successful healing, infection, and noninfected delayed healing requiring either surgery or conservative management. The probabilities of these health states were combined with Medicare CPT reimbursement codes (cost) and patient-derived utilities to fit into the decision model. Utilities were obtained using a visual analog scale during patient interviews. Expected cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the roll-back method. The incremental cost-utility ratio for enclosed silver dressing relative to SSD was $40,167.99/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis of complication rates confirmed robustness of the model. Assuming a maximum willingness to pay $50,000/QALY, the complication rate for SSD must be 22% or higher for enclosed silver dressing to be cost effective. By varying complication rates for SSD and enclosed silver dressings, the two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the cost effectiveness of using enclosed silver dressing at the majority of complication rates for both treatment modalities. Enclosed silver dressings are a cost-effective means of treating partial thickness burns.

Effectiveness of Aloe Vera gel compared with 1% silver sulphadiazine cream as burn wound dressing in second degree burns.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of Aloe Vera gel compared with 1% silver sulfadiazine cream as a burn dressing for the treatment of superficial and partial thickness burns. METHODS: This Interventional Comparative study was carried out at the Burn unit and Plastic surgery department, Nishtar Hospital Multan, Pakistan from July 2008 to December 2010. A total of 50 patients with superficial and partial thickness burns were divided into two equal groups randomly by consecutive sampling method, one group was dressed with Aloe Vera gel while the other was treated with 1% silversulphadiazine cream, and the results regarding duration of wound epithelialization, pain relief and cost of treatment were compared. RESULTS: In patients treated with Aloe Vera gel, healing of burn wounds were remarkably early than those patients treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine. All the patients of Aloe Vera group were relieved of pain earlier than those patients who were treated with SSD. CONCLUSION: Thermal burns patients dressed with Aloe Vera gel showed advantage compared to those dressed with SSD regarding early wound epithelialization, earlier pain relief and cost-effectiveness.

Topical silver sulfadiazine vs collagenase ointment for the treatment of partial thickness burns in children: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The 2 most commonly used topical agents for partial thickness burns are silver sulfadiazine (SSD) and collagenase ointment (CO). Silver sulfadiazine holds antibacterial properties, and eschar separation occurs naturally. Collagenase ointment is an enzyme that cleaves denatured collagen facilitating separation but has no antibacterial properties. Currently, there are no prospective comparative data in children for these 2 agents. Therefore, we conducted a prospective randomized trial. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, patients were randomized to daily debridement with SSD or CO. Primary outcome was the need for skin grafting. Patients were treated for 2 days with SSD with subsequent randomization. Polymyxin was mixed with CO for antibacterial coverage. Debridements were performed daily for 10 days or until the burn healed. Grafting was performed after 10 days if not healed. RESULTS: From January 2008 to January 2011, 100 patients were enrolled, with no differences in patient characteristics. There were no differences in clinical course, outcome, or need for skin grafting. Wound infections occurred in 7 patients treated with CO and 1 patient treated with SSD (P = .06). Collagenase ointment was more expensive than SSD (P < .001). However, total hospital charges did not differ. CONCLUSION: There are no differences in outcomes between topical SSD or CO in the management of childhood burns results.

Delayed management of giant omphalocele using silver sulfadiazine cream: an 18-year experience.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To assess the value of topical silver sulfadiazine (SSD) cream in the treatment of babies with a giant omphalocele. METHODS: From 1991 to 2008 inclusive, 20 infants with giant omphalocele (defined as >10 cm diameter) were treated with SSD, leaving a large ventral hernia to be repaired at a later date. RESULTS: There were 12 boys and 8 girls. Thirteen had prenatal ultrasound diagnosis at a mean gestational age of 23 weeks. The mean gestational age at delivery was 37 weeks, and mean birth weight was 2.5 kg. Nineteen had other anomalies and/or medical problems, 18 of them multiple. The most common was pulmonary hypoplasia (70%). Mechanical ventilation and/or oxygen treatment was required in 15 (75%) for a mean of 10 weeks. SSD was used as primary sac treatment in 5 and secondary treatment in 15 (after Silon pouch 11, Op-site 3, povidone-iodine 1). Six omphalocele sacs were ruptured within the first 5 days of life. SSD was used for a mean of 6 months at a cost of $1 per day. Complications included 2 instances of staphylococcal sepsis and 1 jejunal perforation inside a Silon pouch. Six (30%) died from pulmonary hypoplasia at a mean age of 18 weeks. There were 14 (70%) survivors who went home after a mean of 14 weeks. Of the 14 survivors, 12 had ventral hernias repaired (18 operations with 2 recurrences), and 2 remain with their original ventral hernia. CONCLUSIONS: Initial topical coverage with SSD is associated with excellent outcomes for infants with giant omphalocele who cannot undergo immediate closure.

An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (intervention) vs silver sulfadiazine cream.

An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study was implemented to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (Mepilex Ag) vs silver sulfadiazine cream (control) in the treatment of partial-thickness thermal burns. Individuals aged 5 years and older with partial-thickness thermal burns (2.5-20% BSA) were randomized into two groups and treated with the trial products for 21 days or until healed, whichever occurred first. Data were obtained and analyzed on cost (direct and indirect), healing rates, pain, comfort, ease of product use, and adverse events. A total of 101 subjects were recruited. There were no significant differences in burn area profiles within the groups. The cost of dressing-related analgesia was lower in the intervention group (P = .03) as was the cost of background analgesia (P = .07). The mean total cost of treatment was $309 vs $513 in the control (P < .001). The average cost-effectiveness per treatment regime was $381 lower in the intervention product, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1688 in favor of the soft silicone foam dressing. Mean healing rates were 71.7 vs 60.8% at final visit, and the number of dressing changes were 2.2 vs 12.4 in the treatment and control groups, respectively. Subjects reported significantly less pain at application (P = .02) and during wear (P = .048) of the Mepilex Ag dressing in the acute stages of wound healing. Clinicians reported the intervention dressing was significantly easier to use (P = .03) and flexible (P = .04). Both treatments were well tolerated; however, the total incidence of adverse events was higher in the control group. The silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing was as effective in the treatment of patients as the standard care (silver sulfadiazine). In addition, the group of patients treated with the soft silicone foam dressing demonstrated decreased pain and lower costs associated with treatment.

The efficacy of silver mesh dressing compared with silver sulfadiazine cream for the treatment of pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Controlling infection and promoting healing should be aims of pressure ulcer treatment along with improving a patient's general condition and relieving pressure. Many pressure ulcers present with cavities, tracks or a combination of these. A new silver mesh dressing (Tegaderm Ag Mesh dressing) has the ability to contour around and conform to irregular surfaces of a wound bed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a silver mesh dressing compared with silver sulfadiazine cream for pressure ulcer treatment. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective, randomized, clinical trial was conducted in patients with pressure ulcers grade III or IV. The patients were divided randomly by computer into two 20 patient-groups. The study period was eight weeks for each patient. Demographic data, wound size, wound photography, and bacterial wound culture were recorded at the beginning of the study and every two weeks thereafter. Wound beds were covered with silver sulfadiazine cream in the control group and silver mesh dressing in the experimental group. Dressings were changed twice a day in the control group and every three days in the experimental group. RESULTS: Forty-five patients enrolled in the present study but only 40 patients finished the study. Twenty patients in each group finished the eight-week study. The mean healing rates and the percentage of reduction in PUSH score at eight-week were better in the study group than in the control group but they were not statistically significant. Better changing in bacteriological study after the treatment was shown in both groups. The estimated average cost of the treatment in the mesh group was 263 USD per patient while it was 1812 USD in the cream one (p = 0.0001). Silver mesh dressing can be adapted very well on the bed, can control infection, and promote wound healing. Wound reduction was greater in the experimental group than the control group. The cost of treatment, using silver mesh was cheaper than using silver sulfadiazine cream significantly. CONCLUSION: Silver mesh dressings is one of the choices for pressure ulcer treatment with good healing rate, minimal care and lower overall cost.

Treatment of paediatric burns with a nanocrystalline silver dressing compared with standard wound care in a burns unit: a cost analysis.

Burns are a leading cause of non-natural death in South African infants and children. Conventional care of partial-thickness burns often requires painful, time consuming and costly twice-daily dressing changes to clean the wound and apply antimicrobial topical agents. A new topical nanocrystalline silver-coated NS dressing (Acticoat; Smith & Nephew) has been developed and is the first-line treatment of choice in many burn centres. However, because of its cost the Department of Health has been reluctant to introduce it as a standard of care. We retrospectively studied 4 randomly selected paediatric burn patients, calculating the cost associated with the use of NS dressings and comparing this with the projected costs of three previously standard burn wound treatment regimens. NS dressings were changed every 3 days based on their sustained and slow release of silver ions over 72 hours. Using NS clearly saved costs compared with the three other regimens. The demonstrated cost savings resulted primarily from the decreased number of dressings, and the presumed shorter hospital stay.

A prospective, randomized trial of silver containing hydrofiber dressing versus 1% silver sulfadiazine for the treatment of partial thickness burns.

Silver sulfadiazine has been used as a topical burn wound treatment for many years. Pain associated with dressing changes is a common problem in burn wounds. Aquacel Ag, a hydrofiber dressing coated with ionic silver has been reported to reduce burn wound infection and promote antimicrobial activity. The purpose of this study was to show the benefits of Aquacel Ag for the treatment of partial thickness burns. This prospective randomized study was conducted in 70 patients who had partial thickness burns less than 15% of total body surface area and were treated at Siriraj outpatient burn clinic during December 2006-February 2008. Patients were divided into two groups: Aquacel Ag-treated group with dressing changes every 3 days (35 patients) and 1% silver sulfadiazine-treated group, with daily dressing changes (35 patients). There was no difference in demographic data including age, gender, burn percentage between groups. Time-to-wound healing pain score during dressing change and cost of treatment were compared between both groups. Time-to-wound closure was significantly shorter in the Aquacel Ag-treated group (10 +/- 3 versus 13.7 +/- 4 days, P < 0.02) as well as pain scores at days 1, 3 and 7 (4.1 +/- 2.1, 2.1 +/- 1.8, 0.9 +/- 1.4 versus 6.1 +/- 2.3, 5.2 +/- 2.1, 3.3 +/- 1.9, respectively, P < 0.02). Total cost of treatment was 52 +/- 29 US dollars for the Aquacel Ag-treated group versus 93 +/- 36 US dollars for the silver sulfadiazine-treated group. This study showed that Aquacel Ag increased time to healing, decreased pain symptoms and increased patient convenience because of limiting the frequency of replacement of the dressing at lower total cost. This study confirms the efficacy of Aquacel Ag for the treatment of partial thickness burns at an outpatient clinic.

A retrospective cohort study of Acticoat versus Silvazine in a paediatric population.

We wished to determine whether changing our centre's practice of using Acticoat instead of Silvazine as our first-line burns dressing provided a better standard of care in terms of efficacy, cost and ease of use. A retrospective cohort study was performed examining 328 Silvazine treated patients from January 2000 to June 2001 and 241 Acticoat treated patients from July 2002 to July 2003. During those periods the respective dressings were used exclusively. There was no significant difference in age, %BSA and mechanism of burn between the groups. In the Silvazine group, 25.6% of children required grafting compared to 15.4% in the Acticoat group (p=0.001). When patients requiring grafting were excluded, the time taken for re-epithelialisation in the Acticoat group (14.9 days) was significantly less than that for the Silvazine group (18.3 days), p=0.047. There were more wounds requiring long term scar management in the Silvazine group (32.6%) compared to the Acticoat group (29.5%), however this was not significant. There was only one positive blood culture in each group, indicating that both Silvazine and Acticoat are potent antimicrobial agents. The use of Acticoat as our primary burns dressing has dramatically changed our clinical practice. Inpatients are now only 18% of the total admissions, with the vast majority of patients treated on an outpatient basis. In terms of cost, Acticoat was demonstrated to be less expensive over the treatment period than Silvazine . We have concluded that Acticoat is a safe, cost-effective, efficacious dressing that reduces the time for re-epithelialisation and the requirement for grafting and long term scar management, compared to Silvazine.

Randomized clinical study of Hydrofiber dressing with silver or silver sulfadiazine in the management of partial-thickness burns.

This prospective, randomized study compared protocols of care using either AQUACEL Ag Hydrofiber (ConvaTec, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company, Skillman, NJ) dressing with silver (n = 42) or silver sulfadiazine (n = 42) for up to 21 days in the management of partial-thickness burns covering 5% to 40% body surface area (BSA). AQUACEL Ag dressing was associated with less pain and anxiety during dressing changes, less burning and stinging during wear, fewer dressing changes, less nursing time, and fewer procedural medications. Silver sulfadiazine was associated with greater flexibility and ease of movement. Adverse events, including infection, were comparable between treatment groups. The AQUACEL Ag dressing protocol tended to have lower total treatment costs (Dollars 1040 vs. Dollars 1180) and a greater rate of re-epithelialization (73.8% vs 60.0%), resulting in cost-effectiveness per burn healed of Dollars 1,409.06 for AQUACEL Ag dressing and Dollars 1,967.95 for silver sulfadiazine. A protocol of care with AQUACEL(R) Ag provided clinical and economic benefits compared with silver sulfadiazine in patients with partial-thickness burns.

A silver coated dressing reduces the incidence of early burn wound cellulitis and associated costs of inpatient treatment: comparative patient care audits.

In 2000 and 2002, the Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) Burn Unit, Western Australia, conducted two 'before and after' patient care audits comparing the effectiveness and cost of Silvazine (silver sulphadiazine and chlorhexidine digluconate cream) and Acticoat, a new dressing product for in-patient treatment of early burn wounds. The main outcome variables were: burn wound cellulitis, antibiotic use and cost of treatment. Two patient care audits and a comparative sample were used. The two regimes audited were, 'standard treatment' of twice daily showers or washes with 4% chlorhexidine soap and Silvazine cream as a topical dressing (2000, n=51), compared with the 'new treatment' of daily showers of the burn wound with 4% chlorhexidine soap and the application of an Acticoat dressing (2002, n=19). In 2002, costs were also examined using a sample of matched pairs (n=8) of current and previous patients. The main findings were: when using Acticoat the incidence of infection and antibiotic use fell from 55% (28/51) and 57% (29/51) in 2000 to 10.5% (2/19) and 5.2% (1/19) in 2002. The total costs (excluding antibiotics, staffing and surgery) for those treated with Silvazine were US$ 109,357 and those treated with Acticoat were US$ 78,907, demonstrating a saving of US$ 30,450 with the new treatment. The average length of stay (LOS) in hospital was 17.25 days for the Silvazine group and 12.5 days for the Acticoat group-a difference of 4.75 days. These audits demonstrate that Acticoat results in a reduced incidence of burn wound cellulitis, antibiotic use and overall cost compared to Silvazine in the treatment of early burn wounds.

Which antimicrobial impregnated central venous catheter should we use? Modeling the costs and outcomes of antimicrobial catheter use.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-related bloodstream infections are costly and associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Trials suggest that central venous catheters impregnated with minocycline/rifampin, although more expensive, are clinically superior to chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine impregnated catheters. It remains unclear whether minocycline/rifampin catheters are cost-effective for all high-risk patients or only those requiring longer-term catheterization. METHODS: We developed a series of decision models with patient-level clinical trial data to determine whether minocycline/rifampin catheters are cost-effective for patients requiring various durations of catheterization. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for patients catheterized for durations ranging from 1 to 25 days. RESULTS: The data were too sparse to estimate cost-effectiveness for patients catheterized less than 8 days. The probability that minocycline/rifampin catheters were cost-effective compared with chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine catheters in patients catheterized for 8 days was 91%. The probability that the minocycline/rifampin catheters in patients catheterized 13 days or longer resulted in cost savings was more than 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that central venous catheters coated with minocycline/rifampin are cost-effective for patients catheterized for at least 1 week and lead to overall cost savings when patients are catheterized for 2 weeks or longer. Policies for the use of antimicrobial catheters in high-risk patients should reflect patients' expected duration of catheterization.

Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter. A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infection related to short-term use of noncuffed central venous catheters is a common and serious problem. Technologic innovations to reduce the risk for these infections are needed. OBJECTIVE: To determine 1) the efficacy of a novel antiseptic catheter in preventing central venous catheter-related infection, 2) patient tolerance of this catheter, and 3) the sources of bloodstream infection originating from noncuffed, multilumen central venous catheters. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Medical-surgical intensive care unit of a 450-bed university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 158 adults scheduled to receive a central venous catheter; 403 catheters were studied. INTERVENTION: Participants received either a standard triple-lumen polyurethane catheter or a catheter that was indistinguishable from the standard catheter and was impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine. MEASUREMENTS: Catheters were studied for colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection at removal; local and systemic effects of catheters were assessed. The origin of each catheter-associated bloodstream infection was sought by culturing all potential sources (skin, catheter segments, hubs, and infusate) and confirmed by restriction-fragment DNA subtyping. RESULTS: Antiseptic catheters were less likely to be colonized at removal than control catheters (13.5 compared with 24.1 colonized catheters per 100 catheters; relative risk, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.89]; P = 0.005) and were nearly fivefold less likely to produce bloodstream infection (1.0 compared with 4.7 infections per 100 catheters; 1.6 compared with 7.6 infections per 1000 catheter-days; relative risk, 0.21 [CI, 0.03 to 0.95]; P = 0.03). In the control group, 8 catheter-related bloodstream infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus, gram-negative bacilli, enterococci, or Candida species; no infections with these organisms occurred in the antiseptic catheter group (P = 0.003). No adverse effects from the antiseptic catheter were seen, and none of the 122 isolates obtained from infected catheters in either group showed in vitro resistance to chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine. Cost-benefit analysis indicated that the antiseptic catheter should prove cost-beneficial if an institution's rate of catheter-related bacteremia with noncuffed central venous catheters is at least 3 infections per 1000 catheter-days). CONCLUSIONS: The chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine catheter is well tolerated, reduces the incidence of catheter-related infection, extends the time that noncuffed central venous catheters can be safely left in place for the short term, and should allow cost savings.

Povidone iodine plus neosporin in superficial burns--a continuing study.

A total of 1053 patients with superficial burn injury were treated with povidone iodine plus neosporin (PVP + N) and the results after treatment were compared with those obtained after treating 1089 patients with silver sulphadiazine (SSD). Qualitative analysis showed Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas spp. to be the most common infecting organisms. Quantitatively, fewer patients showed infection on the 7th and 18th day post-treatment in the PVP + N group (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). Similarly, healing times were also better with PVP + N, with a maximum number of patients having healed within 15 days (P < 0.001). However, the mortality rates were not much different between the two groups.