Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul-Aug;35(4):349-53.
doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182a22715.

A simple cost-saving measure: 2.5% mafenide acetate solution

Affiliations

A simple cost-saving measure: 2.5% mafenide acetate solution

Amir Ibrahim et al. J Burn Care Res. 2014 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

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. 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 vs 2.5% solution. Duration of therapy, adverse events, cost, incidence of wound infection, and bacteremia were analyzed. In 2009, 69 patients were treated with 5% mafenide acetate solution for a total cost of $125,000 ($1811 per patient). In 2010, after the initiation of the policy, 48 patients were treated: 19 received 5% mafenide acetate solution with appropriate indication, whereas the remaining 29 received 2.5% solution for a total cost of $38,632 ($804 per patient). There were no significant changes in the incidence of bacteremia or wound infection. No side effects of either solution were noted. 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brown TPLH, Cancio LC, McManus AT, Mason AD. Survival benefit conferred by topical antimicrobial preparations in burn patients: a historical perspective. J Trauma. 2004;56(4):863–6. - PubMed
    1. Glasser JS, Guymon CH, Mende K, Wolf SE, Hospenthal DR, Murray CK. Activity of topical antimicrobial agents against multidrug-resistant bacteria recovered from burn patients. Burns. 2010;36(8):1172–84. - PubMed
    1. Mayhall CG. The epidemiology of burn wound infections: then and now. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(4):543–50. - PubMed
    1. Moncrief JA, Lindberg RB, Switzer WE, Pruitt BA. Use of topical antibacterial therapy in the treatment of the burn wound. Arch Surg. 1966;92(4):558–65. - PubMed
    1. Shuck JM, Moncrief JA. The management of burns. I. General considerations and the sulfamylon method. Curr Probl Surg. 1969:3–52. - PubMed