A simple cost-saving measure: 2.5% mafenide acetate solution
- PMID: 24043238
- PMCID: PMC4089985
- DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182a22715
A simple cost-saving measure: 2.5% mafenide acetate solution
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.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- Mayhall CG. The epidemiology of burn wound infections: then and now. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(4):543–50. - PubMed
-
- 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
-
- Shuck JM, Moncrief JA. The management of burns. I. General considerations and the sulfamylon method. Curr Probl Surg. 1969:3–52. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
