Review of the use of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) in the treatment of burns

Abstract

Local infection and burn wound sepsis are one of the most severe problems in the treatment of thermally injured patients. Early surgical treatment and the use of topical antiseptics led to a decrease in the infection rate and significantly improved the survival rate of burns patients within the last twenty-five years. Many antiseptics are used in the treatment of burns. Silver nitrate, silver sulphadiazine, sulfamylon and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) are the most common substances used worldwide in burn care facilities. Clinical studies demonstrate that treatment with PVP-I is the most effective against bacterial and fungal infection. Several methodological problems however arise from direct comparison between these antiseptics, and local and systemic adverse effects can make the right choice difficult. Some case reports documented possible side effects in the treatment of patients with PVP-I, leading to general concerns about this treatment. Absorption of iodine and possible changes in thyroid hormones are well known, but evaluation of the clinical consequences is controversial. Reports of severe metabolic acidosis and renal insufficiency with lethal results have condemned the use of PVP-I in the treatment of extensive burns. The case reports, however, dealt with patients suffering from general morbidity and sepsis and therefore these single reports may not be generally valid. Local treatment of burns may cause further problems. The beneficial effect of a decrease of bacterial counts in deeper tissue may be confounded by other effects delaying wound healing, as shown in some experimental studies. Controlled clinical investigations on burn patients however are still missing. The paper will discuss these topics in detail referring to the treatment of burns with PVP-I. It is based on a critical review of the literature and the author's own experience in burns therapy.