Allison Clemens
April
ababaabhay
achoi2392
adhoward1

2025 PACUPrep BCCCP Preparatory Course Burn Wound Care Pharmacotherapy for Burn Wound Infection Prevention and Sepsis Management

Lesson 99, Topic 3

In Progress

← Previous

Pharmacotherapy for Burn Wound Infection Prevention and Sepsis Management

Lesson Progress

0% Complete

Pharmacotherapy for Burn Wound Infection and Sepsis

Objective

Design an evidence-based, escalating antimicrobial plan for critically ill burn patients to prevent colonization, treat invasive infection, and manage sepsis.

I. Overview of Antimicrobial Pharmacotherapy in Burns

Burn injuries breach the skin’s protective barrier, creating a moist, protein-rich, avascular environment that is highly susceptible to rapid bacterial colonization and subsequent invasive infection. Pharmacotherapy is a cornerstone of burn care, divided into topical and systemic approaches.

Topical Therapy: The primary strategy for most burns. It aims to control microbial proliferation on the wound surface, delivering high drug concentrations locally with minimal systemic toxicity. The goal is to prevent colonization from progressing to invasive infection while preserving the wound bed for healing or grafting.
Systemic Therapy: Reserved for cases of suspected or confirmed invasive infection, burn wound sepsis, or sepsis from another source. The goal is to achieve therapeutic drug levels in the tissue and bloodstream to eradicate pathogens.
Systemic Prophylaxis: Routine systemic prophylactic antibiotics are strongly discouraged. This practice does not prevent burn wound infection and significantly increases the risk of selecting for multidrug-resistant organisms. Therapy should be culture-driven whenever possible.

Clinical Pearl: The Prophylaxis Pitfall +

The single most important principle in burn antibiotic stewardship is to reserve systemic antibiotics for culture-confirmed or clinically suspected invasive infection. Avoid blanket prophylaxis. The risk of promoting resistance far outweighs any potential benefit in the absence of infection.

II. Topical Antimicrobial Agents

The choice of topical agent depends on the burn depth, presence of eschar, risk of specific pathogens, and patient factors. The goal is to control the local bioburden without impairing wound healing or causing systemic toxicity. Therapy must be escalated if signs of invasive infection develop.

Comparison of Common Topical Antimicrobial Agents in Burn Care
Agent	Primary Indication	Key Warning / Monitoring
Silver Sulfadiazine (1%)	Superficial to mid-dermal burns. Broad-spectrum initial choice.	Sulfa allergy. Monitor CBC for leukopenia, especially with >30% TBSA. May delay re-epithelialization.
Mafenide Acetate (11%)	Deep partial-thickness & full-thickness burns with eschar. Excellent eschar penetration.	Painful application. Monitor ABGs for metabolic acidosis (carbonic anhydrase inhibition). Sulfa allergy.
Bacitracin / Mupirocin	Superficial burns, donor sites, facial burns. Mupirocin for MRSA decolonization.	Poor eschar penetration; not for deep burns. Monitor for local irritation or contact dermatitis.

Clinical Pearl: Limiting Silver Sulfadiazine +

In patients with burns covering >20% Total Body Surface Area (TBSA), consider limiting the duration of silver sulfadiazine application to 7 days or less. This strategy helps mitigate the risk of transient leukopenia without increasing the rate of wound infection.

III. Systemic Antibiotic Therapy

Systemic antibiotics are indicated for invasive infection, not colonization. Empiric regimens should cover common burn pathogens like MRSA and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Dosing is complex and must account for the profound pharmacokinetic changes (altered volume of distribution, augmented renal clearance) that occur in critically ill burn patients.

A. Empiric Regimens and Pharmacokinetic Considerations

Empiric Systemic Antibiotic Regimens for Burn Sepsis
Target Pathogen Group	Primary Agent	Dosing Goal / Strategy
Gram-Positive (MRSA)	Vancomycin	Target AUC/MIC ≥400 (Trough 15–20 mg/L as surrogate)
*Gram-Negative (Pseudomonas)*	Cefepime or Meropenem	Use extended (3-4 hr) or continuous infusions to maximize %T>MIC.
Fungal (High-Risk)	Echinocandin (e.g., Micafungin)	Empiric coverage for Candida spp. in refractory sepsis or with multiple risk factors.

High-Yield Fact: Optimizing β-Lactams +

Due to increased volume of distribution (Vd) and augmented renal clearance in the hyperdynamic phase of burn injury, standard intermittent dosing of β-lactams often fails. A loading dose followed by an extended (e.g., 4-hour) or continuous infusion is critical to maintain time-dependent killing (%T>MIC) and achieve clinical efficacy.

B. Dosing in Organ Dysfunction

Organ failure further complicates dosing. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) significantly impacts drug clearance.

Renal Replacement Therapy: Continuous therapies like CVVH can clear hydrophilic drugs like vancomycin and imipenem efficiently. Doses must be adjusted based on effluent rate and drug-specific sieving coefficients. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is essential.
Hepatic Impairment:
Editor’s Note: Insufficient source material for specific hepatic adjustment details. Dose adjustments are typically required for drugs with primary hepatic metabolism (e.g., linezolid, voriconazole), but specific guidance in the burn population is limited.

IV. Clinical Decision Pathways

A structured, interdisciplinary approach is vital for managing burn wound infections. Therapy must be escalated or de-escalated based on clinical response, culture data, and input from the entire care team.

Figure 1: Escalation Pathway for Burn Sepsis. This algorithm highlights the critical 48-72 hour decision point. Clinical improvement allows for antibiotic de-escalation (“antibiotic time-out”), while failure to respond mandates a comprehensive re-evaluation including broader coverage and a search for occult infection.

A. Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Optimal outcomes in burn care are achieved through a team-based approach. Daily multidisciplinary rounds are essential.

Clinical Pearl: The Power of Rounds +

Early and frequent collaboration between burn surgery, infectious diseases, microbiology, and clinical pharmacy is paramount. This team approach accelerates source control (debridement), ensures appropriate antimicrobial selection based on local antibiograms, and facilitates timely de-escalation, which is a cornerstone of antibiotic stewardship.

References

Rowan MP, Cancio LC, Elster EA, et al. Burn wound healing and treatment: review and advancements. Crit Care. 2015;19:243.
Markiewicz-Gospodarek A, Kozioł M, Tobiasz M, et al. Burn wound healing: clinical complications, medical care, treatment, and dressing types. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1338.
Boehm D, Menke H. Sepsis in burns—lessons learnt from developments in the management of septic shock. Medicina. 2022;58(1):26.
Cabral L, Afeixo V, Santos F, Almeida L, Paiva JA. Procalcitonin for the early diagnosis of sepsis in burn patients. Burns. 2017;43(8):1427-1434.
Ravichandran P. Pharmacologic considerations for antimicrobials and burn patients. Eur Burn J. 2023;4(4):573-583.
Tebano G, et al. Which are the best regimens of broad-spectrum beta-lactams in burn patients? Antibiotics (Basel). 2023;12(12):1737.
Pistolesi V. A guide to understanding antimicrobial drug dosing in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and renal replacement therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(6):e00583-19.
Pruskowski K, Akers K. Impact of continuous renal replacement therapy on the pharmacokinetics of imipenem in critically ill burn patients. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(1):478.

2025 PACUPrep BCCCP Preparatory Course

Pulmonary

Participants 432