Comparison of silver-coated dressing (Acticoat™), chlorhexidine acetate 0.5% (Bactigrass^®), and fusidic acid 2% (Fucidin^®) for topical antibacterial effect in methicillin-resistant Staphylococci-contaminated, full-skin thickness rat burn wounds

Abstract 

Acticoat™, chlorhexidine acetate 0.5%, and fusidic acid 2% were compared to assess the antibacterial effect of an application on experimental 15% BSA, full-thickness burn wounds in rats swabbed 24h earlier with a 10⁸ standard strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococci.

The swabbed organism was recovered from the eschar of all groups except the fusidic acid group. While there were significant differences between treatment groups and control group, the mean eschar concentrations did not differ significantly between the Acticoat and chlorhexidine acetate groups, but there were significant differences between the fusidic acid group and the other treatment groups.

There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups, and between control group and the chlorhexidine acetate group regarding recovery of the seeded organism from muscle, but there were significant differences between the control group and Acticoat group, and between control the group and the fusidic acid group. While no systemic spread was seen in the treatment groups, it was seen in six animals in the control group.

The animal data suggest that fusidic acid is the most effective agent in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-contaminated burn wounds, and Acticoat is a choice of treatment with the particular advantage of limiting the frequency of replacement of the dressing.

Keywords: Burn treatment, Silver, Chlorhexidine acetate, Fusidic acid