Article Sidebar

Published: 2026-07-31
Abstract Views: 23
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52163/yhc.v67iCD11.6046
Issue
Vol. 67 No. CĐ11-NCKH
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Vương, L. Q., Lâm, N. N., Mẫn, L. Đức, & Hưng, N. T. (2026). ANTIMICROBIAL EFFICACY OF 2.5% MAFENIDE ACETATE SOLUTION AGAINST MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA IN EXPERIMENTAL BURN WOUNDS. Vietnam Journal of Community Medicine, 67(CĐ11-NCKH). https://doi.org/10.52163/yhc.v67iCD11.6046

ANTIMICROBIAL EFFICACY OF 2.5% MAFENIDE ACETATE SOLUTION AGAINST MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA IN EXPERIMENTAL BURN WOUNDS

Le Quoc Vuong1,2, Nguyen Nhu Lam1,2, Le Duc Man1,2, Ngo Tuan Hung1,2
1 Department of Burns and Disaster Medicine, Vietnam Military Medical University
2 Le Huu Trac National Burn Hospital, Military Medical Academy

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of 2.5% mafenide acetate (MA) solution in controlling multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in experimental burn wounds. Methods: A prospective study was conducted on 60 healthy rabbits with experimentally induced burn wounds, divided into six groups: MA 2.5% produced by Hanoi University of Pharmacy (MA2.5-A), MA 2.5% produced in the United States (MA2.5-B), 0.9% normal saline (NA), MA 5% produced by Hanoi University of Pharmacy (MA5-A), MA 5% produced in the United States (MA5-B), and 0.1% berberine solution (BE). Results: On days 7 and 10, Pseudomonas aeruginosa CFU counts and culture positivity rates in the MA2.5-A group were comparable to those in the MA2.5-B and MA5 groups (p > 0.05). By day 14, no Pseudomonas aeruginosa growth was detected in any MA-treated groups. At days 7, 10, and 14, CFU counts in all MA groups were significantly lower than those observed on day 3 (p < 0.05). Compared with the NA and BE groups, both CFU counts and culture positivity rates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were significantly reduced in all MA groups at days 7, 10, and 14 (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The topical infection control efficacy of 2.5% and 5% mafenide acetate solutions is comparable.

Article Details

Keywords

2.5% mafenide acetate solution; 5% mafenide acetate solution; experimental burn wounds.

References

1. Li L., Dai J.-x., Xu L., et al. (2018) Antimicrobial resistance and pathogen distribution in hospitalized burn patients: a multicenter study in Southeast China. Medicine, 97(34).
2. Haynes Jr B., Gayle Jr W.E., Madge G.E. (1969) Sulfamylon therapy in severe burns: two hundred forty-six cases compared to previous experience. Annals of Surgery, 170(4): 696.
3. Afshari A., Nguyen L., Kahn S.A., et al. (2017) 2.5% mafenide acetate: a cost-effective alternative to the 5% solution for burn wounds. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 38(1): e42-e47.
4. Nguyễn Thị Tỵ (1989) Tác dụng điều trị tại chỗ vết thương bỏng thực nghiệm của tinh dầu trầm và bước đầu ứng dụng lâm sàng, Luận án tiến sĩ, Học viện Quân y.
5. Bộ Y tế (2017) Kỹ thuật kháng sinh đồ khoanh giấy khuếch tán. Hướng dẫn thực hành kỹ thuật xét nghiệm Vi sinh Lâm sàng, Nhà xuất bản y học, Hà Nội, 199.
6. Arslan K., Karahan O., Okus A., et al. (2012) Comparison of topical zinc oxide and silver sulfadiazine in burn wounds: an experimental study. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 18(5): 376-383.
7. Falcone P.A., Harrison H.N., Sowemimo G., et al. (1980) Mafenide Acetate Concentrations and Bacteriostasis in Experimental Burn Wounds Treated with a Three–Layered Laminated Mafenide–Saline Dressing. Annals of plastic surgery, 5(4): 266-269.
8. Bagheri M., Zoric A., von Kohout M., et al. (2024) The Antimicrobial Efficacy of Topically Applied Mafenide Acetate, Citric Acid and Wound Irrigation Solutions Lavanox and Prontosan against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antibiotics, 13(1): 42.