Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis and selective decontamination in burns

Overview¶

Infection drives burn mortality. Despite modern wound care and critical care, the primary cause of death after burns remains infection and sepsis ^[47], and infections are the leading cause of mortality in burn casualties ^[46]. That fact is the engine behind decades of attempts to give antimicrobials prophylactically, before any infection is documented, in the hope of preventing the deaths that infection causes. This page addresses whether that strategy works.

The strategies fall into four buckets, and they are not interchangeable. Routine systemic prophylaxis means giving systemic antibiotics to an uninfected, often non-surgical patient on or shortly after admission. Perioperative prophylaxis means covering the bacteremic insult of burn excision, debridement, or grafting. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is a prophylactic antimicrobial strategy aimed at suppressing potential pathogenic microorganisms in the gut microbiome ^[31], delivered as non-absorbable enteral antimicrobials with or without a short intravenous course. Decolonization targets a specific reservoir, most often nasal Staphylococcus aureus, to cut off the source of wound colonization. The evidence quality and the direction of benefit differ sharply across these four, which is why a single blanket answer fails. The honest summary is that routine systemic prophylaxis is not supported, the perioperative and SDD questions remain genuinely open, and the resistance cost of getting this wrong is real.

Epidemiology and rationale¶

Burn wound infection is the most frequent complication in burn patients ^[13], and the burn wound is a uniquely vulnerable surface: burn wound infection is defined as burn wound bacterial proliferation at a density of 10^5 or more bacteria per gram of tissue ^[16]. Historically the organisms that mattered most were Gram-negative invaders, notably Pseudomonas aeruginosa, alongside staphylococci and fungal opportunists ^[16]. A key driver of bad outcomes is colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms, because infections from these organisms lack adequate treatment options, prolong stay, and worsen outcomes ^[47]. Group A streptococcal wound infection was historically a major source of morbidity and mortality that prompted routine prophylaxis in children ^[10], a practice the modern evidence has since reversed.

The mechanistic argument for prophylaxis rests partly on the gut. Bacterial colonization and infection of wounds in seriously burned patients often originate from the patient's indigenous bowel flora ^[50]. In animal models, thermal injury causes early and common endotoxin and bacterial translocation across a damaged gut barrier, which in turn contributes to postburn sepsis and mortality ^[51]. That biology is the rationale for SDD: suppress the gut reservoir before it seeds the systemic circulation. Whether suppressing the reservoir translates into fewer deaths is the empirical question the rest of this page addresses.

Routine systemic prophylaxis¶

The literature does not support routine systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in the general burn population. The most rigorous appraisal is the Cochrane review of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing burn wound infection, which included 36 randomized trials (2117 participants) ^[2]. For the subset that matters here, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in non-surgical patients was evaluated in three trials (119 participants) and showed no evidence of an effect on rates of burn wound infection ^[2]. The review's own caveat is essential: the conclusions are limited by the volume and quality of the existing research, largely small studies at unclear or high risk of bias ^[2]. A subsequent systematic review reached the same bottom line, concluding that the available evidence does not support the role of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of the majority of burn patients ^[3].

Individual trials tell a consistent null story. In a prospective study of prophylactic penicillin in 51 acutely burned patients, a 5-day course neither protected against cellulitis and burn wound sepsis nor promoted selection of resistant bacteria ^[7]. In outpatient burns, infection rates in treated and untreated groups were 3.8% and 3.1%, and even after controlling for burn size antibiotic use did not lower the infection rate, arguing strongly against routine use in outpatient burns ^[6]. A randomized three-arm trial concluded that systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is of no value in controlling burn wound sepsis and might even favor the growth of P. aeruginosa in the burn wounds ^[8]. Older clinical experience pointed the same way: a regional burns center found only a small percentage of patients develop such infections even without systemic prophylaxis ^[5], and centers practicing selective rather than routine use reported that resistant bacteria and fungi were not a problem, attributing this to selective antibiotic use ^[9].

A best-evidence review of low- and middle-income settings, where routine prophylaxis remains common practice despite being abandoned in high-income countries over resistance and non-bacterial superinfection ^[4], found two randomized trials and a cohort study reporting no difference in wound infection, any infection, or length of stay between prophylaxis and control ^[4]; one trial even described a greater proportion of wounds infected with P. aeruginosa in the prophylaxis arms ^[4]. On that basis, routine prophylaxis cannot be recommended even in resource-limited settings ^[4].

One meta-analysis complicates the picture and deserves direct attention. Avni and colleagues found that trials of systemic prophylaxis given for 4 to 14 days after admission showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.87, five trials), with a number needed to treat of 8 ^[1]. That signal is real but fragile: the same review reported that the overall methodological quality of the trials was poor ^[1], and the authors concluded that prophylaxis is currently not recommended for patients with severe burns other than perioperatively, with a need for randomized controlled trials ^[1]. The mortality signal sits on weak, dated trials, and it is offset by the resistance findings discussed below.

Perioperative and periprocedural prophylaxis¶

Perioperative prophylaxis is a different question because burn surgery itself is a defined bacteremic event: burn surgery is associated with a high incidence of bacteremia, postoperative infections, and sepsis ^[24], and burn wound surgery or change of dressings commonly causes bacteremia ^[20]. Even here the evidence is mixed. In the Cochrane analysis, perioperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis had no effect on any of the review's outcomes ^[2], and pooled perioperative or topical antibiotics alone did not significantly affect mortality in the Avni meta-analysis ^[1]. Older expert practice nonetheless reserved a perioperative role, holding that prophylactic systemic antibiotics are indicated in only a few situations, including the immediate pre- and postoperative periods of excision and autografting ^[15].

The signal for benefit is strongest on graft-specific endpoints. A study of acute deep burns treated with autografts found autograft survival of 97% with perioperative antibiotics versus 87% without (P < .01), with partial graft loss in 23% versus 50% ^[17]; the same report noted that prior clinical studies had not shown such a difference ^[17]. In clean reconstructive grafting after burn injury, perioperative cephalothin reduced infection (0.8% vs 5.7%) and shortened hospital stay ^[18]. A teicoplanin trial markedly reduced perioperative Gram-positive bacteremia (7% vs 46%, P < 0.001) yet found similar good clinical outcomes in both groups, so prevention of bacteremia did not affect postoperative recovery ^[20].

For less severe burns, the trend is toward withholding. A non-inferiority study in patients with <20% TBSA burns without active wound infection found that withholding preoperative antibiotics was non-inferior, and these patients were no more likely to incur infection-related complications ^[19]; the authors framed this as preserving unneeded antimicrobial exposure ^[19]. This matters because while international burn guidelines discourage prophylactic antibiotics on admission, surgical guidelines place thermal injury under a general plastics umbrella that requires significant evidential extrapolation ^[19]. A retrospective comparison likewise found antibiotic prophylaxis during resection of devitalized tissue to be of no benefit in most burn patients, with insufficient evidence for extensive burns ^[3].

When perioperative prophylaxis is used, dosing is a recurrent failure point because burn pharmacokinetics are altered ^[22]. One study found that none of the patients dosed with piperacillin-tazobactam was adequately protected for the duration of surgery, and adequate prophylaxis was evident in only four of nine cefalotin patients ^[21], prompting a call to add re-dosing or continuous infusion for burn debridement ^[21]. By contrast, a standard 7 mg/kg gentamicin dose achieved adequate prophylactic peak concentrations in 90% of patients ^[22]. Two ongoing efforts will sharpen this question: the A2B trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of prophylaxis for excision-graft surgery ^[24], and a separate systematic review protocol notes that the desirable and undesirable effects of perioperative prophylaxis remain unresolved ^[23].

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract¶

SDD is the strategy with the most mechanistically coherent rationale and the most provocative clinical signal, and also the least certain evidence. In mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients, SDD reduces the risk of infections and improves survival ^[29], and it has been shown to improve survival in that broader population ^[32]. The burn-specific question is whether that benefit transfers.

The anchoring burn trial is de la Cal's randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study in patients with burns ≥20% TBSA and/or suspected inhalation injury ^[25]. ICU mortality was 27.8% with placebo versus 9.4% with SDD, and SDD was associated with a significant mortality reduction in both the burn ICU (risk ratio 0.25) and the hospital (risk ratio 0.28) after adjustment for predicted mortality ^[25]. Pneumonia incidence was significantly higher in the placebo group ^[25]. A secondary analysis of the same trial found survival significantly higher with SDD (90.6% vs 72.2%, P = 0.013) and showed that the mortality benefit was accompanied by a reduction in the degree of organ dysfunction ^[26]. Earlier programs pointed the same direction: an SDD regimen significantly reduced gut and wound colonization with Gram-negative organisms in extensively burned patients ^[33].

The certainty does not match the effect size. A systematic review of digestive decontamination identified five randomized and five observational studies (1680 patients) with overall poor methodological quality; the single SDD randomized trial reported an odds ratio of 0.20 for infection, and pneumonia was reduced only in the SDD studies ^[28]. A 2025 meta-analysis of four randomized trials (457 patients) found all trials at some-concerns or high risk of bias and the evidence very uncertain across all outcomes ^[29]: mortality relative risk 0.62 (95% CI 0.22 to 1.78), pneumonia 0.75 (0.48 to 1.19), bloodstream infection 1.10 (0.71 to 1.69), all at very low certainty ^[29]. The authors concluded that extrapolating from the ventilated ICU evidence may be reasonable until more burn-specific data emerge ^[29]. A more recent before-and-after cohort found SDD reduced hospital-acquired infections (46.7% vs 77.8%, P=0.009) ^[30].

Practice reflects this uncertainty. A European survey found a minority of centers (6 of 22) routinely use SDD, primarily for extensive burns or intensive care, while the majority do not, and 82% of respondents expressed interest in a multicenter randomized trial ^[31]. A separate review protocol explicitly identifies clinical equipoise about SDD in burn patients ^[32]. SDD can also be combined with targeted decolonization: nasal mupirocin added to an SDD regimen significantly reduced S. aureus colonization that SDD alone left unaffected ^[33], and enteral vancomycin added to SDD controlled MRSA endemicity (acquisition risk ratio 0.22) without emergence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci ^[34].

Decolonization and source control¶

Beyond gut decontamination, the most studied source-control target is nasal S. aureus, since nasal or pharyngeal carriage is a significant independent risk factor for wound colonization ^[36]. The data on nasal mupirocin are inconsistent. One study found the relative risk of acquiring wound S. aureus fell to 0.48 during the mupirocin period and concluded mupirocin may contribute to risk reduction ^[36]. A later evaluation in routine clinical practice found the opposite: wound colonization rates were the same across study groups, and routine nasal mupirocin did not reduce colonization, even though nasal carriage remained a significant risk factor ^[37]. Antifungal source control has a cleaner signal in one long series: nystatin Candida prophylaxis significantly reduced Candida colonization, infection, and sepsis and eliminated systemic candidiasis ^[54]. Adjacent strategies, such as prophylactic intravenous immune globulin with subtherapeutic polymyxin B, reduced septic episodes and length of stay in severely burned children but did not change mortality ^[55].

Complications: resistance, C. difficile, and adverse effects¶

The cost of prophylaxis is selection pressure, and it is measurable. In Avni's meta-analysis, resistance to the antibiotic used for prophylaxis significantly increased in three trials (rate ratio 2.84, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.83) ^[1]. The Cochrane review found a significant increase in MRSA with non-absorbable antibiotics plus cefotaxime compared with placebo (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.07) ^[2]. In a clinical series, 41% of patients colonized with susceptible Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter had a resistant isolate after antimicrobial use, though that resistance was attributed largely to cross-transmission rather than de novo selection, implying that infection-control practices matter as much as drug choice ^[48]. Antibiotic prophylaxis also exposes patients to Clostridium difficile colitis and other adverse effects ^[24].

Animal models add a counterintuitive warning relevant to the translocation rationale: broad-spectrum antibiotics promoted bacterial translocation in burned rats while preventing it in septic rats, and after treatment the most translocating organism was a highly drug-resistant, highly pathogenic Enterococcus species ^[53]. Antibiotic prophylaxis diminished bacterial translocation but did not improve survival in experimental burn wound sepsis, suggesting mortality can occur independently of translocation ^[52]. Even glycopeptides have a reassuring counterpoint: extended vancomycin use, including as perioperative prophylaxis, was not associated with increased VRE isolation or infection in seriously burned patients ^[49]. The net message is that resistance is the dominant downside, and it scales with breadth and duration of exposure.

Special considerations¶

In children, the no-prophylaxis position is firmest. A pediatric meta-analysis of six studies found the odds of any infection were not different between treated and untreated children (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.44 to 4.18), with no benefit in any subgroup defined by age, TBSA, or country income, providing quantitative evidence for the inefficacy of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric burns ^[12]. A pediatric unit comparison found wound infection rates of 21.3% with prophylaxis versus 16.7% without, longer stays in the prophylaxis group, and most septic patients arising from the prophylaxis arm, concluding prophylaxis does not reduce wound infection ^[11]. A randomized trial in children concluded that careful wound nursing is sufficient and antibiotics are indicated only to treat confirmed infections ^[13].

Toxic shock syndrome is the classic pediatric exception cited for prophylaxis, since it is a rare but serious complication primarily in children with small burns ^[40], and TSS has occurred even after cessation of a short prophylactic course in a child with a 2% scald ^[39]. The evidence is conflicting: one survey found routine prophylaxis was more common in units without recent TSS ^[40], a small study suggested prophylaxis may prevent TSS in children ^[38], yet a retrospective comparison found prophylaxis unnecessary even for TSS prevention, with antibiotics best guided case by case ^[14]. The systematic-review verdict is that antimicrobial prophylaxis showed no effectiveness for preventing TSS or burn wound infection (Grade 1C) ^[3].

Two settings repeatedly surface as candidate exceptions. In mechanically ventilated severe burns, a systematic review judged prophylaxis could be useful (Grade 2B) ^[3], and a propensity-matched nationwide analysis found prophylaxis improved 28-day mortality in ventilated patients but not in non-ventilated patients ^[43]. A single-center analysis similarly did not support routine use but allowed consideration in inhalation-injury and pneumonia subgroups, where pneumonia was an independent risk factor for mortality without prophylaxis ^[42]; an inhalation-injury cohort found prophylaxis did not statistically reduce pneumonia ^[41]. The American Burn Association has published evidence-based recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult burn patients ^[56]. Targeted respiratory-pathogen prophylaxis has one positive randomized signal: oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole reduced MRSA pneumonia incidence from 36.8% to 4.8% in severely burned ventilated patients (P = 0.017) ^[35]. Mass-casualty and conflict settings strain the rule further: in a mass burn casualty, prophylaxis for 2 to 14 days did not prevent wound or bloodstream infections, although no mortality occurred ^[44]; and in conflict-related burns, where wider conflict drives local resistance, guidelines still do not recommend routine prophylaxis, but polytrauma and austere conditions complicate decisions ^[45,46].

Controversies and Evidence Gaps¶

The central tension is a survival signal that the evidence base cannot bear the weight of. The Avni meta-analysis reports a 46% relative mortality reduction with admission-window prophylaxis ^[1], and de la Cal's SDD trial reports a similar-magnitude survival benefit ^[25], yet both rest on small, dated, or biased trials, and the most recent SDD meta-analysis rates the certainty of every outcome as very low ^[29]. Set against that uncertain benefit is a reproducible resistance cost: resistance to the prophylactic agent roughly triples ^[1], and non-absorbable regimens select MRSA ^[2]. A strategy whose benefit is uncertain and whose harm is consistent is hard to recommend broadly, which is why guidelines and reviews converge on no routine prophylaxis ^[3,4].

The genuine open questions are narrow and identifiable. Perioperative prophylaxis around excision-grafting has graft-survival signals ^[17,18] but null pooled effects ^[2], and the A2B trial and a perioperative systematic-review protocol are designed precisely because this remains unresolved ^[24,23]. SDD has the strongest mechanistic and survival rationale ^[25,26], explicit clinical equipoise ^[32], and active interest in a definitive multicenter trial ^[31]; whether the ventilated-ICU benefit transfers to burns is unsettled, and a pediatric SDD trial was outright negative for colonization and infection ^[27]. Dosing science is underdeveloped: standard perioperative regimens frequently fail to maintain protective levels through long burn operations ^[21]. Finally, much current antimicrobial practice in burns relies on extrapolation from other populations with wide variation in universal practices ^[57], and identifying infection in the hypermetabolic burn patient is imperfect, which itself leads to overprescribing and resistance ^[57]. The discipline the evidence asks for is to treat documented infection aggressively while resisting the urge to prevent it pharmacologically in patients who are not yet infected.

References¶

[1] Avni T, Levcovich A, Ad-El DD, Leibovici L, Paul M. "Prophylactic antibiotics for burns patients: systematic review and meta-analysis." BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2010. PMID: 20156911 ↩

[2] Barajas-Nava LA, López-Alcalde J, Roqué i Figuls M, Solà I, Bonfill Cosp X. "Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing burn wound infection." The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2013. PMID: 23740764 ↩

[3] Ramos G, Cornistein W, Cerino GT, Nacif G. "Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis in burn patients: systematic review." The Journal of hospital infection 2017. PMID: 28629932 ↩

[4] Stewart BT, Gyedu A, Agbenorku P, Amankwa R, Kushner AL, Gibran N. "Routine systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for burn injuries in developing countries: A best evidence topic (BET)." International journal of surgery (London, England) 2015. PMID: 26260622 ↩

[5] Timmons MJ. "Are systemic prophylactic antibiotics necessary for burns?" Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1983. PMID: 6338804 ↩

[6] Boss WK, Brand DA, Acampora D, Barese S, Frazier WH. "Effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in the outpatient treatment of burns." The Journal of trauma 1985. PMID: 3981674 ↩

[7] Durtschi MB, Orgain C, Counts GW, Heimbach DM. "A prospective study of prophylactic penicillin in acutely burned hospitalized patients." The Journal of trauma 1982. PMID: 7035687 ↩

[8] Ugburo AO, Atoyebi OA, Oyeneyin JO, Sowemimo GO. "An evaluation of the role of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in the control of burn wound infection at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2004. PMID: 14693085 ↩

[9] Wilkins TJ, Bennett JE. "The selective use of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of burns." Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics 1980. PMID: 7404315 ↩

[10] Sheridan RL, Weber JM, Pasternack MS, Tompkins RG. "Antibiotic prophylaxis for group A streptococcal burn wound infection is not necessary." The Journal of trauma 2001. PMID: 11493799 ↩

[11] Ergün O, Celik A, Ergün G, Ozok G. "Prophylactic antibiotic use in pediatric burn units." European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie 2004. PMID: 15630646 ↩

[12] Csenkey A, Jozsa G, Gede N, Pakai E, Tinusz B, Rumbus Z, et al. "Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis does not affect infectious complications in pediatric burn injury: A meta-analysis." PloS one 2019. PMID: 31553768 ↩

[13] Chahed J, Ksia A, Selmi W, Hidouri S, Sahnoun L, Krichene I, et al. "Burns injury in children: is antibiotic prophylaxis recommended?" African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS 2014. PMID: 25323182 ↩

[14] Mulgrew S, Khoo A, Cartwright R, Reynolds N. "Morbidity in pediatric burns, toxic shock syndrome, and antibiotic prophylaxis: a retrospective comparative study." Annals of plastic surgery 2014. PMID: 24056250 ↩

[15] Dacso CC, Luterman A, Curreri PW. "Systemic antibiotic treatment in burned patients." The Surgical clinics of North America 1987. PMID: 3101212 ↩

[16] Ollstein RN, McDonald C. "Topical and systemic antimicrobial agents in burns." Annals of plastic surgery 1980. PMID: 6779699 ↩

[17] Ramos G, Resta M, Machare Delgado E, Durlach R, Fernandez Canigia L, Benaim F. "Systemic perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis may improve skin autograft survival in patients with acute burns." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2008. PMID: 18849849 ↩

[18] Alexander JW, MacMillan BG, Law EJ, Krummel R. "Prophylactic antibiotics as an adjunct for skin grafting in clean reconstructive surgery following burn injury." The Journal of trauma 1982. PMID: 7050403 ↩

[19] Hill DM, Guido A, Sultan-Ali I, Arif F, Velamuri SR. "A non-inferiority study comparing efficacy of preoperative prophylactic antibiotics for preventing infectious complications in patients with less severe burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2021. PMID: 33288331 ↩

[20] Steer JA, Papini RP, Wilson AP, McGrouther DA, Nakhla LS, Parkhouse N. "Randomized placebo-controlled trial of teicoplanin in the antibiotic prophylaxis of infection following manipulation of burn wounds." The British journal of surgery 1997. PMID: 9189106 ↩

[21] Dalley AJ, Lipman J, Venkatesh B, Rudd M, Roberts MS, Cross SE. "Inadequate antimicrobial prophylaxis during surgery: a study of beta-lactam levels during burn debridement." The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy 2007. PMID: 17504805 ↩

[22] Borra LC, Bosch TM, van Baar ME, Dokter J, Oen IM, Ruijgrok EJ. "Adequacy of a hospital-wide standard dose of 7mg/kg bodyweight gentamicin sufficient to achieve an adequate prophylactic maximum serum concentration (Cmax) in burn patients undergoing surgical burn wound treatment." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2016. PMID: 27595454 ↩

[23] Christensen GBB, Jørgensen HK, Tsuchiya EA, Helleberg M, Krag M, Haase N, et al. "Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Burn Patients: Protocol for a Systematic Review." Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2026. PMID: 42263780 ↩

[24] Dépret F, Farny B, Jeanne M, Klouche K, Leclerc T, Nouette-Gaulain K, et al. "The A2B trial, antibiotic prophylaxis for excision-graft surgery in burn patients: a multicenter randomized double-blind study." Trials 2020. PMID: 33239101 ↩

[25] de La Cal MA, Cerdá E, García-Hierro P, van Saene HK, Gómez-Santos D, Negro E, et al. "Survival benefit in critically ill burned patients receiving selective decontamination of the digestive tract: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial." Annals of surgery 2005. PMID: 15729064 ↩

[26] López-Rodríguez L, de la Cal MA, García-Hierro P, Herrero R, Martins J, van Saene HK, et al. "Selective Digestive Decontamination Attenuates Organ Dysfunction in Critically Ill Burn Patients." Shock (Augusta, Ga.) 2016. PMID: 27755474 ↩

[27] Barret JP, Jeschke MG, Herndon DN. "Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in severely burned pediatric patients." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2001. PMID: 11451595 ↩

[28] Rubio-Regidor M, Martín-Pellicer A, Silvestri L, van Saene HKF, Lorente JA, de la Cal MA. "Digestive decontamination in burn patients: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2018. PMID: 28797573 ↩

[29] Tsuchiya EA, Jensen-Abbew J, Krag M, Møller MH, Vestergaard MR, Haase N, et al. "Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in burn patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2025. PMID: 40250196 ↩

[30] Pérez-Torres D, Martín-Luengo AI, Cuenca-Rubio C, Berezo-García JÁ, Díaz-Rodríguez C, Canas-Pérez I, et al. "Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in a burns unit reduces the incidence of hospital-acquired infections: A retrospective before-and-after cohort study." Medicina intensiva 2024. PMID: 38897897 ↩

[31] Tsuchiya EA, Krag M, Møller MH, Vestergaard MR, Haase N, Helleberg M, et al. "Use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in burn patients: A European survey." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2026. PMID: 41223769 ↩

[32] Tsuchiya EA, Jensen-Abbew J, Krag M, Møller MH, Vestergaard MR, Overgaard-Steensen C, et al. "Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in burn patients: Protocol for a systematic review." Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2024. PMID: 38981497 ↩

[33] Mackie DP, van Hertum WA, Schumburg TH, Kuijper EC, Knape P, Massaro F. "Reduction in Staphylococcus aureus wound colonization using nasal mupirocin and selective decontamination of the digestive tract in extensive burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1994. PMID: 8198735 ↩

[34] Cerdá E, Abella A, de la Cal MA, Lorente JA, García-Hierro P, van Saene HK, et al. "Enteral vancomycin controls methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endemicity in an intensive care burn unit: a 9-year prospective study." Annals of surgery 2007. PMID: 17435547 ↩

[35] Kimura A, Mochizuki T, Nishizawa K, Mashiko K, Yamamoto Y, Otsuka T. "Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia in severely burned patients." The Journal of trauma 1998. PMID: 9715201 ↩

[36] Kooistra-Smid AM, van Zanten E, Ott A, van Dijk SR, Beerthuizen GI, Vogels WH, et al. "Prevention of Staphylococcus aureus burn wound colonization by nasal mupirocin." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2008. PMID: 18242873 ↩

[37] Jaspers ME, Breederveld RS, Tuinebreijer WE, Diederen BM. "The evaluation of nasal mupirocin to prevent Staphylococcus aureus burn wound colonization in routine clinical practice." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2014. PMID: 24685351 ↩

[38] Rashid A, Brown AP, Khan K. "On the use of prophylactic antibiotics in prevention of toxic shock syndrome." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2005. PMID: 16288963 ↩

[39] Johnson D, Pathirana PD. "Toxic shock syndrome following cessation of prophylactic antibiotics in a child with a 2% scald." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2002. PMID: 11900944 ↩

[40] Edwards-Jones V, Dawson MM, Childs C. "A survey into toxic shock syndrome (TSS) in UK burns units." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2000. PMID: 10751699 ↩

[41] Liodaki E, Kalousis K, Schopp BE, Mailänder P, Stang F. "Prophylactic antibiotic therapy after inhalation injury." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2014. PMID: 24630819 ↩

[42] Muthukumar V, Arumugam PK, Bamal R. "Role of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in acute burns: A retrospective analysis from a tertiary care center." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 32081382 ↩

[43] Tagami T, Matsui H, Fushimi K, Yasunaga H. "Prophylactic Antibiotics May Improve Outcome in Patients With Severe Burns Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: Propensity Score Analysis of a Japanese Nationwide Database." Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. PMID: 26405146 ↩

[44] Yeong EK, Sheng WH, Hsueh PR, Hsieh SM, Huang HF, Ko AT, et al. "The Wound Microbiology and the Outcomes of the Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis in a Mass Burn Casualty Incident." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2020. PMID: 31999335 ↩

[45] Pallett SJ, Mistry R, Lambert ZL, Woolley SD, Abbara A, Breathnach AO, et al. "Conflict and catastrophe-related severe burn injuries: A challenging setting for antimicrobial decision-making." The Journal of infection 2024. PMID: 38986748 ↩

[46] D'Avignon LC, Chung KK, Saffle JR, Renz EM, Cancio LC. "Prevention of infections associated with combat-related burn injuries." The Journal of trauma 2011. PMID: 21814094 ↩

[47] Vinaik R, Barayan D, Shahrokhi S, Jeschke MG. "Management and prevention of drug resistant infections in burn patients." Expert review of anti-infective therapy 2019. PMID: 31353976 ↩

[48] Ferreira AC, Gobara S, Costa SE, Sauaia N, Mamizuka EM, van der Heijden IM, et al. "Emergence of resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species after the use of antimicrobials for burned patients." Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2004. PMID: 15518031 ↩

[49] McManus AT, Goodwin CW, Pruitt BA. "Observations on the risk of resistance with the extended use of vancomycin." Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) 1998. PMID: 9820352 ↩

[50] Deutsch DH, Miller SF, Finley RK. "The use of intestinal antibiotics to delay or prevent infections in patients with burns." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1990. PMID: 2246313 ↩

[51] Yao YM, Yu Y, Sheng ZY, Tian HM, Wang YP, Lu LR, et al. "Role of gut-derived endotoxaemia and bacterial translocation in rats after thermal injury: effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1995. PMID: 8747729 ↩

[52] Jones WG, Barber AE, Minei JP, Fahey TJ, Shires GT, Shires GT. "Antibiotic prophylaxis diminishes bacterial translocation but not mortality in experimental burn wound sepsis." The Journal of trauma 1990. PMID: 2191143 ↩

[53] Wen ZL, Zhang LD, Liu SZ, Liu J, Chen YZ, Chen DC. "Effect of broad-spectrum antibiotics on bacterial translocation in burned or septic rats." Chinese medical journal 2019. PMID: 31140989 ↩

[54] Desai MH, Rutan RL, Heggers JP, Herndon DN. "Candida infection with and without nystatin prophylaxis. A 11-year experience with patients with burn injury." Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) 1992. PMID: 1540092 ↩

[55] Lyons JM, Davis C, Rieman MT, Kopcha R, Phan H, Greenhalgh D, et al. "Prophylactic intravenous immune globulin and polymixin B decrease the incidence of septic episodes and hospital length of stay in severely burned children." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2006. PMID: 17091076 ↩

[56] Mosier MJ, Pham TN. "American Burn Association Practice guidelines for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in burn patients." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2009. PMID: 19826271 ↩

[57] Hill DM, Sinclair SE, Hickerson WL. "Rational Selection and Use of Antimicrobials in Patients with Burn Injuries." Clinics in plastic surgery 2017. PMID: 28576241 ↩