Non-silver topical antimicrobials in burn care (mafenide, cerium, iodine, chlorhexidine)

Overview

Non-silver topical antimicrobials are the second pillar of burn-wound infection prevention, alongside silver-based agents. They exist because burn wound sepsis kills patients — over 75% of all burn deaths after initial resuscitation result from infection ^[30] — and because no single topical agent covers every clinical scenario. Mafenide acetate penetrates eschar in a way silver sulfadiazine does not. Cerium nitrate stabilizes the eschar of massive burns and modulates the systemic inflammatory response. Povidone-iodine has broad antimicrobial activity and a century of dermatologic use. Chlorhexidine is the workhorse of skin antisepsis for surgical prep and donor harvesting. Each agent has its own indication, complication signature, and place in the wound-care decision tree.

The burn surgeon's question at the bedside is not "silver or non-silver" — it is "which agent on which wound, and why?" Mafenide acetate is the eschar-penetrating sulfonamide of choice for cartilage burns and infected deep eschar where bacterial breakthrough through silver sulfadiazine has occurred ^[15]. Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine (Flammacerium) is the European-predominant eschar-stabilizing option for patients with large TBSA burns who are not immediately operative candidates, with a 4-decade record at high-volume centers ^[15][13][14]. Povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine are antiseptics with broad-spectrum activity but dose-dependent cytotoxicity to keratinocytes and fibroblasts that constrains routine use on open burn wounds ^[28][29]; their primary role is in skin preparation for surgery, allograft harvesting decontamination, and as occasional adjunctive treatment in resource-constrained settings ^[26][27].

The modern evidence base is uneven. The strongest in-scope signal across pooled meta-analytic data is that cerium nitrate plus silver sulfadiazine may reduce mortality versus silver sulfadiazine alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; 2 studies, 214 participants; low-certainty evidence) ^[30][12]. Mafenide retains a clinical role where eschar penetration is required. Povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine have abundant in vitro evidence of broad-spectrum activity but minimal recent RCT data on burn-wound clinical endpoints, and the cytotoxicity signal is consistent across cell-line studies ^[28][25].

Pathophysiology

Mafenide acetate — eschar penetration and carbonic anhydrase inhibition

Mafenide acetate is a sulfonamide whose distinguishing feature is eschar penetration. Mafenide is the most effective prevention against invasive Pseudomonas burn wound infection, with the active compound entering the wound rapidly and achieving local concentrations 2-5 fold above the MIC for Pseudomonas aeruginosa within 1-2 hours ^[10]. Within 8-10 hours, mafenide acetate concentration declines to subinhibitory levels and the treatment requires reapplication ^[10]. This rapid penetration plus rapid decline drives the operational reality of mafenide use: frequent application (typically twice daily as cream, or saturated dressings as 5% solution), brief antimicrobial window per dose, and emphasis on continuous antimicrobial coverage rather than sustained-release.

Mafenide also produces a signature systemic effect — carbonic anhydrase inhibition. Patients switched from silver nitrate dressings to sulfamylon showed a 50% rise in minute ventilation, tidal volume, and ventilatory equivalent, with PO2 rise and base excess fall, indicating compensatory hyperventilation in response to bicarbonate wasting ^[9]. Studies in normal subjects given Diamox produced a 25% increase in minute ventilation, demonstrating the carbonic anhydrase mechanism, though pain on application also contributes to the hyperventilation observed in burn patients receiving sulfamylon ^[9]. The clinical implication: large-surface-area mafenide application can produce a hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis with compensatory hyperventilation that confounds ventilator weaning and acid-base interpretation in the ICU.

Mafenide cream pain is hypertonicity-driven, not pH-driven ^[8]. The 11.2% concentration in cream is 2-3 times more painful than the 5% concentration; the carrier cream and 11.2% mafenide acetate together total 2,180 mOsm/kg ^[8]. The 5% concentration of mafenide cream is much less painful than the 11.2% concentration ^[8]. The 2.5% solution has demonstrated equivalent clinical outcomes to the 5% solution at half the cost (mean cost $1,494.92 versus $3,741.39 for 5% mafenide acetate) ^[1].

Cerium nitrate — eschar stabilization and burn-toxin modulation

Cerium nitrate is a rare-earth lanthanide whose mechanism on burn wounds is distinct from that of any antimicrobial cation. Application of cerium nitrate plus silver sulfadiazine on deep dermal burns causes superficial connective tissue calcification with few deep dermal changes, and the precipitation of cerium and pyrophosphate creates multiple calcification nuclei that lead to superficial dermal calcification ^[18]. Cerium penetration is low and silver is never detected intradermally ^[18]. The histologic result is a leathery, dry, shell-like eschar that resists bacterial colonization and provides physical wound coverage during the period before excision can be undertaken.

Cerium nitrate also modulates the systemic inflammatory response. In rat scald-burn models, cerium nitrate treatment significantly alleviated burn-induced elevations in high mobility group protein box 1 (HMGB1) at postoperative day 1 and 7, lessened heightened hyaluronan levels at POD 7, and reduced burn-induced increases in IL-1β, GRO/keratinocyte chemoattractant, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1α ^[16]. Cerium nitrate suppressed postburn proliferation of resident skin microbes, resulting in a 2-log reduction by POD 7 ^[16]. In separate rat studies, cerium nitrate bathing prevented the elevation of TNF-α levels in the early period after thermal injury, with similar levels of IL-6 and TNF-α achieved by both cerium nitrate bathing and burn wound debridement ^[17]. The mechanistic case for cerium nitrate is not antimicrobial cation chemistry alone — it is eschar stabilization plus DAMP and inflammatory cytokine modulation that together approximate, in conservative management, what early excision delivers surgically ^[17].

Povidone-iodine — broad-spectrum antiseptic, eschar diffusion, systemic absorption

Povidone-iodine (PVP-I, Betadine) is a broad-spectrum antiseptic that releases iodine slowly from a polyvinylpyrrolidone polymer carrier. In a rat modified Walker burn wound model, PVP-I cream effectively diffused through 1.5 mm of eschar within 6 hours, and a single topical application of 5% PVP-I cream produced a 98.8% reduction in intra-eschar viable Pseudomonas aeruginosa organisms within 18 hours; a second application at 18 hours brought the total reduction to 99.8% by 48 hours ^[24]. PVP-I cream kills organisms ten-fold more quickly than PVP-I ointment in vitro ^[24]. The eschar-penetrating capacity makes PVP-I a credible antiseptic option for partial-thickness burns and for wound preparation, but the same systemic-absorption pathway that delivers iodine to the wound also delivers iodine to the systemic circulation.

Iodine serum levels rise in linear proportion to TBSA treated, with an increase of 30 µg iodine per 100 mL of serum for each 1% of TBSA, and maximal levels are reached within 24 hours of application, decreasing quickly after discontinuation ^[23]. Iodine concentrations are much lower with Iodoplex than with conventional povidone-iodine ointment, indicating that vehicle and formulation drive the systemic-absorption signal ^[23]. Iodine toxicosis from PVP-I gel application has been reported with serum iodine reaching 20,600 µg/dL (normal 2-9 µg/dL), producing nodal bradycardia, hypotension, metabolic acidosis, renal failure, and death ^[22]. This case report defines the upper bound of clinical risk and is consistent with the dose-dependent absorption signal.

Chlorhexidine — broad-spectrum antiseptic with cytotoxicity caveat

Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a bisbiguanide cationic antiseptic with broad bactericidal and fungicidal activity at low concentrations ^[26]. All concentrations of chlorhexidine tested were superior to PVP-I with no bacterial growth in skin-prep formulations used in burn surgery, with chlorhexidine MICs all very low (<0.5 mg/L) compared with PVP-I MICs of 64-512 mg/L ^[26]. Chlorhexidine gluconate decontamination of allograft skin from cadaver donors reduced contamination from 13.7% to 5.6% of donor body areas, with the gram-positive bacterial contamination rate dropping from 12.1% to 2.2% ^[27]. The strong skin-antisepsis case for chlorhexidine does not directly translate into a routine open-burn-wound case, however.

The tradeoff is cytotoxicity. Cultured human fibroblasts and keratinocytes exposed for 15 minutes to chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine, and benzalkonium chloride formulations were assessed for cytotoxicity at therapeutic concentrations: at therapeutic concentrations all the antiseptics are cytotoxic for fibroblasts and keratinocytes, with the CD50 100s to 1000s of times higher than the MIC ^[28]. The same antiseptic concentration that reliably kills bacteria simultaneously kills the keratinocyte and fibroblast populations the wound depends on for healing ^[28]. Several in vitro studies have reported chlorhexidine cytotoxicity on cultured cells, while in vivo and clinical data show more controversial results, and there is no clear consensus on the use of chlorhexidine regarding concentrations, type of excipient, and cleansing after application ^[25]. The skin of premature infants appears to be more sensitive to chlorhexidine than adult skin ^[25].

Classification

Non-silver topical antimicrobials in contemporary burn practice fall into four functional classes, distinguished by mechanism, delivery vehicle, and clinical niche.

Mafenide acetate (Sulfamylon). Sulfonamide carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Available as 5% or 11.2% cream and as 5% (or 2.5%) solution for soaked dressings. Distinguished by eschar penetration. Used to decrease bacterial load in burn wounds, with documented efficacy for cartilaginous burns (ear, nose) where chondritis prevention matters, and for post-graft contamination control on contaminated meshed skin grafts ^{[1][6][7][31]}. The 2.5% solution is cost-effective and clinically equivalent to 5% ^[1]. Combined topical 5% mafenide acetate/amphotericin B (2 mcg/mL) solution applied every 4 hours to excised and grafted burn wounds does not produce clinically relevant serum amphotericin B levels and is safe ^[2].

Cerium nitrate (typically as cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine; Flammacerium). Lanthanide rare-earth element used clinically as an aqueous bath or compounded with silver sulfadiazine 1% as a cream. Distinguished by eschar-stabilizing histologic effect that produces a dry, shell-like eschar, plus modulation of burn-induced DAMP and inflammatory cytokine release ^[16][17][18]. Used for major burns where conservative management is preferred over immediate excision, for elderly and pediatric patients in whom delaying surgery is desirable, and as a temporizing strategy in resource-constrained settings or mass-casualty contexts ^[13][14][15].

Povidone-iodine (PVP-I, Betadine). Iodophor antiseptic delivering iodine via slow polymer release. Available as solution, cream, ointment, gel, and impregnated dressing. Used for skin preparation prior to surgery, allograft decontamination, and as adjunct in superficial and deep burn protocols (PVP-I + Neosporin combination, subeschar clysis) ^{[21][24][26][27]}. Repithel (PVP-I in hydrosomes and hydrogel) significantly enhanced epithelialization (9.4 versus 12.4 days; p<0.0001) and reduced graft loss compared with conventional gauze in burn wounds, donor sites, and chronic defects ^[19]. The combination of subeschar PVP-I clysis with surface PVP-I + Neosporin in 613 deep burn patients reduced bacterial counts and allowed grafting within 20 days in 90% of patients with burns up to 50% TBSA ^[20].

Chlorhexidine (CHX). Bisbiguanide cationic antiseptic. Available as gluconate, acetate, and digluconate solutions and creams in concentrations from 0.04% to 4%. The principal uses in burn care are skin antisepsis prior to surgery ^[26], allograft donor decontamination ^[27], and combination with silver sulfadiazine for additive antibacterial activity, including against Staphylococcus aureus ^[32][33]. Chlorhexidine is not a primary topical antimicrobial regimen for open burn wounds — its cytotoxicity profile and the absence of contemporary RCT data on burn-wound clinical endpoints constrain that role ^[25][28].

Assessment

Selection of a non-silver topical antimicrobial follows the same clinical decision tree as silver dressing selection: depth, location, TBSA, and trajectory. Wound depth and eschar thickness drive the mafenide-versus-silver decision. Deep partial-thickness and full-thickness burns headed for delayed excision benefit from mafenide's eschar penetration when bacteria have broken through silver sulfadiazine or when invasive infection is established ^[10]. Cartilaginous burns (ear, nose) are mafenide indications because cartilage has limited blood supply and infection-related chondritis can be devastating. In a rabbit auricular burn animal-model comparison of honey versus mafenide acetate, healing scores were similar but chondritis was significantly lower in the mafenide group ^[31]; the absence of contemporary clinical RCT data on auricular burn topical agent selection is an evidence gap, but mafenide remains the topical of choice for cartilaginous burns based on established cartilage-penetration and chondritis-prevention mechanism.

Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine selection turns on TBSA and operative timing. The Flammacerium experience at high-volume European centers in 853 patients showed overall mortality of 1.5%, with mortality of 30.4% in patients with burns >40% TBSA and 6.3% in elderly patients (>70 years; vs 1.5% overall); none of the deaths were children ^[13]. Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine is applicable in all thermal burn patients but provides specific value in children, elderly patients, and patients with severe burns who can benefit from a more conservative treatment whereby the first operation can be postponed until the patient is stabilized ^[13]. The clinical case for cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine in massive burns is the eschar-stabilization and immune-modulation effect that buys time for resuscitation, donor-site recovery, and operative planning ^[15][17].

Povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine selection turns on the question being asked. As skin-preparation antiseptics for surgery and allograft harvest, both are evidence-supported and routine ^[26][27]. As primary topical antimicrobial regimens for open burn wounds, both are constrained by cytotoxicity to fibroblasts and keratinocytes at therapeutic concentrations ^[28][25]. Povidone-iodine remains in use as adjunct in specific protocols such as subeschar clysis ^[20], while chlorhexidine in burn-wound regimens is most defensible at lower concentrations combined with silver sulfadiazine, where additive activity against Staphylococcus aureus is documented ^[32][33].

Trajectory matters as much for non-silver as for silver agents. Established invasive infection through eschar drives mafenide selection. Anticipated delay to excision drives cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine selection in massive burns. Surgical readiness drives chlorhexidine and PVP-I skin-preparation selection. The local antibiogram — particularly the presence of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus strains — informs whether the resident topical regimen retains adequate activity, since multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are more resistant to topicals than non-MDROs (88% sensitive non-MDRO versus 80% sensitive MDRO; P<.05) ^[3].

Management

Mafenide acetate

Mafenide acetate is delivered as 5% or 11.2% cream, or as 5% (or 2.5%) aqueous solution applied as soaked dressings. The 2.5% solution provides equivalent clinical outcomes to the 5% solution at half the cost, with no difference in wound infection, bacteremia, sepsis, pneumonia, duration of treatment, and mortality between groups receiving 2.5% and 5% mafenide acetate over an 11-month policy-change comparison ^[1]. The mean cost of 2.5% mafenide therapy was $1,494.92 compared with $3,741.39 for 5% mafenide acetate ^[1].

Mafenide acetate solution applied to excised and grafted burn wounds with adjunctive amphotericin B (2 mcg/mL) every 4 hours for at least 5 days does not produce clinically relevant serum amphotericin B levels in 27 patients with mean TBSA burned 32%, mean TBSA treated 21%, and median treatment duration 8 days; the median percentage graft take was 95%, and there were no fungal wound infections ^[2]. This combined topical mafenide-amphotericin B regimen is a defensible approach to fungal-prophylaxis on excised and grafted burn wounds when local fungal pressure warrants empiric coverage.

Mafenide acetate solution as adjunct after grafting in necrotizing fasciitis showed clinical benefit. Twenty-nine patients with necrotizing fasciitis treated with 5% mafenide acetate solution after grafting were compared with 45 patients treated without it; the MAS+ group had fewer debridements per patient (3.7 versus 5.4), fewer closure procedures (1.2 versus 1.73), and a higher first-time-closure rate (83% versus 59%; chi2=4.26; P=0.039), with a trend toward lower mortality (3.4% versus 13%; chi2=2.00; P=0.158) ^[4]. Mafenide acetate solution is a useful adjunct in necrotizing fasciitis wound care protocols ^[4].

In contaminated explanted human meshed skin grafts, 5% Sulfamylon solution eradicated bacterial loads inoculated at 10² to 10³ Pseudomonas aeruginosa organisms — restoring interstitial closure rates to normal and producing total closure by day 4, compared with grafts treated with saline-moistened dressings where bacterial load rose to 10⁶ organisms and less than 3% of interstices closed ^[7]. The clinical translation: 5% mafenide solution preserves graft-take rates in the presence of bacterial contamination that would otherwise destroy meshed autografts.

The hydrofiber-soaked-with-mafenide approach is an emerging alternative to traditional gauze. Hydrofiber saturated with mafenide acetate consistently maintained antimicrobial activity for at least 72 hours against both Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, while gauze saturated with mafenide acetate did not reliably demonstrate antimicrobial activity beyond 0 hours ^[11]. Hydrofiber preserves antimicrobial activity longer than gauze and may obviate the need for frequent dressing changes, addressing one of mafenide's most significant operational burdens ^[11]. Electrospun mafenide-acetate dressings are in development to extend the antimicrobial window further, sustaining therapeutic concentrations for ≥24 hours ^[10].

Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine (Flammacerium)

Cerium nitrate is delivered clinically as Flammacerium — a cream of cerium nitrate compounded with silver sulfadiazine — or as an aqueous bath ^[17]. The standard application protocol on deep partial-thickness and full-thickness burns is daily cream application after washing, with the cerium-stabilized eschar developing a characteristic dry, leathery appearance over the first week.

The clinical benefit signal is most consistent in moderate-to-severe burns. In 60 patients randomized to topical SSD alone versus SSD-cerium nitrate, there were 4 deaths in the SSD group versus 1 in the SSD-CN group, with more patients of higher risk severity surviving in the SSD-CN group ^[12]. The rate of re-epithelialization of partial-thickness burns was faster by 8 days in the SSD-CN group, the relatively dry shell-like eschar of SSD-CN-treated burns allowed planned excisions with immediate autologous grafting and tissue beneath ready to accept grafting 11 days earlier (p=0.03), and hospital stay was significantly shorter (23.3 versus 30.7 days; p=0.03) ^[12]. A higher incidence of transient stinging pain on application of SSD-CN was reported but was effectively managed with analgesics ^[12].

Outcomes in real-world practice are favorable. The 853-patient Flammacerium series reported overall mortality of 1.5% with no pediatric deaths, mortality of 30.4% in patients with TBSA ≥40%, and 6.3% in elderly patients (>70 years) ^[13]. The conservative-treatment paradigm allows the first operation to be postponed until the patient is stabilized and wounds can be covered directly with skin transplantation ^[13]. The compounded cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine cream provides broad antibacterial activity, forms a temporary barrier, and promotes re-epithelialization ^[14].

Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine on facial burns showed equivalence rather than superiority to silver sulfadiazine alone in a multicenter Dutch RCT of 154 facial-burn patients: surgery rates (16.9% versus 20.5%) and median time to wound healing (11.0 versus 9.0 days; p=0.17) did not differ significantly between groups, and there were no significant differences in functional and aesthetic outcomes ^[5]. The signal pattern is consistent with the eschar-stabilization mechanism: the benefit is most evident in deep dermal and full-thickness burns where eschar conversion matters, and less evident in facial partial-thickness burns where re-epithelialization can occur rapidly with either agent.

The current clinical case for cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine rests on the Flammacerium European experience and on the 2017 Cochrane signal that there may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus silver sulfadiazine compared with silver sulfadiazine alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I²=0%, 2 studies, 214 participants; low-certainty evidence) ^[30]. Demonstrating clear-cut superiority of cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine over silver sulfadiazine alone has been challenging in controlled trials — the FDA has not approved cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine cream and visible eschar change introduces unavoidable bias in unblinded trials, with a small market and highly variable burn-wound presentation further constraining trial design ^[15].

Povidone-iodine

Povidone-iodine is typically delivered as 10% solution for skin preparation and as 5% cream or ointment for wound application. In burn care, the strongest current evidence supports povidone-iodine in two specific roles: as adjunct in subeschar clysis protocols and as the iodine component of hydrosome-hydrogel formulations.

In 613 patients with deep burns up to 50% TBSA treated with 0.25% povidone-iodine subeschar clysis plus surface application of povidone-iodine + Neosporin, the quantitative bacterial count showed significantly less infection on the 7th and 8th post-treatment days (P<0.001), and significantly more patients could be grafted within 20 days, with a graft acceptance rate of 90% ^[20]. In 1,053 patients with superficial burns treated with PVP-I + Neosporin compared with 1,089 patients treated with silver sulfadiazine, fewer patients showed infection on the 7th and 18th post-treatment days (P<0.01 and P<0.001 respectively) and healing times were better with PVP-I + Neosporin (P<0.001), with the maximum number of patients healed within 15 days, although mortality rates did not differ between the two groups ^[21].

The hydrosome-hydrogel formulation Repithel (PVP-I in hydrosomes and hydrogel) significantly enhanced graft healing in 167 patients (donor-site defects, burn wounds, or chronic defects). Repithel-treated grafts healed in 9.4 versus 12.4 days (p<0.0001), faster than controls on neo-epithelialization of mesh holes between days 7 and 11 (91.2±22.8% versus 82.3%±28.6%, p<0.0001), with higher graft take rate (p=0.0053) and reduced graft loss (8 versus 20 grafts; p=0.0063) ^[19]. Effects on grafted burn wounds (p=0.0042) and chronic defects (p<0.0001) were more significant than on donor sites, and smokers showed improved graft take (p=0.0069) and higher epithelialization rate (p=0.0040) ^[19]. The clinical implication: vehicle modification (hydrosomes plus hydrogel) substantially mitigates the cytotoxicity-versus-antimicrobial-benefit tradeoff that characterizes conventional PVP-I formulations.

Povidone-iodine for skin preparation in burn surgery is well established. Both PVP-I and chlorhexidine met European antiseptic standards in vitro, with both showing the same high bactericidal and fungicidal efficacy (P<0.05); however, chlorhexidine MICs at 24 and 48 hours were very low (<0.5 mg/L) while PVP-I MICs ranged from 64 to 512 mg/L, and all chlorhexidine concentrations tested were superior to PVP-I with no bacterial growth ^[26]. PVP-I retains a routine role in skin preparation despite the chlorhexidine-superior in-vitro signal.

Chlorhexidine

Chlorhexidine in burn care is most defensible in skin antisepsis ^[26], allograft decontamination ^[27], and as additive to silver sulfadiazine cream for additive antibacterial activity ^[32][33]. Chlorhexidine gluconate decontamination of allograft skin from cadaver donors reduced overall contamination rates from 13.7% to 5.6% of donor body areas, with the gram-positive bacterial contamination rate dropping from 12.1% to 2.2% (an 82% reduction), eliminating 12 of 15 contaminant species, and increasing the amount of skin obtained from donor cadavers that tested microbiologically clean from 86.3% to 94.4% ^[27]. The clinical case for chlorhexidine in donor-site allograft preparation is direct.

The chlorhexidine + silver sulfadiazine combination shows additive antibacterial activity in burn-wound rat models, with the addition of 1% chlorhexidine digluconate to 1% silver sulfadiazine increasing the antibacterial effectiveness of the silver sulfadiazine ^[32][33]. The chlorhexidine use survey across burn units identified no clear consensus on concentrations, type of excipient, and cleansing after application, with adjusted protocols favoring aqueous formulations at low concentrations ^[25]. Aqueous formulations of chlorhexidine do not appear to be necessarily less efficient than alcohol-based formulations, and lower concentrations are as efficient as higher concentrations ^[25].

The concentration of all four organisms recovered from full-thickness eschar biopsies was less in animals treated with chlorhexidine plus silver sulfadiazine compared with silver sulfadiazine alone in the rat 20% full-thickness burn model ^[32][33]. Microbial invasion into subjacent muscle was less frequent in animals treated with chlorhexidine plus silver sulfadiazine compared with silver sulfadiazine alone (P<0.05); the addition of 1% chlorhexidine digluconate to 1% silver sulfadiazine increased the antibacterial effectiveness of silver sulfadiazine ^[32][33].

Multidrug-resistant organisms and the local antibiogram

Topical antimicrobials retain useful activity against multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), but with reduced potency. The sensitivity of 47 MDROs to 11 commonly used topical agents (mafenide acetate, nystatin, mafenide + nystatin, silver nitrate, Dakin's, polymyxin B, neomycin, polymyxin + neomycin, silver sulfadiazine, bacitracin, silver sulfadiazine + bacitracin) was tested using the agar well technique. Overall 88% of tests of non-MDROs showed susceptibility to topicals compared with 80% for MDROs (P<.05), and even for susceptible isolates, the zones of inhibition were smaller for MDROs than for non-MDROs (P<.002), indicating decreased susceptibility of MDROs ^[3]. Some treatment assumptions based historically on the efficacy of topical antimicrobial agents against non-MDROs need to be re-evaluated for MDROs ^[3]. The clinical implication for non-silver topicals: when local antibiograms show MDRO predominance, the empiric choice (mafenide for eschar penetration, cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine for eschar stabilization) should be reinforced by sensitivity testing rather than continued on assumed activity.

Massive burns and eschar stabilization

Massive burns — TBSA 50% or greater — are the indication where cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine has its strongest mechanistic and clinical case. The standard of care for deep burn wounds is eschar excision and autologous skin grafting within the first postburn days; however, when this is not practical due to medical reasons, unavailable surgical facilities, or lack of donor sites or other coverage, surgeons have used topical cerium nitrate in cream with silver sulfadiazine for over four decades to convert the eschar into a pliable, dry, leathery membrane that protects the wound from infection and reduces fluid losses ^[15]. Cerium nitrate plus silver sulfadiazine treatment is reported to reduce dressing changes, improve patient comfort, and reduce bacterial burden, with unaffected epithelialization and few complications ^[15].

The mortality signal in massive burns is the most clinically consequential cerium nitrate finding. The 2017 Cochrane review pooled two studies and 214 participants and found there may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus silver sulfadiazine compared with silver sulfadiazine alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I²=0%, low-certainty evidence) ^[30]. The De Gracia 2001 RCT of 60 patients with moderate-to-severe burns randomized to silver sulfadiazine alone versus silver sulfadiazine-cerium nitrate showed 4 deaths versus 1, with more high-severity-risk patients surviving in the SSD-CN group ^[12]. The mechanistic case (eschar stabilization plus DAMP/cytokine modulation) and the clinical case (mortality signal, length-of-stay reduction) align in the same direction, even though the overall evidence base remains low-certainty.

Skin preparation and allograft decontamination

For surgical skin preparation in burn theatre, both PVP-I and chlorhexidine meet European antiseptic standards ^[26]. Chlorhexidine MICs are very low (<0.5 mg/L) compared with PVP-I (64-512 mg/L), and all chlorhexidine concentrations tested were superior to PVP-I with no bacterial growth ^[26]. PVP-I retains a role because of operator familiarity, established workflow, and adequate clinical efficacy at the doses and contact times used. Combined PVP-I and chlorhexidine prep protocols are reasonable when local infection-control policy permits.

Allograft decontamination uses chlorhexidine gluconate as the standard method ^[27]. PVP-I, chlorhexidine, and bacitracin all reduced both gram-positive and gram-negative contamination in tissue intended for skin grafting procedures, and antiseptic treatments did not impair the cellular viability of porcine skin under these conditions ^[34]. For dropped skin grafts intended for autologous transplant, decontamination with PVP-I, chlorhexidine, or bacitracin in normal saline or sterile water for 60 seconds reduced organism concentrations effectively, with PVP-I and chlorhexidine differing significantly from controls ^[34].

Complications

Mafenide acetate — pain, metabolic acidosis, and rare hypersensitivity

Pain on application is mafenide's most consistent complication. Mafenide cream pain is hypertonicity-driven (cream + 11.2% mafenide acetate together total 2,180 mOsm/kg) and is two to three times more painful than the 5% concentration ^[8]. The 5% concentration is much less painful than the 11.2% concentration ^[8]. The 2.5% solution provides equivalent clinical outcomes to the 5% solution at half the cost without aggravating the pain profile ^[1].

Carbonic anhydrase inhibition produces a hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis with compensatory hyperventilation. Patients switched from silver nitrate dressings to sulfamylon showed a 50% rise in minute ventilation, tidal volume, and ventilatory equivalent, with PO2 rise and base excess fall ^[9]. Some of the increased ventilation with Sulfamylon is due to carbonic anhydrase inhibition, with pain on application from the topical agent contributing additionally ^[9]. The clinical management: monitor arterial blood gases when large surface areas are treated with mafenide, especially in ventilated patients; consider transition to silver-based agents or to 2.5% solution if metabolic acidosis is significant.

Mafenide hypersensitivity (sulfa allergy) is rare but documented. Mafenide acetate is a sulfonamide and patients with documented sulfa hypersensitivity are at theoretical risk; cross-reactivity rates are not well characterized in burn cohorts. In the 2.5% versus 5% comparison cohort, no adverse events occurred in either group directly related to mafenide ^[1]. Overall mafenide tolerance in routine burn-unit use is acceptable when concentration and surface-area burden are managed thoughtfully.

Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine — methemoglobinemia and stinging on application

Methemoglobinemia is the signature systemic complication of cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine and is rare but oft-cited ^[14]. In a single-center review of 157 patients treated with cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine cream, methemoglobinemia occurred in 9.6% (15 patients), with 73.3% of those having maximum methemoglobin levels at 72 hours or later from the first application. Only one patient developed clinically significant methemoglobinemia. Patients with TBSA 20% or greater were more likely to develop methemoglobinemia (OR 9.32; 95% CI 2.08-65.73, P=0.0078); neither dose nor duration was a significant predictor. Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine can be used in asymptomatic patients with TBSA <20% without serial blood gas monitoring, but vigilant symptom-based monitoring is appropriate at TBSA ≥20%. Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine application to temporize burn wounds until excision and grafting is safe and effective; in asymptomatic patients with TBSA <20%, it can be used without serial blood gas monitoring ^[14].

Application stinging is common but manageable. In the De Gracia trial, a higher incidence of transient stinging pain was reported with application of SSD-CN, but this was effectively managed with analgesics where necessary ^[12]. The pain profile of cerium-containing creams is consistently reported as acceptable when premedication is offered.

Cerium nitrate cream can produce falsely raised whole blood chloride results when measured by ion-selective electrode, due to nitrate cross-reactivity with the chloride electrode ^[35]. Plasma chloride results measured by alternative methods remain accurate ^[35]; the implication is that clinicians should verify the analytic method when whole-blood chloride results from a Flammacerium-treated patient appear unexpectedly elevated.

Povidone-iodine — iodine absorption and toxicosis

Iodine systemic absorption rises linearly with TBSA treated. The iodine levels in serum were found to be in linear proportion to the area treated with an increase of 30 µg iodine per 100 mL of serum for 1% of TBSA, and maximal levels were reached within 24 hours of applying the Iodoplex ointment, decreasing quickly following discontinuation ^[23]. Concentrations of iodine were much lower with Iodoplex than with conventional povidone-iodine ointment, indicating that vehicle and formulation drive systemic-absorption signal ^[23].

Iodine toxicosis is rare but potentially fatal. A 65-year-old man with deep second- and third-degree burns covering 26% TBSA was treated topically with 10% povidone-iodine gel after wound infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa; persistent nodal bradycardia with hypotension, metabolic acidosis, and renal failure occurred 16 days after the start of PI gel treatment, with serum iodine level reaching 20,600 µg/dL (normal 2-9 µg/dL), and the patient died 44 days after admission ^[22]. To the authors' knowledge, only eight patients with iodine toxicosis had been reported in burn patients treated with PI gel at that time ^[22]. The clinical implication: monitor for thyroid dysfunction and metabolic derangements when povidone-iodine is used over large burn surface areas, and consider serum iodine measurement when symptoms suggest toxicosis.

Chlorhexidine — cytotoxicity and population-specific risk

Chlorhexidine cytotoxicity to fibroblasts and keratinocytes is dose-dependent and demonstrated in vitro. At therapeutic concentrations all the antiseptics (chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine, benzalkonium chloride formulations) are cytotoxic for fibroblasts and keratinocytes, with the CD50 100s to 1000s of times higher than the MIC ^[28]. Several in vitro studies have reported cytotoxicity on cultured cells, while in vivo and clinical data show more controversial results, and there is no clear consensus on the use of chlorhexidine regarding the concentrations, the type of excipient and the cleansing after application ^[25].

Population-specific risk is most pronounced in premature infants. Literature searches showed evidence that the skin of premature infants appears to be more sensitive to chlorhexidine than adult skin, with more reported cases of adverse effects ^[25]. Adjusted protocols favor aqueous formulations of chlorhexidine at lower concentrations with post-application cleansing to standardize indication and minimize the probability of adverse effects ^[25].

Chlorhexidine in alcohol-based formulations carries fire-related risk in surgical settings. Alcohol-based chlorhexidine is flammable and the combination of alcohol-based prep with electrocautery can ignite, producing a surgical burn injury. Standard surgical fire-safety protocols (drying time, draping technique, electrocautery delay) apply.

Cytotoxicity and systemic absorption — cross-cutting concerns

Cytotoxicity is the load-bearing cross-cutting concern across povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, and the antiseptic class. At therapeutic concentrations all the antiseptics tested in cultured human fibroblasts and keratinocytes are cytotoxic, and these data suggest that commonly applied antiseptics must not be used before grafting cultured skin grafts ^[28]. After grafting any infection can be controlled with topical applications of appropriate antibiotics ^[28]. The clinical implication: when cellular skin substitutes (CEA, ASCS) are planned, antiseptic exposure to the wound bed should be minimized in the lead-up to placement.

Topical antimicrobial agents have measurable effects on host immune function. Both silver sulfadiazine and mafenide acetate inhibit neutrophil respiratory burst activity and mitogen-stimulated lymphocyte proliferation in vitro at dilute concentrations (p<0.05), with each component of silver sulfadiazine (silver and sulfadiazine) inhibiting both neutrophil and lymphocyte functions, and mafenide acetate markedly decreasing intracellular Ca²⁺ flux in lymphocytes ^[29]. Commonly used topical antimicrobial agents may contribute to local immune dysfunction in the patient with burns, and because T lymphocytes participate in wound healing, prolonged treatment with topical antimicrobials may also affect aspects of wound healing ^[29]. The translation to clinical outcomes is incomplete, but the in vitro signal is consistent and contributes to the case for de-escalation of topical antimicrobial coverage once the wound is excised and grafted.

Special Considerations

Cartilaginous burns and chondritis

Mafenide acetate is the topical of choice for burns involving cartilage (ear, nose) for the prevention of suppurative chondritis ^[31]. In a rabbit auricular burn animal-model comparison of honey versus mafenide acetate, healing scores were similar but chondritis was significantly lower in the mafenide group ^[31]; the absence of contemporary clinical RCT data on auricular burn topical agent selection is an evidence gap, but mafenide remains the topical of choice for cartilaginous burns based on established cartilage-penetration and chondritis-prevention mechanism. Conservative management of deep auricular burns without mafenide carries substantial chondritis risk; mafenide deployment for these injuries is the standard.

Pediatric burns

Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine is applicable across pediatric burn populations and provides specific benefit to children with extensive burns who can benefit from a more conservative approach. In the 853-patient Flammacerium series, no deaths occurred in patients younger than 16 years (0/N pediatric subset out of 13 deaths overall) ^[13]. This observational mortality-distribution finding is consistent with — but does not by itself establish — pediatric tolerability of cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine; comparative pediatric trial data are lacking.

Pediatric chlorhexidine use requires concentration discipline. The skin of premature infants is more sensitive to chlorhexidine than adult skin ^[25]. Aqueous formulations at lower concentrations are recommended for pediatric and infant populations ^[25].

Pediatric mafenide use is unconstrained by age-specific contraindications, but the metabolic-acidosis risk applies as in adults — large surface-area mafenide application in pediatric patients warrants serial blood gas monitoring.

Resource-limited settings and mass-casualty contexts

Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine has been considered for development as a solid dressing for use in settings where once- or twice-daily cream dressing changes are least feasible (low-income, military, and mass casualty settings), in recognition of the eschar-stabilization benefit in conservative-management contexts ^[15].

Mafenide acetate solution and mafenide acetate cream have known efficacy as a burn dressing adjunct in austere settings. In a battlefield-expedient topical antimicrobial trial, 10% mafenide acetate cream was the positive control producing 100% survival in a 20% TBSA full-thickness scald rat model, with 5% mafenide acetate solution, 5% mafenide hydrochloride solution, and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate solution all showing lower survival than the cream ^[6]. None of the test agent groups demonstrated significant survival over untreated controls under the specific battlefield-expedient conditions tested ^[6]. The clinical implication: mafenide acetate cream remains the preferred mafenide formulation in austere settings; the solution forms have reduced efficacy under field conditions.

Donor sites

Povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine for donor-site care can be considered, though specific RCT data on burn-donor-site outcomes are limited. Iodoplex ointment use on donor sites produced lower iodine systemic absorption than conventional povidone-iodine, indicating that vehicle modification mitigates the systemic-absorption concern in this specific clinical context ^[23].

Outcomes

The most robustly demonstrated outcomes across non-silver topical antimicrobials center on cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine in moderate-to-severe burns. The 2017 Cochrane review found there may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus silver sulfadiazine compared with silver sulfadiazine alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I²=0%, 2 studies, 214 participants; low-certainty evidence) ^[30]. The De Gracia trial demonstrated faster re-epithelialization (by 8 days), earlier readiness for excision and grafting (by 11 days; p=0.03), and shorter hospital stay (23.3 versus 30.7 days; p=0.03) with SSD-CN versus SSD alone ^[12]. The Flammacerium 853-patient series reported overall mortality of 1.5%, with 30.4% in burns >40% TBSA and 6.3% in elderly patients, and no pediatric deaths ^[13].

Mafenide acetate outcomes data center on the operational benefits of eschar penetration and graft preservation in contaminated wounds. The 2.5% versus 5% mafenide acetate cohort comparison showed no difference in wound infection, bacteremia, sepsis, pneumonia, duration of treatment, and mortality, with mean cost of $1,494.92 (2.5%) versus $3,741.39 (5%) ^[1]. The mafenide-amphotericin B combination on excised and grafted wounds achieved 95% median graft take with no fungal infections ^[2]. Mafenide solution as adjunct in necrotizing fasciitis after grafting reduced debridements per patient (3.7 versus 5.4) and increased first-time-closure rate (83% versus 59%; P=0.039) ^[4].

Povidone-iodine outcomes are most favorable in vehicle-optimized formulations. Repithel (PVP-I in hydrosomes and hydrogel) reduced graft healing time from 12.4 to 9.4 days (p<0.0001) and reduced graft loss from 20 to 8 grafts (p=0.0063) ^[19]. Subeschar PVP-I clysis plus surface PVP-I + Neosporin allowed grafting within 20 days for 90% of patients with burns up to 50% TBSA ^[20]. In a 1,053 versus 1,089-patient comparison of PVP-I + Neosporin versus silver sulfadiazine in superficial burns, PVP-I + Neosporin produced fewer infections at days 7 and 18 (P<0.01 and P<0.001) and faster healing (P<0.001) although mortality did not differ between groups ^[21]; conventional cream and ointment PVP-I formulations remain constrained over open burn wounds by the cytotoxicity signal at therapeutic concentrations ^[28].

Chlorhexidine outcomes data are concentrated in skin antisepsis and donor-site decontamination roles rather than open-burn-wound regimens. Chlorhexidine gluconate decontamination of allograft skin reduced overall contamination from 13.7% to 5.6% of donor body areas, with the gram-positive bacterial contamination rate dropping from 12.1% to 2.2% ^[27]. The chlorhexidine + silver sulfadiazine combination shows additive antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and other organisms in burn-wound rat models ^[32][33].

The cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine mortality signal in moderate-to-severe burns is the most consistent positive mortality finding across non-silver topicals ^[30][12]; in unselected burn populations and on adequately-powered modern data, mortality differences between non-silver agents and silver-based regimens are small or unproven, and intermediate outcomes (healing time, infection rate, graft take, dressing-change burden) drive selection within the non-silver formulary.

Controversies and Evidence Gaps

Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine: clinical efficacy versus FDA approval status

Cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine cream is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and its efficacy in clinical trials has been challenging to demonstrate ^[15]. One reason is that cerium nitrate changes the eschar visibly, introducing unavoidable bias in unblinded trials, and the market and patient population is small with highly variable burn-wound presentation ^[15]. The 2017 Cochrane review's mortality signal (RR 0.22) is based on only 2 studies and 214 participants and is rated low-certainty ^[30]. The recommended trial design most suited to comparing silver-containing dressings with and without cerium is paired difference of matched intrapatient wounds ^[15]. The question — is cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine reliably superior to silver sulfadiazine alone in unselected burn populations — is not yet resolved at the highest evidence tier, and the answer depends as much on the patient subset as on the agent comparison.

Mafenide acetate concentration and formulation tradeoffs

The shift from 5% to 2.5% mafenide acetate solution as a cost-driven policy change has produced equivalent clinical outcomes in retrospective comparison ^[1], but no large prospective RCT has tested the equivalence directly. Hydrofiber-saturated mafenide acetate dressings extend antimicrobial activity to 72 hours in vitro ^[11], but clinical-outcome data on extended-dwell mafenide hydrofiber dressings remain limited. Electrospun mafenide acetate dressings sustaining therapeutic concentrations for ≥24 hours are in development but not yet in routine use ^[10]. The optimal mafenide concentration, vehicle, and dosing schedule are not yet defined by contemporary RCT data.

Povidone-iodine for routine burn-wound care versus skin preparation

PVP-I is universally accepted as a skin-preparation antiseptic in burn surgery and broadly accepted for allograft decontamination ^[26][27]. PVP-I as a primary topical antimicrobial regimen for open burn wounds is less well supported, with the cytotoxicity signal at therapeutic concentrations ^[28] and the systemic-absorption signal with potential for iodine toxicosis ^[22][23] both arguing against routine use over large surface areas. Vehicle modifications (hydrosomes, hydrogel) substantially mitigate both concerns and produce favorable graft-healing data ^[19], suggesting that the agent itself is not the problem so much as the conventional cream and ointment formulations. PVP-I retains a defensible role in resource-limited settings and in specific protocols (subeschar clysis), but routine use over open burn wounds in well-resourced burn centers is constrained by the cytotoxicity and systemic-absorption tradeoff.

Chlorhexidine and the cytotoxicity-versus-antimicrobial-benefit tradeoff

Chlorhexidine shows broad-spectrum bactericidal activity in vitro and reduces microbial colonization in burn wound prophylaxis when added to silver sulfadiazine ^[26]. The cytotoxicity signal is consistent across multiple in vitro studies of cultured fibroblasts and keratinocytes ^[25][28]. There is no clear consensus on the use of chlorhexidine regarding concentrations, type of excipient, and cleansing after application ^[25]. Lower concentrations, aqueous formulations, and post-application cleansing are the contemporary defensible-use defaults ^[25]. Whether chlorhexidine adds clinically meaningful benefit to silver sulfadiazine on open burn wounds beyond the additive Staphylococcus aureus activity is not fully resolved; whether the in vitro cytotoxicity signal translates into impaired clinical wound healing has not been definitively answered. The conservative position is to reserve chlorhexidine in burn care for skin antisepsis, allograft decontamination, and 0.2% adjunctive use in silver-sulfadiazine combinations rather than as a primary topical regimen.

Comparative effectiveness against non-silver alternatives

Honey has been compared with topical antibiotics in pooled meta-analytic data (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52) and with non-antibacterial treatments (mean healing-time difference -5.3 days) ^[30], but head-to-head comparisons among the non-silver topical antimicrobials remain limited. The honey-versus-silver-sulfadiazine signal favoring honey does not directly inform the choice between non-silver agents within the burn-care formulary. The evidence base is sufficient for tactical agent selection within established indications but insufficient for confident ranking of non-silver alternatives in unselected burn populations.

MDRO surveillance and the future of non-silver topicals

MDROs are more resistant to topicals than non-MDROs (88% non-MDRO sensitivity versus 80% MDRO sensitivity; P<.05), and even for susceptible isolates, zones of inhibition are smaller for MDROs (P<.002) ^[3]. Some treatment assumptions based historically on the efficacy of topical antimicrobial agents against non-MDROs need to be re-evaluated for MDROs ^[3]. Whether emerging MDRO patterns will undermine the eschar-penetration case for mafenide and the eschar-stabilization case for cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine over the next decade is an open question that surveillance data and contemporary RCTs have not yet resolved.

References

[1] Afshari A, Nguyen L, Kahn SA, Summitt B. "2.5% Mafenide Acetate: A Cost-Effective Alternative to the 5% Solution for Burn Wounds." J Burn Care Res 2017. PMID: 27606553 [2] Pendleton RA, Holmes JH 4th. "Systemic absorption of amphotericin B with topical 5% mafenide acetate/amphotericin B solution for grafted burn wounds: is it clinically relevant?." Burns 2010. PMID: 19481350 [3] Neely AN, Gardner J, Durkee P, Warden GD, Greenhalgh DG, Gallagher JJ, Herndon DN, Tompkins RG, Kagan RJ. "Are topical antimicrobials effective against bacteria that are highly resistant to systemic antibiotics?." J Burn Care Res 2009. PMID: 19060725 [4] Heinle EC, Dougherty WR, Garner WL, Reilly DA. "The use of 5% mafenide acetate solution in the postgraft treatment of necrotizing fasciitis." J Burn Care Rehabil 2001. PMID: 11227682 [5] Oen IMMH, van Baar ME, Middelkoop E, Nieuwenhuis MK. "Effectiveness of cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine in the treatment of facial burns: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial." Plast Reconstr Surg 2012. PMID: 22842424 [6] Kauvar DS, Acheson E, Reeder J, Roll K, Baer DG. "Comparison of battlefield-expedient topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of burn wound sepsis in a rat model." J Burn Care Rehabil 2005. PMID: 16006845 [7] Maggi SP, Soler PM, Smith PD, Hill DP, Ko F, Robson MC. "The efficacy of 5% Sulfamylon solution for the treatment of contaminated explanted human meshed skin grafts." Burns 1999. PMID: 10323608 [8] Harrison HN, Shuck JM, Caldwell E. "Studies of the pain produced by mafenide acetate preparations in burns." Arch Surg 1975. PMID: 981 [9] Petroff PA, Hander EW, Mason AD Jr. "Ventilatory patterns following burn injury and effect of sulfamylon." J Trauma 1975. PMID: 1152087 [10] Kiamco MM, Sebastian EA, Karna SLR, Fourcaudot AB, Chen P, Silliman DT, Wolf JR, Abercrombie JJ, Leung KP. "Control of invasive Pseudomonas burn wound infection with mafenide acetate electrospun wound dressing." Burns 2025. PMID: 40939300 [11] Kahn SA, Afshari A, Nguyen L, Shinha T, Huff T, Montgomery AC, Stratton C, Summitt B. "Hydrofiber Dressing Saturated With Mafenide Acetate Extends the Duration of Antimicrobial Activity." J Burn Care Res 2017. PMID: 27775984 [12] de Gracia CG. "An open study comparing topical silver sulfadiazine and topical silver sulfadiazine-cerium nitrate in the treatment of moderate and severe burns." Burns 2001. PMID: 11164668 [13] Scholten-Jaegers SM, Nieuwenhuis MK, van Baar ME, Niemeijer AS, Hiddingh J, Beerthuizen GI, Dutch Burn Repository group, Martini Hospital. "Epidemiology and Outcome of Patients With Burns Treated With Cerium Nitrate Silversulfadiazine." J Burn Care Res 2017. PMID: 27685809 [14] Reese AD, Keyloun JW, Garg G, McLawhorn MM, Moffatt LT, Travis TE, Johnson LS, Shupp JW. "Compounded Cerium Nitrate-Silver Sulfadiazine Cream is Safe and Effective for the Treatment of Burn Wounds: A Burn Center's 4-Year Experience." J Burn Care Res 2022. PMID: 34543402 [15] Deldar R, D'Arpa P, Moffatt L, Leung K, Shupp J. "Cerium Nitrate Treatment in the Management of Burns." Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2022. PMID: 34015965 [16] Qian LW, Evani SJ, Chen P, Brandenburg KS, Weaver AJ, Fourcaudot AB, Abercrombie JJ, Sebastian EA, Leung KP. "Cerium Nitrate Treatment Provides Eschar Stabilization through Reduction in Bioburden, DAMPs, and Inflammatory Cytokines in a Rat Scald Burn Model." J Burn Care Res 2020. PMID: 31808807 [17] Deveci M, Eski M, Sengezer M, Kisa U. "Effects of cerium nitrate bathing and prompt burn wound excision on IL-6 and TNF-alpha levels in burned rats." Burns 2000. PMID: 10630318 [18] Boeckx W, Blondeel PN, Vandersteen K, De Wolf-Peeters C, Schmitz A. "Effect of cerium nitrate-silver sulphadiazine on deep dermal burns: a histological hypothesis." Burns 1992. PMID: 1489494 [19] Vogt PM, Reimer K, Hauser J, Rossbach O, Steinau HU, Bosse B, Muller S, Schmidt T, Fleischer W. "PVP-iodine in hydrosomes and hydrogel--a novel concept in wound therapy leads to enhanced epithelialization and reduced loss of skin grafts." Burns 2006. PMID: 16837138 [20] Sinha R, Sharma N, Agarwal RK. "Subeschar clysis in deep burns." Burns 2003. PMID: 14636765 [21] Sinha R, Agarwal RK, Agarwal M. "Povidone iodine plus neosporin in superficial burns--a continuing study." Burns 1997. PMID: 9568337 [22] Aiba M, Ninomiya J, Furuya K, Arai H, Ishikawa H, Asaumi S, Takagi A, Ohwada S, Morishita Y. "Induction of a critical elevation of povidone-iodine absorption in the treatment of a burn patient: report of a case." Surg Today 1999. PMID: 10030741 [23] Notea E, Hirshowitz B. "Comparison of blood serum iodine levels with use of Iodoplex and povidone iodine ointment." J Trauma 1985. PMID: 3838560 [24] De Wet PM, Rode H, Cywes S. "Bactericidal efficacy of 5 per cent povidone iodine cream in Pseudomonas aeruginosa burn wound infection." Burns 1990. PMID: 2124125 [25] Abdel-Sayed P, Tornay D, Hirt-Burri N, de Buys Roessingh A, Raffoul W, Applegate LA. "Implications of chlorhexidine use in burn units for wound healing." Burns 2020. PMID: 31911075 [26] Smock E, Demertzi E, Abdolrasouli A, Azadian B, Williams G. "Antiseptic Efficacy of Povidone Iodine and Chlorhexidine Gluconate Skin Preparation Solutions Used in Burns Surgery." J Burn Care Res 2018. PMID: 29897541 [27] May SR, Roberts DP, DeClement FA, Still JM Jr. "Reduced bacteria on transplantable allograft skin after preparation with chlorhexidine gluconate, povidone-iodine, and isopropanol." J Burn Care Rehabil 1991. PMID: 1885638 [28] Damour O, Hua SZ, Lasne F, Villain M, Rousselle P, Collombel C. "Cytotoxicity evaluation of antiseptics and antibiotics on cultured human fibroblasts and keratinocytes." Burns 1992. PMID: 1489497 [29] Zapata-Sirvent RL, Hansbrough JF. "Cytotoxicity to human leukocytes by topical antimicrobial agents used for burn care." J Burn Care Rehabil 1993. PMID: 8501099 [30] Norman G, Christie J, Liu Z, Westby MJ, Jefferies JM, Hudson T, Edwards J, Mohapatra DP, Hassan IA, Dumville JC. "Antiseptics for burns." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017. PMID: 28700086 [31] Hashemi B, Bayat A, Kazemei T, Azarpira N. "Comparison between topical honey and mafenide acetate in treatment of auricular burn." Am J Otolaryngol 2011. PMID: 20015812 [32] Gray JH, Henry DA, Forbes M, Germann E, Roberts FJ, Snelling CF. "Comparison of silver sulphadiazine 1 per cent, silver sulphadiazine 1 per cent plus chlorhexidine digluconate 0.2 per cent and mafenide acetate 8.5 per cent for topical antibacterial effect in infected full skin thickness rat burn wounds." Burns 1991. PMID: 2031672 [33] Snelling CF, Roberts FJ. "Comparison of 1% silver sulfadiazine with and without 1% chlorhexidine digluconate for topical antibacterial effect in the burnt infected rat." J Burn Care Rehabil 1988. PMID: 3128553 [34] Mann-Salinas EA, Joyner DD, Guymon CH, Ward CL, Rathbone CR, Jones JA, Akers KS. "Comparison of Decontamination Methods for Human Skin Grafts." J Burn Care Res 2015. PMID: 25383978 [35] Ha LY, Woollard GA, Chiu WW. "Falsely raised whole blood chloride caused by systemic absorption of cerium nitrate cream for burns." Ann Clin Biochem 2015. PMID: 25261566