Skip to main content
. 2010 Feb 15;340:c241. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c241

Table 2.

 Study characteristics of trials examining systemic prophylactic antibiotics for burns patients in perioperative settings. Figures are means (SD or SE) or median (range) unless stated otherwise

Study and intervention details Intervention duration (days) No of patients randomised Age (years) TBSA (%) Third degree burns (%) Inhalation injury (%)
Alexander 198251
Systemic intravenous cephalothin 1 127 10.5 (0.4) NS NS NS
Placebo 122 10.8 (0.4)
Alexander 198450
Systemic antibiotics tailored to wound cultures 1 35 NS 45.7% >30% NS NS
No treatment 34 38.2% >30%
Munster 198959
Systemic intravenous polymyxin B* 5 6 47.7 54.8 NS NS
No treatment 11 40.6 38.4
Piel 198560
Systemic intravenous cephalosporin 1 25 33.6 42.6 NS NS
Placebo 26 39.2 37
Ramos 200861
Systemic intravenous cephalothin or antibiotics tailored to surveillance cultures 2 46 39 (21.7) 21.6 (21) NS NS
No treatment 44 35 (22) 27.7 (22.3)
Rodgers 199762
Systemic intravenous cefazolin 1 10 1.5 10 NS NS
Placebo 10 1.9 11
Steer 199763
Systemic intravenous teicoplanin 1 67 (110 episodes) 38 (23-54) 8.5 (4-18) 44 NS
Placebo 67 (110 episodes) 42.5 (26-56) 8.0 (4-16) 45

TBSA=total body surface area; NS=not stated; MRSA=meticillin resistant S aureus.

*Two sequential parts randomising patients to general systemic prophylaxis (first part) and perioperative systemic prophylaxis (second part), kept separate in our analyses.

†Trial included patients before surgery (46% of episodes) or change of dressing.