Randomized placebo-controlled trial of teicoplanin in the antibiotic prophylaxis of infection following manipulation of burn wounds

• Published in: British journal of surgery 1997-06, Vol.84 (6), p.848-853
• Main Authors: Steer, J. A., Papini, R. P. G., Wilson, A. P. R., McGrouther, D. A., Nakhla, L. S., Parkhouse, N.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents - adverse effects; Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use; Antibacterial agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - adverse effects; Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents; Bacteremia - prevention & control; Bacterial Infections - prevention & control; Biological and medical sciences; Burns - microbiology; Burns - surgery; Double-Blind Method; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Female; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Teicoplanin - adverse effects; Teicoplanin - therapeutic use
• ISSN: 0007-1323; 1365-2168
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1997.02690.x

Background Burn wound surgery or change of dressings commonly causes bacteraemia. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis has not been tested adequately in a controlled trial. Methods A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled study was performed to determine the effect on Gram‐positive bacteraemia and clinical outcome of a single dose of teicoplanin (12 mg/kg intravenously) given at burns surgery or change of dressings. Results A total of 134 patients were entered into the study, representing 220 episodes of dressing or debridement (110 episodes in each group). There was a significant difference between the groups with respect to perioperative Gram‐positive bacteraemia: eight episodes (7 per cent) in the teicoplanin group versus 51 (46 per cent) in the placebo group (P 0.001). However, good clinical outcome was similar in both groups (80 of 110 versus 77 of 110 respectively, P = 0.7). Only eleven patients had bacteraemia caused by Gram‐negative species alone. Bacteriological response in terms of wound culture showed no significant difference between the groups: 63 (57 per cent) of 110 episodes versus 58 (53 per cent) of 110 respectively respectively. Conclusion Prevention of Gram‐positive bacteraemia did not affect postoperative recovery.