Burns

#### BURNS

Mil Med. 2019 Mar 1;184(Suppl 1):11-15

# Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Is More Effective in Massive Burns: Results of the TRIBE Multicenter Prospective Randomized Trial.

Palmieri T, Holmes J, Arnoldo B, Peck M, Cochran A, King B, Dominic W, Cartotto R, Bhavsar D, Tredget E, Stapelberg F, Mozingo D, Friedman B, Sen S, Taylor S, Pollock B

OBJECTIVES: Studies suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in burns, yet the efficacy of a restrictive transfusion policy in massive burn injury is uncertain. Our objective: compare outcomes between massive burn (≥60% total body surface area (TBSA) burn) and major (20-59% TBSA) burn using a restrictive or a liberal blood transfusion strategy.

METHODS: Patients with burns ≥20% were block randomized by age and TBSA to a restrictive (transfuse hemoglobin <7 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse hemoglobin <10 g/dL) strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.

RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-five patients received 7,054 units blood, 2,886 in massive and 4,168 in restrictive. Patients were similar in age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. The restrictive group received less blood (45.57 ± 47.63 vs. 77.16 ± 55.0, p < 0.03 massive; 11.0 ± 16.70 vs. 16.78 ± 17.39, p < 0.001) major). In massive burn, the restrictive group had fewer ventilator days (p < 0.05). Median ICU days and LOS were lower in the restrictive group; wound healing, mortality, and infection did not differ. No significant outcome differences occurred in the major (20-59%) group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: A restrictive transfusion strategy may be beneficial in massive burns in reducing ventilator days, ICU days and blood utilization, but does not decrease infection, mortality, hospital LOS or wound healing.

J Spec Oper Med. 2019 Fall;19(3):76-81.

# Operational Advantages of Enteral Resuscitation Following Burn Injury in Resource-Poor Environments: Palatability of Commercially Available Solutions.

Burmeister D, Little J, Gomez B, Gurney J, Chao T, Cancio L, Kramer G, Dubick M

BACKGROUND: In recent combat operations, 5% to 15% of casualties sustained thermal injuries, which require resource-intensive therapies. During prolonged field care or when caring for patients in a multidomain battlefield, delayed transport will complicate the challenges that already exist in the burn population. A lack of resources and/or vascular access in the future operating environment may benefit from alternative resuscitation strategies. The objectives of the current report are 1) to briefly review actual and potential advantages/caveats of resuscitation with enteral fluids and 2) to present new data on palatability of oral rehydration solutions.

METHODS: A review of the literature and published guidelines are reported. In addition, enlisted US military active duty Servicemembers (N = 40) were asked to taste/rank five different oral rehydration solutions on several parameters.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There are several operational advantages of using enteral fluids including ease of administration, no specialized equipment needed, and the use of lightweight sachets that are easily reconstituted/ administered. Limited clinical data along with slightly more extensive preclinical studies have prompted published guidelines for austere conditions to indicate consideration of enteral resuscitation for burns. Gatorade® and Drip-Drop® were the overall preferred rehydration solutions based on palatability, with the latter potentially more appropriate for resuscitation. Taken together, enteral resuscitation may confer several advantages over intravenous fluids for burn resuscitation under resource-poor scenarios. Future research needs to identify what solutions and volumes are optimal for use in thermally injured casualties.

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 Nov;87(5):1239-1243

Western Trauma Association critical decisions in trauma: Preferred triage and initial management of the burned patient.

Vercruysse G, Alam H, Martin M, Brasel K, Moore E, Brown C, Bettencourt A, Schulz J, Palmieri T, Haith L, Inaba K.

This is a recommended management algorithm from the Western Trauma Association addressing the management of victims of burn injury. Because there is a paucity of published prospective randomized clinical trials that have generated Class I data, these recommendations are based primarily on published retrospective studies, clinical guidelines, and the expert opinion of members of the Western Trauma Association in conjunction with partner members of the American Burn Association. The algorithm and accompanying comments represent one safe and sensible approach that can be followed at most trauma centers. We recognize that there may be patient or institutional factors that warrant deviation from the published algorithm. We would encourage institutions to use this document as a starting point toward a dialog with local burn centers to collaboratively create a patient-centered care experience for the victims of minor burn injuries arriving at local trauma centers.

Burns. 2019 Aug 1. pii: S0305-4179(19)30194-9

# Early hypothermia as risk factor in severely burned patients: A retrospective outcome study.

Ziegler B, Kenngott T, Fischer S, Hundeshagen G, Hartmann B, Horter J, Münzberg M, Kneser U, Hirche C

INTRODUCTION: Burn trauma-related hypothermia is a frequent observation but risk factors and impact on patient related outcome are ambiguously reported. It is expected that hypothermia is associated with increased mortality and reduced overall outcome in severely burned patients, but available evidence is limited.

METHODS: This retrospective single-center-study reviewed preclinical service protocols and medical records of patients sustaining a burn with a total body surface area (TBSA) ≥15% from 2008 to 2012. General patient and burn specific characteristics, outcome parameters as well as body temperature at admission measured via urine catheter or nasal temperature probe were recorded and statistically analyzed comparing normothermic (≥36 °C), mild hypothermic (<36 °C) and severely hypothermic (<34.5 °C) patients. Chi-square test was performed to demonstrate impact of hypothermia on primary outcome parameters and to reveal risk factors for developing hypothermia. To assess independent influences on mortality, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS: Out of 300 patients matching inclusion criteria, a sufficient record of temperature was found in 144 patients (48%). Out of 141 eligible patients with an average burn extent (SD) of 33.38% (24.5%) TBSA, 31.9% (n = 45) suffered from severe hypothermia (<34.5 °C) and 28.4% (n = 40) showed mild hypothermia. Total burn extent, presence of full thickness burns, presence of inhalation injury, preclinical mechanical ventilation and administration of sedative drugs were risk factors for developing hypothermia. Patients' age, total burn extent and presence of full thickness burns could be identified as independent factor for mortality. Although a trend towards an independent positive influence of normothermia at admission on mortality was seen, it was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION: Incidental hypothermia of burned patients is associated with an increased mortality and needs to be addressed by emergency health care providers and immediately at the burn center. Especially patients with extensive burns, full-thickness burns, inhalation injury or patients undergoing preclinical intubation are at risk for hypothermia and benefit from any measures for temperature preserving.