Characterisation of Fluid Administration in Burn Shock-A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

IF 1 Q4 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Marianne Kruse, Ida Katinka Lenz, David Josuttis, Philip Plettig, Klaus Hahnenkamp, Denis Gümbel, Claas Güthoff, Bernd Hartmann, Martin Aman, Marc Dominik Schmittner, Volker Gebhardt
{"title":"Characterisation of Fluid Administration in Burn Shock-A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.","authors":"Marianne Kruse, Ida Katinka Lenz, David Josuttis, Philip Plettig, Klaus Hahnenkamp, Denis Gümbel, Claas Güthoff, Bernd Hartmann, Martin Aman, Marc Dominik Schmittner, Volker Gebhardt","doi":"10.3390/ebj6020035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Finding the optimal amount of fluid is a major challenge in burn shock. Although there is evidence that a restrictive fluid regime is beneficial, current practice shows fluid resuscitation still well above recommendations. The extent of trauma, pre-hospital care and the patient's pre-existing conditions influence requirements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed outcomes and influencing factors of fluid regimes in a retrospective cohort study including 90 severely burnt patients resuscitated with the same protocol.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean amount of fluids in the first 24 h was 6.5 mL/kg bodyweight (BW)/% total burn surface area (TBSA). A total of 14% received restrictive (<4), 34% received liberal (4-6) and 51% received excessive (>6) mL/kgBW/%TBSA fluids. There was no difference regarding mortality, age, complications, organ failure, inhalation injury or full-thickness burns in the groups. Patients with excessive fluid therapy had a significantly lower ABSI score (9 vs. 11, <i>p</i> = 0.05) and TBSA (35 vs. 51%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), while patients with a restrictive fluid therapy needed fewer incidences of surgery to cover burn wounds (3.5 vs. 9.0 vs. 7.0, <i>p</i> = 0.008). History of liver disease or alcohol abuse tended to indicate excessive fluid administration. Patients with pre-existing heart failure received restrictive fluid therapy (23 vs. 3 vs. 4%, <i>p</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individualised, timely therapy monitoring is as essential as identifying patients with a higher or lower fluid requirement. Excessive fluid resuscitation had fewer deleterious consequences in complications than expected but seems to influence wound healing. Awareness of circumstances that prompt deviations from recommended fluid rates remains elementary.</p>","PeriodicalId":72961,"journal":{"name":"European burn journal","volume":"6 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12191774/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European burn journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj6020035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Finding the optimal amount of fluid is a major challenge in burn shock. Although there is evidence that a restrictive fluid regime is beneficial, current practice shows fluid resuscitation still well above recommendations. The extent of trauma, pre-hospital care and the patient's pre-existing conditions influence requirements.

Methods: We analysed outcomes and influencing factors of fluid regimes in a retrospective cohort study including 90 severely burnt patients resuscitated with the same protocol.

Results: The mean amount of fluids in the first 24 h was 6.5 mL/kg bodyweight (BW)/% total burn surface area (TBSA). A total of 14% received restrictive (<4), 34% received liberal (4-6) and 51% received excessive (>6) mL/kgBW/%TBSA fluids. There was no difference regarding mortality, age, complications, organ failure, inhalation injury or full-thickness burns in the groups. Patients with excessive fluid therapy had a significantly lower ABSI score (9 vs. 11, p = 0.05) and TBSA (35 vs. 51%, p < 0.001), while patients with a restrictive fluid therapy needed fewer incidences of surgery to cover burn wounds (3.5 vs. 9.0 vs. 7.0, p = 0.008). History of liver disease or alcohol abuse tended to indicate excessive fluid administration. Patients with pre-existing heart failure received restrictive fluid therapy (23 vs. 3 vs. 4%, p = 0.03).

Conclusions: Individualised, timely therapy monitoring is as essential as identifying patients with a higher or lower fluid requirement. Excessive fluid resuscitation had fewer deleterious consequences in complications than expected but seems to influence wound healing. Awareness of circumstances that prompt deviations from recommended fluid rates remains elementary.

烧伤休克中液体给药的特征——回顾性队列分析。
背景:寻找最佳的液体量是烧伤休克的主要挑战。尽管有证据表明限制性液体疗法是有益的,但目前的实践表明液体复苏仍远高于建议。创伤程度、院前护理和患者已有的疾病影响需求。方法:我们分析了一项回顾性队列研究的结果和影响因素,该研究包括90例使用相同方案复苏的严重烧伤患者。结果:大鼠前24 h平均液体量为6.5 mL/kg体重(BW)/%总烧伤表面积(TBSA)。14%的患者接受限制性(6 mL/kgBW/%TBSA)液体治疗。两组在死亡率、年龄、并发症、器官衰竭、吸入性损伤或全层烧伤方面无差异。过度液体治疗患者的ABSI评分(9比11,p = 0.05)和TBSA(35比51%,p < 0.001)显著降低,而限制性液体治疗患者需要更少的手术发生率来覆盖烧伤创面(3.5比9.0比7.0,p = 0.008)。肝脏疾病史或酒精滥用倾向于过量的液体管理。既往心力衰竭患者接受限制性液体治疗(23% vs. 3% vs. 4%, p = 0.03)。结论:个体化、及时的治疗监测与确定患者需水量较高或较低同样重要。过度液体复苏在并发症中的有害后果比预期的少,但似乎影响伤口愈合。对可能导致偏离建议流体速率的情况的认识仍然很初级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信