{"title":"使用血管内加温导管的重度烧伤患者的静脉血栓栓塞:回顾性队列研究","authors":"Isabella Reid, Hadley Bortz, Aidan Burrell, Dashiell Gantner, Samara Rosenblum, Heather Cleland","doi":"10.3390/ebj4010008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background:</i> Use of intravascular warming catheters following major burns has been shown to be effective to maintain normothermia, but their use may be associated with complications. The aim of this study was to determine what proportion of patients with an intravascular warming catheter developed a potentially catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) and to identify contributing risk factors. <i>Methods:</i> This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the Victorian Adult Burns Service January 2013 to July 2018 with major burns (TBSA > 20%) who had an ICY<sup>TM</sup> intravascular warming catheter. Warming catheter insertion and other details were identified with a manual search of the patients' medical records by a single author while incidence of VTE was determined by the coding department from a central database. <i>Results:</i> Forty patients had an intravascular warming catheter inserted during the study period. The number of patients in the catheter group that sustained a VTE was eight (20%), of which four (10%) could have been catheter-related due to the anatomical location. In the cases of the four potentially catheter-related VTE, other preventable VTE risk factors including suboptimal prophylactic anticoagulation (<i>n</i> = 2), prolonged catheter duration (<i>n</i> = 1) and prolonged haemoconcentration (<i>n</i> = 2) were identified. <i>Conclusions:</i> We found 20% of major burns patients with an intravascular warming device had significant VTE; however, only half of these may have been related to the catheter. A careful assessment for each patient that balances risks and benefits should be undertaken prior to using intravascular warming devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":72961,"journal":{"name":"European burn journal","volume":"68 1","pages":"80-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Venous Thromboembolism in Severe Burns Patients with Intravascular Warming Catheter: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Isabella Reid, Hadley Bortz, Aidan Burrell, Dashiell Gantner, Samara Rosenblum, Heather Cleland\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/ebj4010008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Background:</i> Use of intravascular warming catheters following major burns has been shown to be effective to maintain normothermia, but their use may be associated with complications. The aim of this study was to determine what proportion of patients with an intravascular warming catheter developed a potentially catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) and to identify contributing risk factors. <i>Methods:</i> This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the Victorian Adult Burns Service January 2013 to July 2018 with major burns (TBSA > 20%) who had an ICY<sup>TM</sup> intravascular warming catheter. Warming catheter insertion and other details were identified with a manual search of the patients' medical records by a single author while incidence of VTE was determined by the coding department from a central database. <i>Results:</i> Forty patients had an intravascular warming catheter inserted during the study period. The number of patients in the catheter group that sustained a VTE was eight (20%), of which four (10%) could have been catheter-related due to the anatomical location. In the cases of the four potentially catheter-related VTE, other preventable VTE risk factors including suboptimal prophylactic anticoagulation (<i>n</i> = 2), prolonged catheter duration (<i>n</i> = 1) and prolonged haemoconcentration (<i>n</i> = 2) were identified. <i>Conclusions:</i> We found 20% of major burns patients with an intravascular warming device had significant VTE; however, only half of these may have been related to the catheter. A careful assessment for each patient that balances risks and benefits should be undertaken prior to using intravascular warming devices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European burn journal\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"80-86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571855/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European burn journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj4010008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European burn journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj4010008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Venous Thromboembolism in Severe Burns Patients with Intravascular Warming Catheter: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Background: Use of intravascular warming catheters following major burns has been shown to be effective to maintain normothermia, but their use may be associated with complications. The aim of this study was to determine what proportion of patients with an intravascular warming catheter developed a potentially catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) and to identify contributing risk factors. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the Victorian Adult Burns Service January 2013 to July 2018 with major burns (TBSA > 20%) who had an ICYTM intravascular warming catheter. Warming catheter insertion and other details were identified with a manual search of the patients' medical records by a single author while incidence of VTE was determined by the coding department from a central database. Results: Forty patients had an intravascular warming catheter inserted during the study period. The number of patients in the catheter group that sustained a VTE was eight (20%), of which four (10%) could have been catheter-related due to the anatomical location. In the cases of the four potentially catheter-related VTE, other preventable VTE risk factors including suboptimal prophylactic anticoagulation (n = 2), prolonged catheter duration (n = 1) and prolonged haemoconcentration (n = 2) were identified. Conclusions: We found 20% of major burns patients with an intravascular warming device had significant VTE; however, only half of these may have been related to the catheter. A careful assessment for each patient that balances risks and benefits should be undertaken prior to using intravascular warming devices.