Minority pediatric burn survivors undergo more burn operations: A single center's five-year experience.

Burn injuries remain a significant source of trauma in the United States and disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities. Although disparities are well documented in adults, less is known regarding those in pediatric populations. To address this gap in literature, we aim to better characterize burn injuries, inpatient treatments, and post-discharge outcomes in minority pediatric burn patients. We hypothesize minority patients undergo more surgery and re-admissions than non-minority patients for burn care. This is a single institution retrospective chart review of pediatric patient admissions with burn injuries from July 1st, 2016 to July 1st, 2021. Demographics, details of injury, inpatient surgical and non-surgical care, and post-discharge outcomes were collected. Patients identifying as Hispanic/Latino, Black, and Asian were coded as minority patients. Univariate analysis was utilized. A total of 332 patients with average age of 4.9 years (SD: 4.4) and average total burn surface area (TBSA) of 8.5% (SD: 10.0) were collected. Minority patients were significantly more likely to experience accidental burn injury (p < 0.01), inhalational injury (p < 0.01), surgical management (p < 0.01), and to undergo skin graft (p < 0.01) than White patients. Minority patients were significantly more likely to undergo laser treatment after discharge (p < 0.01) than White patients. Our study shows minority pediatric patients are at risk for non-intentional burn injuries that undergo surgical management such as skin grafting and longitudinal reconstructive procedures including laser therapy more often. Short-term goals should include facilitating improved physical and psychosocial outcomes in this often-underserved patient population.

Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis in Burn Patients: A Literature Review and Single-Institution Experience.

Hospitalized burn patients meet the criteria for Virchow's triad (endothelial damage, hypercoagulability, and stasis), predisposing them to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although the disease burden of VTE suggests a need for prevention in this population, unreliable reported VTE rates, costly and complicated prophylaxis regimens, and chemoprophylaxis risks have prevented the establishment of a universal protocol. This paper reviews thromboprophylaxis practices both in the literature and at our own institution. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines identifying studies pertaining to VTE chemoprophylaxis in burn patients. Additionally, medical records of patients admitted to an American Burn Association-verified burn center between June 2015 and June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, chemoprophylaxis, and presence of VTE defined as either deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Thirty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. In the 12 studies that reported VTE incidence, rates ranged widely from 0.25% to 47.1%. The two largest retrospective studies (n = 33,637 and 36,638) reported a VTE incidence of 0.61% and 0.8% in populations with unknown or inconsistently recorded chemoprophylaxis. Throughout the literature, prevention protocols were mixed, though a trend toward using dose-adjusted subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin based on serum anti-factor Xa level was noted. At our burn center, 1,068 patients met study criteria. At-risk patients received a simple chemoprophylaxis regimen of 5000U of subcutaneous unfractionated heparin every 8 hours. No routine monitoring tests were performed to limit cost. Nine cases of DVT and two cases of PE were identified with an incidence of 0.84% and 0.19%, respectively, and a total VTE incidence of 1.03%. Only one patient developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). No cases of other heparin-associated complications were observed. VTE incidence rates reported in the literature are wide-ranging and poorly capture the effect of any one chemoprophylaxis regimen in the burn population. Our center uses a single, safe, and cost-effective protocol effecting a low VTE rate comparable to that of large national retrospective studies.