Electronic Cigarette-Related Injuries Presenting to Five Large Burn Centers, 2015-2019.

Electronic cigarettes are advertised as safer alternatives to traditional cigarettes yet cause serious injury. U.S. burn centers have witnessed a rise in both inpatient and outpatient visits to treat thermal injuries related to their use. A multicenter retrospective chart review of American Burn Association burn registry data from five large burn centers was performed from January 2015 to July 2019 to identify patients with electronic cigarette-related injuries. A total of 127 patients were identified. Most sustained less than 10% total body surface area burns (mean 3.8%). Sixty-six percent sustained second-degree burns. Most patients (78%) were injured while using their device. Eighteen percent of patients reported spontaneous device combustion. Two patients were injured while changing their device battery, and two were injured modifying their device. Three percent were injured by secondhand mechanism. Burn injury was the most common injury pattern (100%), followed by blast injury (3.93%). Flame burns were the most common (70%) type of thermal injury; however, most patients sustained a combination-type injury secondary to multiple burn mechanisms. The most injured body region was the extremities. Silver sulfadiazine was the most common agent used in the initial management of thermal injuries. Sixty-three percent of patients did not require surgery. Of the 36% requiring surgery, 43.4% required skin grafting. Multiple surgeries were uncommon. Our data recognize electronic cigarette use as a public health problem with the potential to cause thermal injury and secondary trauma. Most patients are treated on an inpatient basis although most patients treated on an outpatient basis have good outcomes.

Modeling approaches and performance for estimating personal exposure to household air pollution: A case study in Kenya.

This study assessed the performance of modeling approaches to estimate personal exposure in Kenyan homes where cooking fuel combustion contributes substantially to household air pollution (HAP). We measured emissions (PM2.5 , black carbon, CO); household air pollution (PM2.5 , CO); personal exposure (PM2.5 , CO); stove use; and behavioral, socioeconomic, and household environmental characteristics (eg, ventilation and kitchen volume). We then applied various modeling approaches: a single-zone model; indirect exposure models, which combine person-location and area-level measurements; and predictive statistical models, including standard linear regression and ensemble machine learning approaches based on a set of predictors such as fuel type, room volume, and others. The single-zone model was reasonably well-correlated with measured kitchen concentrations of PM2.5 (R2  = 0.45) and CO (R2  = 0.45), but lacked precision. The best performing regression model used a combination of survey-based data and physical measurements (R2  = 0.76) and a root mean-squared error of 85 µg/m3 , and the survey-only-based regression model was able to predict PM2.5 exposures with an R2 of 0.51. Of the machine learning algorithms evaluated, extreme gradient boosting performed best, with an R2 of 0.57 and RMSE of 98 µg/m3 .

Adjunctive use of hepatic angioembolization following hemorrhage control laparotomy.

BACKGROUND: Severe liver injuries pose a challenge to trauma surgeons. While the use of hepatic angioembolization (HAE) has been evaluated as a component of the nonoperative management of liver injury, little is known about the efficacy of postoperative HAE in patients who require hemorrhage control laparotomy (HCL) for liver injury. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of HAE following HCL on patient survival. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from January 2013 to December 2014. In propensity score matched (2:1) patients who underwent HCL-only or HCL + HAE, the impact of adjunctive use of HAE on patient survival was examined with the Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusting for transfusion requirement within 4 hours. We also performed a subgroup analysis in patients without severe traumatic brain injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale head ≤3). RESULTS: A total of 1,675 patients met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 75 (4.5%) patients underwent HAE after HCL (median hours to HAE, 5 hours after admission). In 225 propensity score-matched patients, the use of HAE following HCL was significantly associated with improved 24-hour mortality, but not in-hospital mortality. In the subgroup of patients without severe traumatic brain injury (n = 189), we observed significant survival benefits (24-hour and in-hospital mortality) associated with the adjunctive use of HAE. CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that the adjunctive use of HAE might improve survival of patients who require HCL for liver injury. Further prospective study to determine the indication for postoperative HAE is still warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.