Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign.

INTRODUCTION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign was developed to improve outcomes for all patients with sepsis. Despite sepsis being the primary cause of death after thermal injury, burns have always been excluded from the Surviving Sepsis efforts. To improve sepsis outcomes in burn patients, an international group of burn experts developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign (SSABC) as a testable guideline to improve burn sepsis outcomes. METHODS: The International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) reached out to regional or national burn organizations to recommend members to participate in the program. Two members of the ISBI developed specific "patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome" (PICO) questions that paralleled the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign [1]. SSABC participants were asked to search the current literature and rate its quality for each topic. At the Congress of the ISBI, in Guadalajara, Mexico, August 28, 2022, a majority of the participants met to create "statements" based on the literature. The "summary statements" were then sent to all members for comment with the hope of developing an 80% consensus. After four reviews, a consensus statement for each topic was created or "no consensus" was reported. RESULTS: The committee developed sixty statements within fourteen topics that provide guidance for the early treatment of sepsis in burn patients. These statements should be used to improve the care of sepsis in burn patients. The statements should not be considered as "static" comments but should rather be used as guidelines for future testing of the best treatments for sepsis in burn patients. They should be updated on a regular basis. CONCLUSION: Members of the burn community from the around the world have developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign guidelines with the goal of improving the outcome of sepsis in burn patients.

The association between out of hours burn centre admission and in-hospital outcomes in patients with severe burns.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with severe burns (≥20 % total body surface area [TBSA]) have specific and time sensitive needs on arrival to the burn centre. Burn care systems in Australia and New Zealand are organised differently during weekday business hours compared to overnight and weekends. The aims of this study were to compare the profile of adult patients with severe burns admitted during business hours with patients admitted out of hours and to quantify the association between time of admission and in-hospital outcomes in the Australian and New Zealand context. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand for adults (≥18 years) with severe burns admitted to Australian or New Zealand burn centres between July 2016 and June 2020. Differences in patient profiles, clinical management, and in-hospital outcomes were investigated. Univariable and multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to quantify associations between time of admission and in-hospital outcomes of interest. RESULTS: We found 623 patients eligible for inclusion. Most patients were admitted out of hours (69.2 %), their median age was 42 years, and most were male (78 %). The median size burn was 30 % TBSA and 32 % of patients had an inhalation injury. A greater proportion of patients admitted out of hours had alcohol and/or drugs involved with injury compared to patients admitted during business hours. No other differences between groups were observed. Patients in both groups had similar odds of dying in hospital (Odds Ratio [OR], 95 % Confidence Interval [95 %CI] 1.49 [0.64, 3.48]), developing acute kidney injury within 72 h (OR, 95 %CI 0.58 [0.32, 1.07]), or sepsis (OR, 95 %CI 1.04 [0.46, 2.35]). No association was found between time of admission and hospital (%, 95 %CI 1.00 [0.82, 1.23]) nor intensive care length of stay (%, 95 %CI 0.97 [0.73, 1.27]). DISCUSSION: In this first Australian and/or New Zealand study to explore the association between time of admission and burn patient in-hospital outcomes, out of hours admission was not associated with patient outcomes of interest. CONCLUSION: These findings support current models of care in Australian and New Zealand burn centres, however further investigation is required. Nonetheless, given most severe burns patients arrive out of hours to burn the centre, it is plausible that out of hours availability of senior burn clinicians will improve patient care and safety resilience within burn care systems.

Post-operative telephone review is safe and effective: prospective study - Monash outpatient review by phone trial.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that post-operative telephone follow-up is satisfactory and effective. As high quality evidence is scant, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare it against outpatient clinic review for emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy or cholecystectomy. METHOD: Patients who received emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy or cholecystectomy were eligible for this study. Once recruited, they were randomly allocated to either clinic review or telephone follow-up on discharge. Participants were reviewed at 2 weeks after operation and contacted again at 4 weeks after initial follow-up for satisfaction survey. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-nine participants were recruited with one withdrawn consent and six excluded. Ninety-six underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy and 76 had laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ninety-six attended clinic review and 76 had telephone follow-up. The two groups were similar in baseline variables. Non-attendance rate was higher for clinic review cohort (24% vs 6.6%, P = 0.002). Participants who received telephone review reported higher satisfaction level (9.31 vs 8.85, P = 0.002), and most patients prefer telephone follow-up (73.1%, P < 0.0001). No difference was detected for missed complications (P = 0.354). CONCLUSION: Telephone follow-up post laparoscopic appendicectomy or cholecystectomy is safe, satisfying and effective.

Are we getting necrotizing soft tissue infections right? A 10-year review.

BACKGROUND: The Alfred Hospital is a referral centre for necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) in the state of Victoria and receives around 20 such patients each year. We sought to compare our practice and outcomes against published data, and to examine management at referring hospitals to determine whether adjustments to current practices are required. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the Alfred Hospital between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2010 with a diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis was conducted. Demographic, etiologic, treatment and outcome data were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen patients were identified with a mean age of 54.76 years and a preponderance of men (63.47%). The overall mortality rate for the patient group was 15.98%. More than 80% of patients were transferred from another facility. Nearly 40% of patients did not undergo surgical debridement within 24 h of presentation to a hospital and 30.6% were not debrided prior to transfer. Patients underwent a median of three procedures at the Alfred Hospital and the majority of patients required admission to the intensive care unit (68.95%). CONCLUSION: NSTIs remain a surgical emergency with high rates of mortality and resource requirements. The mortality rate at our institution compares well with other published series. Many patients experienced delays before undergoing debridement and in many cases were transferred without debridement. The trend towards transferring NSTI patients to centres accustomed to treating burns and major trauma seems logical, but should not delay life-saving surgical debridement. Timing of transfer does not seem to affect mortality.