Normal citratemia and metabolic tolerance of citrate anticoagulation for hemodiafiltration in severe septic shock burn patients.

PURPOSE: Anticoagulation during renal replacement therapy remains an important challenge for burn patients due to their high risk of bleeding. In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of citrate anticoagulation to heparin anticoagulation for hemodiafiltration (HDF) in severe burn patients, focusing on metabolic tolerance and handling of citrate. METHODS: Retrospective observational study (January 2000-December 2007) at a university teaching hospital. Among 548 patients admitted with burns, 70 severe burn septic shock patients (median age 57.5 years, interquartile range 42-76 years; median burned surface area 40%, interquartile range 30-60%) who underwent HDF for more than 24 h were included. RESULTS: Of the 70 HDF patients, 31 at high risk of bleeding were treated with citrate and 39 with heparin, with a mortality rate of 70.9 and 71.8%, respectively. In continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF), the filter survival was higher with citrate, and hemorrhagic complications were lower (0.035 vs. 0.145 episodes/day, respectively). During citrate CVVHDF [median delivered dialysis dose: 578.9 ml kg(-1) day(-1) (461.5-769.2 ml kg(-1) day(-1))] in catecholamine-supported patients (norepinephrine 0.53 µg kg(-1) min(-1)), no metabolic derangements in pH, bicarbonates, Na+, K+, Ca++, and ionized calcium were observed. Systemic citratemia was within the normal range (<0.4 mmol/l) and was associated with a marked citrate removal in the effluent (5 patients, 36-60% of infused amount). CONCLUSIONS: In septic shock burn patients, citrate for CVVHDF was efficient and safe, and superior to heparin for hemorrhagic complications and filter survival. Observed metabolic stability was most likely due to a marked loss of citrate in effluent volume and subsequent low total citrate load for the patient.

Analgo-sedation of patients with burns outside the operating room.

Following the initial resuscitation of burn patients, the pain experienced may be divided into a 'background' pain and a 'breakthrough' pain associated with painful procedures. While background pain may be treated with intravenous opioids via continuous infusion or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and/or less potent oral opioids, breakthrough pain may be treated with a variety of interventions. The aim is to reduce patient anxiety, improve analgesia and ensure immobilization when required. Untreated pain and improper sedation may result in psychological distress such as post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression or delirium. This review summarizes recent developments and current techniques in sedation and analgesia in non-intubated adult burn patients during painful procedures performed outside the operating room (e.g. staple removal, wound-dressing, bathing). Current techniques of sedation and analgesia include different approaches, from a slight increase in background pain therapy (e.g. morphine PCA) to PCA with rapid-onset opioids, to multimodal drug combinations, nitrous oxide, regional blocks, or non-pharmacological approaches such as hypnosis and virtual reality. The most reliable way to administer drugs is intravenously. Fast-acting opioids can be combined with ketamine, propofol or benzodiazepines. Adjuvant drugs such as clonidine or NSAIDs and paracetamol (acetaminophen) have also been used. Patients receiving ketamine will usually maintain spontaneous breathing. This is an important feature in patients who are continuously turned during wound dressing procedures and where analgo-sedation is often performed by practitioners who are not specialists in anaesthesiology. Drugs are given in small boluses or by patient-controlled sedation, which is titrated to effect, according to sedation and pain scales. Patient-controlled infusion with propofol has also been used. However, we must bear in mind that burn patients often show an altered pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic response to drugs as a result of altered haemodynamics, protein binding and/or increased extracellular fluid volume, and possible changes in glomerular filtration. Because sedation and analgesia can range from minimal sedation (anxiolysis) to general anaesthesia, sedative and analgesic agents should always be administered by designated trained practitioners and not by the person performing the procedure. At least one individual who is capable of establishing a patent airway and positive pressure ventilation, as well as someone who can call for additional assistance, should always be present whenever analgo-sedation is administered. Oxygen should be routinely delivered during sedation. Blood pressure and continuous ECG monitoring should be carried out whenever possible, even if a patient is undergoing bathing or other procedures that may limit monitoring of vital pulse-oximetry parameters.