Recent changes in practice patterns and outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in the management of severe traumatic brain injury, the role of decompressive craniectomy remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare practice patterns and patient outcomes between 2 study periods over the past decade. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Project database. We included patients (age ≥18 years) with isolated severe traumatic brain injury. The patients were divided into the early (2013-2014) and late (2017-2018) groups. The primary outcome was the rate of craniectomy, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and discharge disposition. A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing intracranial pressure monitoring was also performed. A multivariable logistic regression analysis assessed the association between the early/late period and study outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 29,942 patients were included. In the logistic regression analysis, the late period was associated with decreased use of craniectomy (odds ratio: 0.58, P < .001). Although the late period was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.10, P = .013), it was also associated with a higher likelihood of discharge to home/rehab (odds ratio: 1.61, P < .001). Similarly, the subgroup analysis of patients with intracranial pressure monitoring showed that the late period was associated with a lower craniectomy rate (odds ratio: 0.26, P < .001) and a higher likelihood of discharge to home/rehab (odds ratio:1.98, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The use of craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury has decreased over the study period. Although further studies are warranted, these trends may reflect recent changes in the management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

Race and Ethnicity Influences Outcomes of Adult Burn Patients.

Outcomes of burn survivors is a growing field of interest; however, there is little data comparing the outcomes of burn survivors by ethnicity. This study seeks to identify any inequities in burn outcomes by racial and ethnic groups. A retrospective chart review of an ABA Certified burn center at a large urban safety net hospital identified adult inpatient admissions from 2015 to 2019. A total of 1142 patients were categorized by primary ethnicity: 142 black or African American, 72 Asian, 479 Hispanic or Latino, 90 white, 215 other, and 144 patients whose race or ethnicity was unrecorded. Multivariable analyses evaluated the relationship between race and ethnicity and outcomes. Covariate confounders were controlled by adjustment of demographic, social, and prehospital clinical factors to isolate differences that might not be explained by other factors. After controlling for covariates, black patients had 29% longer hospital stays (P = .043). Hispanic patients were more likely to be discharged to home or to hospice care (P = .005). Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a 44% decrease in the odds of discharge to acute care, inpatient rehabilitation, or a ward outside the burn unit (P = .022). Black and Hispanic patients had a higher relative chance of having publicly assisted insurance, versus private insurance, than their white counterparts (P = .041, P = .011 respectively). The causes of these inequities are indeterminate. They may stem from socioeconomic status not entirely accounted for, ethnic differences in comorbidity related to stressors, or inequity in health care delivery.

Burn Patient Insurance Status Influences Hospital Discharge Disposition and Utilization of Postdischarge Outpatient Care.

Postdischarge services, such as outpatient wound care, may affect long-term health outcomes and postrecovery quality-of-life. Access to these services may vary according to insurance status and ability to cover out-of-pocket expenses. Our objective was to compare discharge location between burn patients who were uninsured, publicly insured, and privately insured at the time of their burn unit admissions. A retrospective review from July 1, 2015 to November 1, 2019 was performed at an American Burn Association-verified burn center. All admitted burn patients 18 years and older were identified and categorized according to insurance payer type. The primary outcome was discharge location, and secondary outcomes included readmission and outpatient burn care attendance. In total, 284 uninsured, 565 publicly insured, and 293 privately insured patients were identified. There were no significant differences in TBSA (P = .3), inhalation injury (P = .3), intensive care unit days (P = .09), or need for skin grafting (P = .1) between the three groups. For primary outcome, uninsured patients were more likely to be discharged without ancillary services (P < .0001) compared to both publicly and privately insured. Publicly insured patients were more likely to receive skilled nursing care (P = .0007). Privately insured patients were more likely to receive homecare (P = .0005) or transfer for ongoing inpatient care (P < .0001). There was no difference in burn unit readmission rates (P = .5). The uninsured were more likely to follow up with outpatient burn clinic after discharge (P = .004). Uninsured patients were less likely to receive postdischarge resources. Uninsured patients received fewer postdischarge wound care resources which could result in suboptimal long-term results, and diminished return to preinjury functional status. Given the impact of insurance status on discharge location and resources, efforts to increase access for uninsured patients to postdischarge resources will ensure greater healthcare equity and improve quality of comprehensive care regardless of insurance status.

Use of Infrared Thermography for Assessment of Burn Depth and Healing Potential: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Burn wound depth assessments are an important component of determining patient prognosis and making appropriate management decisions. Clinical appraisal of the burn wound by an experienced burn surgeon is standard of care but has limitations. IR thermography is a technology in burn care that can provide a non-invasive, quantitative method of evaluating burn wound depth. IR thermography utilizes a specialized camera that can capture the infrared emissivity of the skin, and the resulting images can be analyzed to determine burn depth and healing potential of a burn wound. Though IR thermography has great potential for burn wound assessment, its use for this has not been well documented. Thus, we have conducted a systematic review of the current use of IR thermography to assess burn depth and healing potential. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar between June 2020-December 2020 using the following keywords: FLIR, FLIR ONE, thermography, forward looking infrared, thermal imaging + burn*, burn wound assessment, burn depth, burn wound depth, burn depth assessment, healing potential, burn healing potential. A meta-analysis was performed on the mean sensitivity and specificity of the ability of IR thermography for predicting healing potential. Inclusion criteria were articles investigating the use of IR thermography for burn wound assessments in adults and pediatric patients. Reviews and non-English articles were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 19 articles were included in the final review. Statistically significant correlations were found between IR thermography and laser doppler imaging (LDI) in 4/4 clinical studies. A case report of a single patient found that IR thermography was more accurate than LDI for assessing burn depth. Five articles investigated the ability of IR thermography to predict healing time, with four reporting statistically significant results. Temperature differences between burnt and unburnt skin were found in 2/2 articles. IR thermography was compared to clinical assessment in five articles, with varying results regarding accuracy of clinical assessment compared to thermography. Mean sensitivity and specificity of the ability of IR thermography to determine healing potential <15 days was 44.5 and 98.8 respectively. Mean sensitivity and specificity of the ability of FLIR to determine healing potential <21 days was 51.2 and 77.9 respectively. CONCLUSION: IR thermography is an accurate, simple, and cost-effective method of burn wound assessment. FLIR has been demonstrated to have significant correlations with other methods of assessing burns such as LDI and can be utilized to accurately assess burn depth and healing potential.

Stimulant Abuse in Burn Patients Is Associated With an Increased Use of Hospital Resources.

Stimulant (cocaine, methamphetamine, and amphetamine) abuse compromises the peripheral vasculature through endothelial injury. In combination with the physiologic derangements seen in burn injuries, patients abusing stimulants may have additional impairments in wound healing. A retrospective review from July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2018 was performed at an American Burn Association-verified burn center. Patients with positive urine toxicology results for stimulants (ST(+)), and those without (ST(-)), who sustained burn injuries were identified and matched by age and TBSA. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes included total length of stay (LOS), and need-for-surgery (grafting). In total, 130 patients ST(+) and 133 ST(-) patients were identified. There were no significant differences in age (40.9 ± 13.5 vs 39.2 ± 23.7 years, P = 0.46), Inhalation Injury (12.3 vs 9.0%, P = 0.39), or nutritional status (prealbumin: 17.3 ± 6.1 vs 17.1 ± 12.7 mg/dl, P = 0.66; albumin: 3.5 ± 0.6 vs 3.6 ± 0.7 g/dl, P = 0.45). There were no differences in mortality (6.1 vs 4.5%, P = 0.55), intensive care unit LOS (9.3 ± 16.5 vs 10.2 ± 20.9 days, P = 0.81), wound infections (15.4 vs 23.9%, P = 0.07), or wound conversion (6.9 vs 3.0%, P = 0.14). ST(+) patients had a significantly longer LOS (15.0 ± 16.9 vs 10.7 ± 17.3 days, P = 0.04), greater tobacco use (56.9 vs 18.0%, P = 0.00001), and greater need for grafting (54.6 vs 33.1%, P = 0.0004). ST(+) patients require more hospital resources-surgical operations and hospital days-than ST(-) patients. The increased need for surgical intervention may partially explain the increase in hospital days, in addition to the observation that ST(+) patients had more complex disposition issues than ST(-) patients.