Stroke Volume and Stroke Volume Variation, but not Cardiac Index Is Associated With Survival of Majorly Burned Patients in Early Burn Shock.

Adequate fluid therapy is crucial to maintain organ function after burn trauma. Major burns lead to a systemic response with fluid loss and cardiac dysfunction. To guide fluid therapy, measurement of cardiac pre- and afterload is helpful. Whereas cardiac function is usually measured after admission to intensive care unit (ICU), in this study, hemodynamic monitoring was performed directly after arrival at hospital. We conducted a prospective cohort study with inclusion of 19 patients (male/female 13/6, 55 ± 18 years, mean total body surface area 36 ± 19%). Arterial waveform analysis (PulsioFlexProAqt®, Getinge) was implemented immediately after admission to hospital to measure cardiac pre- and afterload and to guide resuscitation therapy. Cardiac parameters 3.75 (2.67-6.0) h after trauma were normal regarding cardiac index (3.45 ± 0.82) L/min/m², systemic vascular resistance index (1749 ± 533) dyn sec/cm5 m2, and stroke volume (SV; 80 ± 20) mL. Stroke volume variation (SVV) was increased (21 ± 7) % and associated with mortality (mean SVV survivors vs nonsurvivors 18.92 (±6.37) % vs 27.6 (±5.68) %, P = .017). Stroke volume was associated with mortality at the time of ICU-admission (mean SV survivors vs nonsurvivors 90 (±20) mL vs 50 (±0) mL, P = .004). Changes after volume challenge were significant for SVV (24 ± 9 vs19 ± 8%, P = .01) and SV (68 ± 24 vs 76 ± 26 mL, P = .03). We described association of SVV and SV with survival of severely burned patients in an observational study. This indicates high valence of those parameters in the early postburn period. The use of an autocalibrated device enables a very early monitoring of parameters relevant to burn shock survival.

Early Autocalibrated Arterial Waveform Analysis for the Management of Burn Shock-A Cohort Study.

Adequate fluid therapy is crucial for resuscitation after major burns. To adapt this to individual patient demands, standard is adjustment of volume to laboratory parameters and values of enhanced hemodynamic monitoring. To implement calibrated parameters, patients must have reached the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was, to evaluate the use of an auto-calibrated enhanced hemodynamic monitoring device to improve fluid management before admission to ICU. We used PulsioflexProAqt® (Getinge) during initial treatment and burn shock resuscitation. Analysis was performed regarding time of measurement, volume management, organ dysfunction, and mortality. We conducted a monocentre, prospective cohort study of 20 severely burned patients, >20% total body surface area (TBSA), receiving monitoring immediately after admission. We compared to 57 patients, matched in terms of TBSA, age, sex, and existence of inhalation injury out of a retrospective control group, who received standard care. Hemodynamic measurement with autocalibrated monitoring started significantly earlier: 3.75(2.67-6.0) hours (h) after trauma in the study group versus 13.6(8.1-17.5) h in the control group (P < .001). Study group received less fluid after 6 h: 1.7(1.2-2.2) versus 2.3(1.6-2.8) ml/TBSA%/kg, P = .043 and 12 h: 3.0(2.5-4.0) versus 4.2(3.1-5.0) ml/TBSA%/kg, P = .047. Dosage of norepinephrine was higher after 18 h in the study group: 0.20(0.12-0.3) versus 0.08(0.02-0.18) µg/kg/min, P = .014. The study group showed no adult respiratory distress syndrome versus 21% in the control group, P = .031. There was no difference in other organ failures, organ replacement therapy, and mortality. The use of auto-calibrated enhanced hemodynamic monitoring is a fast and feasible way to guide early fluid therapy after burn trauma. It reduces the time to reach information about patient's volume capacity. Management of fluid application changed to a more restrictive fluid use in the early period of burn shock and led to a reduction of pulmonary complications.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor as Potential Biomarker for COVID-19 Severity.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is characterized by immunological responses to viral replication and coherent with endothelitis, microvascular disturbance of lung vasculature and coagulopathy. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) is a proangiogenic mediator regulating endothelial changes. It is induced by proinflammatory signaling and hypoxia. We sought to determine whether VEGF levels differ between SARS-CoV-2-positive patients of different disease severity and whether VEGF might be useful in risk stratification. METHODS: After retrospective screening of all SARS-CoV-2-positive patients treated in Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin in 2020, we included those with documented VEGF measurement. We extracted laboratory values and clinical parameters. An exploratory data analysis was performed to detect possible relations between VEGF level and clinical disease features. RESULTS: We included 167 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients of which 139 suffered from COVID-19. Seventy-one of the COVID-19 patients had to be treated in the intensive care unit (ICU), those patients exhibited higher VEGF levels than those being admitted to normal wards (535 vs 279 pg/L, P < .001). APACHE-2 (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation Score) correlated with mortality and patients with high values showed higher VEGF concentrations on admission (456 vs 875 pg/L, p = 0.006). Receiver operating characteristic analytic revealed that the occurrence of organ dysfunctions like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), shock, or acute kidney injury could be predicted by VEGF. It was significantly higher in patients who later died compared to survivors (637 vs 389 pg/mL, P = 0.041) and predicted mortality with same accuracy as established markers. In our cohort, association of VEGF above 277 pg/L on admission with risk of ARDS could be confirmed in logistic regression adjusting for possible confounding factors (odds ratio 3.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.34-7.7). DISCUSSION: Even though there are several limitations to this retrospective study it revealed that in COVID-19 patients VEGF can contribute to the prediction of necessity of ICU, mortality and the prediction of ARDS, kidney injury or shock. Its use in risk stratification and potential pathogenetic involvement should be further investigated.

Prehospital treatment of severely burned patients: a retrospective analysis of patients admitted to the Berlin burn centre.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital management of severely burned patients is extremely challenging. It should include adequate analgesia, decision-making on the necessity of prehospital endotracheal intubation and the administration of crystalloid fluids. Guidelines recommend immediate transport to specialised burn centres when certain criteria are met. To date, there is still insufficient knowledge on the characteristics of prehospital emergency treatment. We sought to investigate the current practice and its potential effects on patient outcome. METHODS: We conducted a single centre, retrospective cohort analysis of severely burned patients (total burned surface area > 20%), admitted to the Berlin burn centre between 2014 and 2019. The relevant data was extracted from Emergency Medical Service reports and digital patient charts for exploratory data analysis. Primary outcome was 28-day-mortality. RESULTS: Ninety patients (male/female 60/30, with a median age of 52 years [interquartile range, IQR 37-63], median total burned surface area 36% [IQR 25-51] and median body mass index 26.56 kg/m2 [IQR 22.86-30.86] were included. The median time from trauma to ED arrival was 1 h 45 min; within this time, on average 1961 ml of crystalloid fluid (0.48 ml/kg/%TBSA, IQR 0.32-0.86) was administered. Most patients received opioid-based analgesia. Times from trauma to ED arrival were longer for patients who were intubated. Neither excessive fluid treatment (> 1000 ml/h) nor transport times > 2 h was associated with higher mortality. A total of 31 patients (34,4%) died within the hospital stay. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that non-survival was linked to age > 65 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.5, 95% CI: 1.27-9.66), inhalation injury (OR 3.57, 95% CI: 1.36-9.36), burned surface area > 60% (OR 5.14, 95% CI 1.57-16.84) and prehospital intubation (5.38, 95% CI: 1.92-15.92). CONCLUSION: We showed that severely burned patients frequently received excessive fluid administration prehospitally and that this was not associated with more hemodynamic stability or outcome. In our cohort, patients were frequently intubated prehospitally, which was associated with increased mortality rates. Further research and emergency medical staff training should focus on adequate fluid application and cautious decision-making on the risks and benefits of prehospital intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Registry (ID: DRKS00033516).