Abstract
Introduction
Sepsis following critical burn injury is an ominous development that can lead to death. Most patients will manifest a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), even without being septic. This may obscure the clinical recognition of developing sepsis and delay the initiation of effective treatment. We developed a burn sepsis screening tool (BSST) to facilitate the recognition of developing burn sepsis. The purpose of this study was to review the utility of that tool.
Methods
The BSST was based on several clinical signs, laboratory values, and changes in physiologic support modalities associated with sepsis. It consisted of nine parameters that could be scored as indicating or not indicating sepsis or not applicable. If three were positive, the patient was identified as septic, and a search for a septic source was undertaken and treatment initiated. The BSST was completed on patients judged to be critically ill during morning rounds over a period of nine months. The values were transcribed into a secure web database and analyzed using SAS 9.4.
Results
There were 593 individual encounters on 31 critically ill patients with burns and/or inhalation injury for which the BSST was completed. The mean age of the patients was 57 ± 4 years (Mean ± SEM), and the burn size was 24 ± 15 % TBSA. Eleven patients were women (36%) and 7 patients had inhalation injury (23%). The expected case fatality was 21 - 30% depending on the statistical model used. Six patients (19%) died. The length of stay was 64 ± 10 days and ranged from 3 to 267 days. A patient was judged to be septic in only 45 of the daily encounters (8.0 % ± 1.1). There were 21 instances of a new septic event made in 12 patients. Episode of sepsis separated by at least 5 days of no sepsis, were considered to be a new septic event. There was a substantial amount of data that was missing or not applicable. There were no significant differences in the septic parameters on days with new sepsis diagnosis when compared to the day prior, or compared to all encounters in patients that were never septic. Patients deteriorated acutely between BSST completions on only two occasions and both were stabilized.
Conclusions
The BSST was used consistently to help evaluate the daily status of critically ill burn injured patients. The expected case fatality of the group was moderately high, based on statistical models derived from the ABA Burn Registry. The observed outcome was as good as or better than predicted. Acute decompensation was rare. The BSST added daily administrative work to rounds, and the data recorded were often incomplete. Although the BSST did not demonstrate any single clinical feature that identified the transition from SIRS to sepsis, it did add structure and rigor to daily rounds. That contributed to the effectiveness of rounds, and it may have been responsible, in part, for the favorable outcomes.
Mechanical Ventilation Strategies in the Critically Ill Burn Patient: A Practical Review for Clinicians
