63 Risk Factors Associated with Lack of Patient Outpatient Follow Up at a Regional Burn Center

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S45-S45
Author(s):  
Allison N Moore ◽  
Heather Carmichael ◽  
Patrick S Duffy ◽  
Anne L Lambert Wagner ◽  
Arek J Wiktor
Keyword(s):  
Medical Record ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Telephone Consultation ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Body Regions ◽  
Specialized Care ◽  
Total Body

Abstract Introduction Burn patients are a vulnerable population at risk for poor follow up after injury. With few burn centers throughout the country, there is often limited access to specialized care. We investigated barriers to patient compliance with recommended outpatient burn care at a single ABA-verified burn center after presentation at referring Emergency Departments (ED). Methods A retrospective review was performed on patients who presented at two EDs located 60–75 miles from our burn center over a two-year period. Recommendation for follow up was made by a burn surgeon at our regional burn center after telephone consultation. Medical record review was performed to determine what specific follow up occurred. Data on patient demographics, burn size/location/etiology were also recorded. Results Out of 135 consults from the two EDs, a total of 60 patients were recommended for outpatient follow up (vs. transfer, local management, or no follow up). Median age was 35 years [IQR 27–38] and most patients were male (n=40, 66%). Most patients had burns measuring < 1% total body surface area (TBSA) (n=43, 72%). Half scheduled a follow up appointment (n=31, 52%) and fewer came to that appointment (n=26, 43%). Median time from initial presentation to burn clinic follow up was 2 days (range 1–8 days). Of patients who did not attend recommended follow up, 24% (n=8/34) presented for additional visits to the ED or another local provider. Patients who did not follow up were more likely to be male (79% vs. 50%, p=0.03), lack insurance (27% vs. 4%, p=0.05), be homeless/institutionalized (18% vs. 0%, p=0.03) and have facial burns as compared to other body regions (32% vs. 8%, p=0.05). Patients who followed up were more likely to have scald burns versus flash/flame/contact burns (69% vs. 18%, p< 0.001) and were more likely to have been injured at home/work as opposed to outdoors/other location (100% vs. 38% p< 0.001). Age, marital status, race/ethnicity, having a primary care physician, %TBSA, and other comorbidities were not associated with follow up. Although reasons for not following up were rarely noted in the medical record, anecdotal reasons included lack of transportation (n=4), incarceration (n=3), and feeling that burns were healing (n=1). Conclusions Less than half of patients followed up at the regional burn center as recommended, while nearly a quarter followed up at local EDs/clinics. Barriers to follow up include patient gender, insurance, and resources (transportation).

66 The Effect of Transfer on Outcomes in Burns

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S43-S43
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Bruenderman ◽  
Selena The ◽  
Nathan Bodily ◽  
Matthew Bozeman
Keyword(s):  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Total Body ◽  
Tertiary Care Centers ◽  
Inhalation Burn ◽  
Time From Injury

Abstract Introduction Burn care in the United States takes place primarily in tertiary care centers with specialty-focused burn capabilities. Patients are often initially transported to centers without burn capabilities, requiring subsequent transfer to a higher level of care. This study aims to evaluate the effect of this treatment delay on outcomes. Methods Under IRB approval, adult burn patients meeting American Burn Association (ABA) criteria for transfer at a single burn center were retrospectively identified. Cohorts were divided into patients who were initially taken to a non-burn center and subsequently transferred versus patients taken immediately to a burn center. Outcomes between the groups were compared. Results A total of 122 patients were identified, 61 in each cohort. There was no difference between the transfer and direct admit cohorts with respect to median age (52 vs. 46, p = 0.45), percent total body surface area burn (10% vs. 10%, p = 0.08), concomitant injury (0 vs. 4, p = 0.12), or intubation prior to admission (5 vs. 7, p = 0.76). Transfer patients experienced a longer median time from injury to burn center admission than directly admitted patients (1 vs. 8 hours, p < 0.01). Directly admitted patients were more likely to have inhalation burn (18 vs. 4, p < 0.01), require intubation after admission (10 vs. 2, p = 0.03), require an emergent procedure (18 vs. 5, p < 0.01), and develop infectious complications (14 vs. 5, p = 0.04). However, there was no difference between transfers and direct admits in ventilator days (9 vs. 3 days, p = 0.37), number of operations (0 vs. 0, p = 0.16), length of stay (3 vs. 3 days, p = 0.44), or mortality (6 vs. 3, p = 0.50). Conclusions This study suggests that significantly injured, hemodynamically unstable patients were more likely to be immediately identified and taken directly to a burn center. Patients who otherwise met ABA criteria for transfer were not affected by short delays in transfer to definitive burn care. Applicability of Research to Practice Initial triage and evaluation of hemodynamically stable patients at non-burn centers does not negatively impact outcomes in patients who meet ABA criteria for transfer to a burn center.

scholarly journals The Effect of Transfer on Outcomes in Burns

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan E Bodily ◽  
Elizabeth H Bruenderman ◽  
Neal Bhutiani ◽  
Selena The ◽  
Jessica E Schucht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Burn Injuries ◽  
Burn Patients ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Field Versus ◽  
High Acuity ◽  
Total Body ◽  
Inhalation Burn

Abstract Patients with burn injuries are often initially transported to centers without burn capabilities, requiring subsequent transfer to a higher level of care. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of this treatment delay on outcomes. Adult burn patients meeting American Burn Association (ABA) criteria for transfer at a single burn center were retrospectively identified. A total of 122 patients were evenly divided into two cohorts – those directly admitted to a burn center from the field, versus those transferred to a burn center from an outlying facility. There was no difference between the transfer and direct admit cohorts with respect to age, percent total body surface area burned, concomitant injury, or intubation prior to admission. Transfer patients experienced a longer median time from injury to burn center admission (1 vs. 8 hours, p &lt, 0.01). Directly admitted patients were more likely to have inhalation burn (18 vs. 4, p &lt, 0.01), require intubation after admission (10 vs. 2, p = 0.03), require an emergent procedure (18 vs. 5, p &lt, 0.01), and develop infectious complications (14 vs. 5, p = 0.04). There was no difference in ventilator days, number of operations, length of stay, or mortality. The results suggest that significantly injured, high acuity burn patients were more likely to be immediately identified and taken directly to a burn center. Patients who otherwise met ABA criteria for transfer were not affected by short delays in transfer to definitive burn care.

scholarly journals 81 The Impact of COVID-19 on a Major Metropolitan Burn Center

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S56-S56
Author(s):  
Jesse A Codner ◽  
Rohit Mittal ◽  
Rafael De Ayala
Keyword(s):  
Medical Record ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Lag Time ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Chi Square Analysis ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction The current and long-term impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic on our healthcare system is still unknown. When healthcare resources were being diverted to only the most critical of needs, emergent surgical and burn care remained essential. Currently, no data exist on the impact of a global pandemic on a burn center. Our aim for this study was to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic affected admissions, hospital course, and discharges at a major metropolitan burn center. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of admissions to our burn center. Our institution’s medical record was reviewed from 1/1–8/31 for years 2020, 2019, & 2018. We included all thermal, chemical, and electrical burn inpatient admissions over these time periods. Non-burn wound admissions and vulnerable patient populations were excluded. Our population included 1,358 patients. These patients were grouped by year 2020 (n=425), 2019 (n=470), and 2018 (n=463). The medical record was queried for admission, hospital course, and discharge variables. SAS 9.4 statistical software was used to compare the pre-pandemic 2018/2019 groups against the 2020 group. Group means were compared using two-sample two-tailed t-tests, and categorical variables were compared using Chi-Square analysis. Results In 2020 the burn center had 425 admissions compared to 470 and 463 in 2019 and 2018 respectively. On admission, there were no differences in age, gender, pediatric admissions, burn etiology, total body surface area (TBSA), TBSA >20%, work-related injuries, or suspected abuse related injuries. Of note, the mean days from injury to admission for the groups were (2020 2.5±4.9 vs 2019 1.4±4.3, p=0.001, vs 2018 1.5±4.3, p=0.0017). Groups were similar in respect to burns requiring surgery and mean OR visits. 2019 and 2018 had increased ICU admissions compared to the 2020 cohort (ICU: 2020 60-(14%) vs 2019 91-(19.4%), p=0.041, vs 2018 108-(23.3%), p=0.033). Inpatient mortality was lower in the 2020 cohort compared to the pre-pandemic cohorts (2020 2 (0.6%) vs 2019 9 (2.5%), p=0.04, vs 2018 14 (4.2%) p=0.0017). Conclusions Volume at our burn center remains high during the pandemic. There is an increased lag time from burn injury to hospital admission in the 2020 cohort. We hypothesize this is due to patients’ avoiding the hospital due to fear of contracting COVID-19. TBSA is similar across groups, but ICU admissions are down in the 2020 cohort. Further work is needed to understand whether the increased lag time has affected outcomes and whether the decreased ICU admissions are due to yearly variation or the pandemic.

scholarly journals Treatment of Anaemia in Patients with Acute Burn Injury: A Study of Blood Transfusion Practices

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 476
Author(s):  
Ioana Tichil ◽  
Samara Rosenblum ◽  
Eldho Paul ◽  
Heather Cleland
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Surgical Management ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Perioperative Period ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Transfusion Requirements ◽  
Total Body

Objective: To determine blood transfusion practices, risk factors, and outcomes associated with the use of blood products in the setting of the acute management of burn patients at the Victorian Adult Burn Service. Background: Patients with burn injuries have variable transfusion requirements, based on a multitude of factors. We reviewed all acute admissions to the Victorian Adult Burns Service (VABS) between 2011 and 2017: 1636 patients in total, of whom 948 had surgery and were the focus of our analysis. Method and results: Patient demographics, surgical management, transfusion details, and outcome parameters were collected and analyzed. A total of 175 patients out of the 948 who had surgery also had a blood transfusion, while 52% of transfusions occurred in the perioperative period. The median trigger haemoglobin in perioperative was 80mg/dL (IQR = 76–84.9 mg/dL), and in the non-perioperative setting was 77 mg/dL (IQR = 71.61–80.84 mg/dL). Age, gender, % total body surface area (TBSA) burn, number of surgeries, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were associated with transfusion. Conclusions: The use of blood transfusions is an essential component of the surgical management of major burns. As observed in our study, half of these transfusions are related to surgical procedures and may be influenced by the employment of blood conserving strategies. Furthermore, transfusion trigger levels in stable patients may be amenable to review and reduction. Risk adjusted analysis can support the implementation of blood transfusion as a useful quality indicator in burn care.

662 Single Surgeon Experience Using a Polyactide-based Copolymer Dressing to Over and Secure Split Thickness Skin Grafts in Burn Patients.

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S186-S187
Author(s):  
Eduardo Navarro ◽  
Tera Thigpin ◽  
Joshua S Carson
Keyword(s):  
Skin Graft ◽  
Outer Layer ◽  
Healing Process ◽  
Graft Loss ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Surgeon Experience ◽  
Pain Outcomes ◽  
Total Body ◽  
Operative Notes

Abstract Introduction In both partial thickness burns and skin graft donor sites, coverage with Polylactide-based copolymer dressing (PLBC dressing) has been shown to result in expedited healing and improved pain outcomes when compared to more traditional techniques. These advantages are generally attributed to the way in which PLBC remains as an intact coating over the wound bed throughout the healing process, protecting wounds from the contamination and microtraumas associated with changes more conventional dressings. At our institution, we began selectively utilizing PLBC as a means of securing and protecting fresh skin graft, in hopes that we would find similar benefits in this application. Methods Clinical Protocol-- The PLBC dressing was used at the attending surgeon’s discretion. In these cases, meshed STSG was placed over prepared wound beds. Staples were not utilized. PLBC dressing was then placed over the entirety of the graft surface, securing graft in place by adhering to wound bed through intercises. (Staples were not used.) The graft and PLBC complex was further dressed with a layer of non-adherent cellulose based liner with petroleum based lubricant, and an outer layer of cotton gauze placed as a wrap or bolster. Post operatively, the outer layer (“wrap”) of gauze was replaced as needed for saturation. The PLBC and adherent “inner” liner were left in place until falling off naturally over the course of outpatient follow-up. Retrospective Review-- With IRB approval, patients treated PLBC over STSG between April 2018 to March 2019 were identified via surgeon’s log and pulled for review. Documentation gathered from operative notes, progress notes (inpatient and outpatient) and clinical photography was used to identify demographics, mechanism of injury, depth, total body surface area percentage (TBSA%), size of area treated with PLBC dressing, graft loss, need for re-grafting, signs of wound infection, antibiotic treatment, and length of stay. Results Twenty-two patients had STSG secured and dressed with PLBC. Median patient age was 36.5 years. Median TBSA was 5.1%, and median treated area 375 cm2. Follow up ranged from 21 to 232 days post-operatively, with two patients lost to follow up. All patients seen in outpatient follow up were noted to have “complete graft take” or “minimal” graft. None of the areas treated with PLBC dressing required re-grafting. There were no unplanned readmissions, and no wound infections were diagnosed or treated. Practitioners in in-patient setting and in follow up clinic reported satisfaction with the PLBC dressing. Conclusions The PLBC dressing was a feasible solution for securing and dressings STSGs. Future work is needed to determine whether its use is associated with an improvement in patient outcomes.

scholarly journals The predisposing factors of AKI for prophylactic strategies in burn care

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e9984
Author(s):  
Shin-Yi Tsai ◽  
Chon-Fu Lio ◽  
Shou-Chuan Shih ◽  
Cheng-Jui Lin ◽  
Yu-Tien Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Burn Injury ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Inhalation Injury ◽  
Predisposing Factors ◽  
Dust Explosion ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Hospital Patients ◽  
Total Body

Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) is one of the most severe complications of burn injury. AKI with severe burn injury causes high mortality. This study aims to investigate the incidence of and predisposing factors for AKI in burn patients. Methods This is a single-center, retrospective, descriptive criterion standard study conducted from June 27, 2015, to March 8, 2016. We used Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria to define and select patients with AKI. The study was conducted by recruiting in hospital patients who suffered from the flammable cornstarch-based powder explosion and were treated under primary care procedures. A total of 49 patients who suffered from flammable dust explosion-related burn injury were enrolled and admitted on June 27, 2015. The patients with more than 20% total body surface area of burn were transferred to the intensive care unit. Patients received fluid resuscitation in the first 24 hours based on the Parkland formula. The primary measurements were the incidence of and predisposing factors for AKI in these patients. Demographic characteristics, laboratory data, and inpatient outcomes were also evaluated. The incidence of AKI in this cohort was 61.2% (n = 30). The mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 1) during a 59-day follow-up period. The multivariate analysis revealed inhalation injury (adjusted OR = 22.0; 95% CI [1.4–358.2]) and meeting ≥3 American Burn Association (ABA) sepsis criteria (adjusted OR = 13.7; 95% CI [1.7–110.5]) as independent risk factors for early advanced AKI. Conclusions The incidence rate of AKI was higher in this cohort than in previous studies, possibly due to the flammable dust explosion-related burn injury. However, the mortality was lower than that expected. In clinical practice, indicators of inflammation, including ABA sepsis criteria may help in predicting the risk of AKI in patients with burn injury.

564 Managing California’s Creek Fire Mass Casualty’s Incident

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S132-S132
Author(s):  
Shana M Henry ◽  
Nicole M Kopari ◽  
Mary Wolfe
Keyword(s):  
Operating Room ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Burn Patients ◽  
Rescue Operation ◽  
Burn Victims ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Total Body

Abstract Introduction California’s Creek Fire is not only the largest single wildfire in a state known for huge and destructive blazes, it spawned two rare fire tornados with winds over 100mph, a day after the fire started in early September. Huntington Lake and Mammoth Pool were the sites of these rare events leading to hundreds of trapped campers. An air rescue operation airlifted hundreds of trapped people to safety. Twenty days after the start of the fire, it had burned >300,000 acres with only 36% containment by fire crews. This review is an evaluation of our hospitals response team and the events surrounding that night. Methods Our on-call surgeon had called in the back-up surgeon to run a second trauma operating room. It was at this time, the news had reported trapped campers near Mammoth Pool. The burn surgeon was notified and reported to the emergency department (ED) as word of 65 possible victims spread. Local disaster response planning was initiated with an ED physician triaging patients at the regional airport. Initial calls were made to the division chief and burn medical director. The nursing director was notified along with any available nursing staff with 8 ICU nurses volunteering to report. Immediately, lateral transfer orders were placed for all burn patients housed in the burn center which has 10 ICU bed capabilities. Results The first helicopter landed with 5 of the burn victims presenting to our hospital. 4 of the victims were male and 1 female with ages ranging from 17 to 27. Total body surface area burn was estimated on each with 2 minor burns < 10% and 3 moderate sized burns of roughly 25%. These patients were quickly triaged in the ED and traumatic injuries evaluated. 3 of the patients were placed in ICU level care with the 2 remaining patients housed in the ED as word trickled in about another rescue effort with an additional 95 people. By morning, an additional 2 patients were transferred to our burn center from the surrounding hospitals and another 2 patients evaluated for burns sustained in separate events. All patients were taken to the operating room over the next 24–48 hours for excision and autologous spray on skin cells (ASCS) in combination with widely meshed skin grafts or ASCS alone. Conclusions Communication, teamwork, and personnel that are dedicated to the care of burn patients made this tragic incident manageable. The Creek Fire hit home for many of the burn staff not only because of the patients that were cared for, but because this area of California was a beloved respite for many. A debriefing with a chaplain, grief counselor, and psychotherapist, was held within 2 weeks of the incident to provide support to the staff during this devastating time.

scholarly journals Multimodal Analgesia and Discharge Opioid Requirements in Burn Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 963-966
Author(s):  
Michael Wright ◽  
Jin A Lee
Keyword(s):  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Multimodal Analgesia ◽  
Burn Patients ◽  
Area Burned ◽  
Total Body ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Analgesia in burn patients is challenging given the complexity of burn pain and prolonged need beyond hospital admission. Given the risks of opioids, the impact of multimodal analgesia postdischarge needs to be further elucidated in this population. This retrospective, single-center cohort study evaluated adult burn patients who were consecutively admitted to the burn service with at least 10% total body surface area burned and subsequently followed in the burn clinic between February 2015 and September 2018. Subjects were separated into two cohorts based on discharge pain regimens: multimodal and nonmultimodal. The primary outcome was the change in opioid requirements (measured in oral morphine equivalents) between discharge and first follow-up interval. Secondary outcomes included the classes of multimodal agents utilized and a comparison of opioid requirements between the last 24 hours of admission and discharge. A total of 152 patients were included for analysis, 76 in the multimodal cohort and 76 in the nonmultimodal cohort. The multimodal cohort was noted to have increased total body surface area burned and prolonged number of days spent in the intensive care unit at baseline; however, the multimodal cohort exhibited a more significant decrease in opioid requirements from discharge to first follow-up interval when compared with the nonmultimodal cohort (106.6 vs 75.4 mg, P = .039).

scholarly journals A comparative study to evaluate the effect of honey dressing and silver sulfadiazene dressing on wound healing in burn patients

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 176-181
Author(s):  
P. S. Baghel ◽  
S. Shukla ◽  
R. K. Mathur ◽  
R. Randa
Keyword(s):  
Wound Healing ◽  
Average Duration ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Burn Patients ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Total Body ◽  
Time Of Admission ◽  
And Control ◽  
Burn Contractures

ABSTRACTTo compare the effect of honey dressing and silver-sulfadiazene (SSD) dressing on wound healing in burn patients. Patients (n=78) of both sexes, with age group between 10 and 50 years and with first and second degree of burn of less than 50% of TBSA (Total body surface area) were included in the study, over a period of 2 years (2006-08). After stabilization, patients were randomly attributed into two groups: ‘honey group’ and ‘SSD group’. Time elapsed since burn was recorded. After washing with normal saline, undiluted pure honey was applied over the wounds of patients in the honey group (n=37) and SSD cream over the wounds of patients in SSD group (n=41), everyday. Wound was dressed with sterile gauze, cotton pads and bandaged. Status of the wound was assessed every third and seventh day and on the day of completion of study. Patients were followed up every fortnight till epithelialization. The bacteriological examination of the wound was done every seventh day. The mean age for case (honey group) and control (SSD group) was 34.5 years and 28.5 years, respectively. Wound swab culture was positive in 29 out of 36 patients who came within 8 hours of burn and in all patients who came after 24 hours. The average duration of healing in patients treated with honey and SSD dressing at any time of admission was 18.16 and 32.68 days, respectively. Wound of all those patients (100%) who reported within 1 hour became sterile with honey dressing in less than 7 days while none with SSD. All of the wounds became sterile in less than 21 days with honey, while tthis was so in only 36.5% with SSD treated wounds. The honey group included 33 patients reported within 24 hour of injury, and 26 out of them had complete outcome at 2 months of follow-up, while numbers for the SSD group were 32 and 12. Complete outcome for any admission point of time after 2 months was noted in 81% and 37% of patients in the honey group and the SSD group. Honey dressing improves wound healing, makes the wound sterile in lesser time, has a better outcome in terms of prevention of hypertrophic scarring and post-burn contractures, and decreases the need of debridement irrespective of time of admission, when compared to SSD dressing.

scholarly journals Prevalence and associated predictors for patients developing chronic neuropathic pain following burns

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M Klifto ◽  
A Lee Dellon ◽  
C Scott Hultman
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Chronic Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Total Body

Abstract Background Chronic pain, unrelated to the burn itself, can manifest as a long-term complication in patients sustaining burn injuries. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) and compare burn characteristics between patients who developed CNP and patients without CNP who were treated at a burn center. Methods A single-center, retrospective analysis of 1880 patients admitted to the adult burn center was performed from 1 January 2014 to 1 January 2019. Patients included were over the age of 15 years, sustained a burn injury and were admitted to the burn center. CNP was diagnosed clinically following burn injury. Patients were excluded from the definition of CNP if their pain was due to an underlying illness or medication. Comparisons between patients admitted to the burn center with no pain and patients admitted to the burn center who developed CNP were performed. Results One hundred and thirteen of the 1880 burn patients developed CNP as a direct result of burn injury over 5 years with a prevalence of 6.01%. Patients who developed CNP were a significantly older median age (54 years vs. 46 years, p = 0.002), abused alcohol (29% vs. 8%, p < 0.001), abused substances (31% vs. 9%, p < 0.001), were current daily smokers (73% vs. 33%, p < 0.001), suffered more full-thickness burns (58% vs. 43%, p < 0.001), greater median percent of total body surface area (%TBSA) burns (6 vs. 3.5, p < 0.001), were more often intubated on mechanical ventilation (33% vs. 14%, p < 0.001), greater median number of surgeries (2 vs. 0, p < 0.001) and longer median hospital length of stay (LOS) (10 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.001), compared to those who did not develop CNP, respectively. Median patient follow-up was 27 months. Conclusions The prevalence of CNP over 5 years was 6.01% in the burn center. Older ages, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, current daily smoking, greater percent of total body surface area (%TBSA) burns, third degree burns, being intubated on mechanical ventilation, having more surgeries and longer hospital LOS were associated with developing CNP following burn injury, compared to patients who did not develop CNP following burn injury.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document