Incidental operating room fire from a breathing circuit warmer system: a case report

Background An airway-associated fire in an operating room can have devastating consequences for patients. Breathing circuit warmers (BCWs) are widely used to provide heated and humidified anesthetic gases and eventually prevent hypothermia during general anesthesia. Herein, we describe a case of a BCW-related airway fire. Case presentation In this case, an electrical short within a BCW wire caused a fire inside the circuit. Simultaneously, the fire was extinguished, ventilation was stopped, and the endotracheal tube was disconnected from the BCW. The patient was exposed to the fire for less than 10 s, resulting in burns to the trachea and bronchi. Immediately after airway burn, bronchoscopy showed no edema or narrowing except for soot in the trachea and both main bronchus. After the inhalation burn event, prophylactic antibiotics, bronchodilator, mucolytics nebulizer, and corticosteroid nebulizer were started. On bronchoscopy 3 days after the inhalation burn, mucosal erythematous edema was observed and the inflammatory reaction worsened. The inflammatory reaction showed aggravation for up to 2 weeks, and then gradually recovered, and the epithelium and mucous membrane of the upper respiratory tract returned to normal after 4 weeks. Eventually, the patient recovered without long-term complications and was successfully discharged. Conclusions This is the first report of a fire caused by BCW. We wanted to share our experience of how we responded to an airway-related fire in an OR and treated the patient. It cannot be overemphasized that the electrical medical appliance associated with the airways are fatal to the patient in the event of a fire, so caution should always be exercised.

The Effect of Transfer on Outcomes in Burns

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.

Respiratory characteristics in patients with major burn injury and smoke inhalation

This study aimed to evaluate pulmonary function measurements and respiratory muscle parameters in patients with major burn injury and smoke inhalation. The inclusion criteria included patients who were diagnosed with a smoke inhalation burn or a major burn of more than 20% of total body surface area (TBSA). All subjects underwent a pulmonary function test, respiratory muscle strength test, peak cough flow and fluoroscopic diaphragmatic movement measurement, and six-minute walk test before starting pulmonary rehabilitation. Evaluations were conducted on the 88 th days after the injury, the average time of admission to the Department of the Rehabilitation Medicine for burn rehabilitation after the completion of the acute treatment. The average degree of burns of the total 67 patients was 34.6% TBSA. All parameters in the patient group were significantly lower than the healthy controls, and a mild restrictive pattern of impairment with a reduction in diffusing capacity and more reduced expiratory muscle, than inspiratory muscle strength were observed. Peak cough flow, respiratory muscle strength, and forced vital capacity in the patient group with inhalation burn were significantly lower than in those without inhalation burn. The conditions of the majority of patients with major burn and inhalation injury were consistent with restrictive impairment and significant reduction in diffusion capacity. The patients had expiratory muscle weakness, decreased diaphragmatic movement, and exercise capacity impairment.

Validation of Predictive Ability of Bobi Score in Burn Patients

Introduction: Scoring systems have been used successfully in burn centers to predict the prognosis and take measures for careful monitoring of the burned patient. Belgium Outcome Burn Injury score is one of them which takes into consideration age, burn surface area, and presence of inhalation burn. Objectives: This presentation aims to validate the use of the BOBI prognostic score in our patients. Patients and Methods: The study is a retrospective analytical study that utilized the investigation of the medical charts of 1515 patients hospitalized with severe burns within the ICU of the Service of Burns in Tirana, Albania during 2010-2019. Results: The overall mortality of our patients was 7.06% (107 deaths in 1515 patients). Up to BOBI score 6, we have noticed better mortality than prediction while there is a very good prediction up to score 10. Area Under the Curve was 0.978 (p<0.0001) which is an outstanding result in being a classifier between deaths and survivors. Conclusions: BOBI score is a very good prediction score for mortality in burn patients.

66 The Effect of Transfer on Outcomes in Burns

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 &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). 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.

631 Mobilization of Patient with Inhalation Burn Injury Requiring VV ECMO: A Case Study

Introduction As extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) becomes more popular, there is increasing evidence supporting the safety and feasibility of early physical and occupational therapy (PT, OT) and mobility with patients on ECMO. However, there is limited evidence to support mobilizing burn ECMO patients. This case discusses safety and feasibility and explains how to successfully mobilize a burn patient on ECMO. Methods The patient is a 56-year old male admitted after sustaining 16% total body surface area partial and full thickness burns to his face, neck, forearms, and hands following an explosion at work. He sustained an inhalational injury and was intubated upon admission. Progression of his inhalation injury led to respiratory failure despite maximal ventilatory support. To maintain appropriate oxygenation, he underwent placement of left femoral-left internal jugular veno-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO). The patient received PT and OT throughout his stay in the Burn ICU. After starting ECMO, the patient resumed therapy with a sitting restriction to &lt; 45 degrees of left hip flexion. The critical care, burn, OT, PT, and cardiothoracic surgery teams discussed factors impacting his ability to participate in therapy, e.g., managing sedation to maximize wakefulness and titrating medications due to hypertension. Modifications to therapy treatments were made based on medical changes and the patient’s ability to participate. The patient was seen daily for mobilization by a PT, OT, nurse, and ECMO specialist team. Clinicians had extensive training and experience working with patients with acute mechanical circulatory support. Safety considerations were followed during all therapy sessions, including careful monitoring of ECMO flows, vitals signs, and securement of medical devices. Results While on ECMO for 11 days, the patient was engaged in daily therapy consisting of active exercise, bed mobility, transfers and standing balance activities. ECMO flows were maintained and no adverse events occurred during mobilization. From the first session on ECMO to day of discharge, the patient exhibited a 14-point increase in his Boston University Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care functional outcome score and progressed to ambulating 300 feet. Conclusions Burn patients on VV-ECMO with femoral cannulation can safely and effectively engage in therapy and early mobilization, which yield positive functional outcomes. A well-coordinated inter-disciplinary team and highly skilled staff is essential to provide safe and effective intervention. Applicability of Research to Practice Early mobilization of burn patients on ECMO is feasible and can ameliorate the effects of immobility. Burn therapists are an integral part of the inter-disciplinary team and should be trained to be skilled at providing care for patients on mechanical circulatory support.

Changing perspectives in the prehospital management of patients with severe burns

Treatment for burn injuries has typically involved the immediate cooling of the affected area with water to reduce pain and halt the progression of heat-induced tissue necrosis. For patients suspected to be at risk of airway compromise following inhalation burn injury, historical research has long advocated early prophylactic endotracheal intubation. In contrast, current literature is showing a change in the evidence base. To investigate this, a literature review was carried out and the evidence scrutinised in conjunction with local and national guidance. Controversy has more recently emerged over whether prophylactic endotracheal intubation is appropriate in the initial emergency management of suspected inhalation burn injury. Compounding this, it appears that no appropriate evidence-based guidelines have yet been made available. Traditional indications for prophylactic endotracheal intubation are sensitive but not specific. Research has subsequently demonstrated that large numbers of patients are being unnecessarily intubated and thus placed at risk of avoidable iatrogenic harm. A higher threshold for airway intervention is warranted. Additionally, a consensus remains over the use of prehospital cooling for burn injuries. This practice is, however, informed primarily by anecdotal and animal evidence. Patients with severe burns are at significant risk of hypothermia, which is associated with mortality. There is significantly more literature demonstrating the detrimental effects of hypothermia over the benefits of burn injury cooling in patients with severe burns. Treatment should therefore focus on the maintenance of normothermia as a priority. If cooling burned areas risks inducing hypothermia, it should be postponed.