Search

Background: It is unknown whether lung-protective ventilation is applied in burn patients and whether they benefit from it. This study aimed to determine ventilation practices in burn intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the association between lung-protective ventilation and the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28)., Methods: This is an international prospective observational cohort study including adult burn patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume ( V T ) was defined as V T  ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maximum airway pressures were collected. The association between V T and VFD-28 was analyzed using a competing risk model. Ventilation settings were presented for all patients, focusing on the first day of ventilation. We also compared ventilation settings between patients with and without inhalation trauma., Results: A total of 160 patients from 28 ICUs in 16 countries were included. Low V T was used in 74% of patients, median V T size was 7.3 [interquartile range (IQR) 6.2-8.3] mL/kg PBW and did not differ between patients with and without inhalation trauma ( p  = 0.58). Median VFD-28 was 17 (IQR 0-26), without a difference between ventilation with low or high V T ( p  = 0.98). All patients were ventilated with PEEP levels ≥5 cmH 2 O; 80% of patients had maximum airway pressures <30 cmH 2 O., Conclusion: In this international cohort study we found that lung-protective ventilation is used in the majority of burn patients, irrespective of the presence of inhalation trauma. Use of low V T was not associated with a reduction in VFD-28., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02312869. Date of registration: 9 December 2014., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Severe burn patients undergo prolonged administration of sedatives and analgesics for burn care. There are currently no guidelines for the dose adaptation of sedation-analgesia in severe burn patients., Methods: We performed a before-after 2-center study to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of a sedation-analgesia scale-based protocol in severely burned patients receiving ≥24h of invasive mechanical ventilation. Before the intervention, continuous infusion of hypnotic and morphine derivatives was continued. During the Intervention phase, general anesthesia was relayed from day 1 by RASS/BPS-titrated continuous infusion of hypnotic and morphine derivatives and with short half-life drugs adminstered for daily burn dressings. The primary outcome was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU., Results: Eighty-seven (46.2%) patients were included in the Control phase and 101 (53.7%) in the Intervention phase. The median burned cutaneous surface was 20% [11%-38%] and median ABSI was 7 [5-9]. The durations of hypnotic and opioid infusions were not statistically different between the 2 phases (8 days [2-24] vs. 6 days [2-17] (P=0.3) and 17 days [4-32] vs. 8 days [3-23] (P=0.06), respectively). The duration of mechanical ventilation was 14 days [3-29] in the Control phase and 7 days [2-24] in the Intervention phase (P=0.7). When taking into account the competition between mortality and weaning from mechanical ventilation, we found no significant difference between the 2 phases (Gray test, P=0.4). The time-series analysis showed no difference for the duration of mechanical ventilation in the Intervention phase (P=0.6). Eighteen (20.7%) patients died in the Control phase, and 18 (18%) in the Intervention phase (P=0.6)., Conclusion: Scale-based lightening of continuous sedation-analgesia with repeated short general anesthesia for dressing is feasible in severe burn patients but failed to demonstrate a decrease in the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.)