The use of vasopressors during acute burn resuscitation

American Burn Association Clinical Practice Guidelines on Burn Shock Resuscitation

This Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) addresses the topic of acute fluid resuscitation during the first 48 hours following a burn injury for adults with burns ≥20% of the total body surface area (%TBSA). The listed authors formed an investigation panel and developed clinically relevant PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions. A systematic literature search returned 5978 titles related to this topic and after 3 levels of screening, 24 studies met criteria to address the PICO questions and were critically reviewed. We recommend that clinicians consider the use of human albumin solution, especially in patients with larger burns, to lower resuscitation volumes and improve urine output. We recommend initiating resuscitation based on providing 2 mL/kg/% TBSA burn in order to reduce resuscitation fluid volumes. We recommend selective monitoring of intra-abdominal and intraocular pressure during burn shock resuscitation. We make a weak recommendation for clinicians to consider the use of computer decision support software to guide fluid titration and lower resuscitation fluid volumes. We do not recommend the use of transpulmonary thermodilution-derived variables to guide burn shock resuscitation. We are unable to make any recommendations on the use of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), early continuous renal replacement therapy, or vasopressors as adjuncts during acute burn shock resuscitation. Mortality is an important outcome in burn shock resuscitation, but it was not formally included as a PICO outcome because the available scientific literature is missing studies of sufficient population size and quality to allow us to confidently make recommendations related to the outcome of survival at this time.

An Appraisal of Pharmacotherapy-Pertinent Literature Published in 2021 and 2022 for Clinicians Caring for Patients With Thermal or Inhalation Injury

Studies focusing on pharmacotherapy interventions to aid patients after thermal injury are a minor focus in burn injury-centered studies and published across a wide array of journals, which challenges those with limited resources to keep their knowledge current. This review is a renewal of previous years' work to facilitate extraction and review of the most recent pharmacotherapy-centric studies in patients with thermal and inhalation injury. Twenty-three geographically dispersed, board-certified pharmacists participated in the review. A Medical Subject Heading-based, filtered search returned 2336 manuscripts over the previous 2-year period. After manual review, 98 (4%) manuscripts were determined to have a potential impact on current pharmacotherapy practice. The top 10 scored manuscripts are discussed. Only 17% of those reviewed were assessed to likely have little effect on current practice. The overall impact of the current cohort was higher than previous editions of this review, which is encouraging. There remains a need for investment in well-designed, high-impact, pharmacotherapy-pertinent research for patients sustaining thermal or inhalation injuries.

Vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in initial resuscitation of burn injuries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

According to current guidelines, initial burn resuscitation should be performed with fluids alone. The aims of the study were to review the frequency of use of vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in initial burn resuscitation, and assess the benefits and harms of adding such drugs to fluids.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, UpToDate, and SveMed+ through 3 December 2021. The search included studies on critically ill burn patients receiving vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in addition to fluids within 48 h after burn injury.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 1058 unique publications that were screened for inclusion. After assessing 115 publications in full text, only two retrospective cohort studies were included. One study found that 16 out of 52 (31%) patients received vasopressor(s). Factors associated with vasopressor use were increasing age, burn depth, and % total body surface area (TBSA) burnt. Another study observed that 20 out of 111 (18%) patients received vasopressor(s). Vasopressor use was associated with increasing age, Baux score, and %TBSA burnt in addition to more frequent dialysis treatment and increased mortality. Study quality assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was considered good in one study, but uncertain due to limited description of methods in the other.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review revealed that there is a lack of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of using vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in addition to fluids during early resuscitation of patients with major burns.