Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration is Associated with Improved Survival in Burn Patients with Shock: A Subset Analysis of a Multicenter Observational Study

Filter Lifespan, Treatment Effect, and Influencing Factors of Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy for Severe Burn Patients

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is often disrupted due to various factors, such as patient-related issues, vascular access complications, treatment plans, and medical staff factors. This unexpected interruption is referred to as non-selective filter stoppage and can result in additional treatment expenses. This study conducted a retrospectively analyzed 501 CRRT filters used in 62 patients with severe burns, lifespan and therapeutic effect of all filters were mainly analyzed, used logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with non-selective cessation filters. Out of 493 filters, 279 cases received heparin (56.60%), the median lifespan of the filter was 14.08 h (25th, 75th quantile: 7.30, 21.50); 128 cases were treated with nafamostat mesylate (26.00%), and the median lifespan of the filter was 16.42 h (10.49, 22.76); 86 cases were treated with sodium citrate (17.40%), and the median lifespan of the filter was 31.06 h (19.25, 48.75). In addition, significant differences were observed in the electrolyte index, renal function index, and procalcitonin levels before and after treatment with a single filter (P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression showed that the risk of non-selective cessation of sodium citrate anticoagulants was lower than that of heparin anticoagulation. Overall, CRRT is progressively becoming more prevalent in the treatment of patients with severe burns. The lifespan of individual filters and total patient treatment duration showed a consistent upward trend. The filter's lifespan was notably greater during sodium citrate anticoagulation when compared to nafamostat mesylate and heparin, meanwhile notably reducing the risk of non-selective cessation. Therefore, we recommend sodium citrate for anticoagulation in patients without any contraindications.

Inhalation Injury, Respiratory Failure, and Ventilator Support in Acute Burn Care

Sustaining an inhalation injury increases the risk of severe complications and mortality. Current evidential support to guide treatment of the injury or subsequent complications is lacking, as studies either exclude inhalation injury or design limit inferences that can be made. Conventional ventilator modes are most commonly used, but there is no consensus on optimal strategies. Settings should be customized to patient tolerance and response. Data for pharmacotherapy adjunctive treatments are limited.

Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign

INTRODUCTION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign was developed to improve outcomes for all patients with sepsis. Despite sepsis being the primary cause of death after thermal injury, burns have always been excluded from the Surviving Sepsis efforts. To improve sepsis outcomes in burn patients, an international group of burn experts developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign (SSABC) as a testable guideline to improve burn sepsis outcomes.

METHODS

The International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) reached out to regional or national burn organizations to recommend members to participate in the program. Two members of the ISBI developed specific "patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome" (PICO) questions that paralleled the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign [1]. SSABC participants were asked to search the current literature and rate its quality for each topic. At the Congress of the ISBI, in Guadalajara, Mexico, August 28, 2022, a majority of the participants met to create "statements" based on the literature. The "summary statements" were then sent to all members for comment with the hope of developing an 80% consensus. After four reviews, a consensus statement for each topic was created or "no consensus" was reported.

RESULTS

The committee developed sixty statements within fourteen topics that provide guidance for the early treatment of sepsis in burn patients. These statements should be used to improve the care of sepsis in burn patients. The statements should not be considered as "static" comments but should rather be used as guidelines for future testing of the best treatments for sepsis in burn patients. They should be updated on a regular basis.

CONCLUSION

Members of the burn community from the around the world have developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign guidelines with the goal of improving the outcome of sepsis in burn patients.

American Burn Association Strategic Quality Summit 2022: Setting the Direction for the Future

The American Burn Association (ABA) hosted a Burn Care Strategic Quality Summit (SQS) in an ongoing effort to advance the quality of burn care. The goals of the SQS were to discuss and describe characteristics of quality burn care, identify goals for advancing burn care, and develop a roadmap to guide future endeavors while integrating current ABA quality programs. Forty multidisciplinary members attended the two-day event. Prior to the event, they participated in a pre-meeting webinar, reviewed relevant literature, and contemplated statements regarding their vision for improving burn care. At the in-person, professionally facilitated Summit in Chicago, Illinois, in June 2022, participants discussed various elements of quality burn care and shared ideas on future initiatives to advance burn care through small and large group interactive activities. Key outcomes of the SQS included burn-related definitions of quality care, avenues for integration of current ABA quality programs, goals for advancing quality efforts in burn care, and work streams with tasks for a roadmap to guide future burn care quality-related endeavors. Work streams included roadmap development, data strategy, quality program integration, and partners and stakeholders. This paper summarizes the goals and outcomes of the SQS and describes the status of established ABA quality programs as a launching point for futurework.

Optimizing the timing of renal replacement therapy in burn patients with acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury is a common complication in burn ICU patients and is associated with a high mortality rate. The optimal timing for starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) remains unknown; there is no established universal definition for early and late RRT initiation. The aims of the present narrative review are to briefly analyze the available recently published data on the timing of initiation of RRT in critically ill patients and to discuss the optimal timing of RRT in critically ill burn patients with acute kidney injury. When considering renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury patients, physicians face the dilemma of balancing the hazards of starting too early, exposing patient to an unnecessary therapy with possible complications and costs related to treatment, and preventing a significant proportion of patients from spontaneous recovery of their renal function against the potential life-threatening harm of initiating RRT) too late. Evidence suggests that with appropriate care up to 80% of burn patients experience recovery of kidney function and the need for RRT seems to be very rare after hospital discharge. In the absence of life-threatening complications, the optimal time and thresholds for starting RRT in burn patients are uncertain. High heterogeneity exists between studies on RRT timing in burn patients.

Proceedings of the 2021 American Burn Association State and Future of Burn Science Meeting

Periodically, the American Burn Association (ABA) has convened a State of the Science meeting on various topics representing multiple disciplines within burn care and research. In 2021 at the request of the ABA President, meeting development was guided by the ABA's Burn Science Advisory Panel (BSAP) and a subgroup of meeting chairs. The goal of the meeting was to produce both an evaluation of the current literature and ongoing studies, and to produce a research agenda and/or define subject matter-relevant next steps to advance the field(s). Members of the BSAP defined the topics to be addressed and subsequently solicited for nominations of expert speakers and topic leaders from the ABA's Research Committee. Current background literature for each topic was compiled by the meeting chairs and the library then enhanced by the invited topic and breakout discussion leaders. The meeting was held in New Orleans, LA on November 2nd and 3rd and was formatted to allow for 12 different topics, each with two subtopics, to be addressed. Topic leaders provided a brief overview of each topic to approximately 100 attendees, followed by expert-lead breakout sessions for each topic that allowed for focused discussion among subject matter experts and interested participants. The breakout and topic group leaders worked with the participants to determine research needs and associated next steps including white papers, reviews and in some cases collaborative grant proposals. Here, summaries from each topic area will be presented to highlight the main foci of discussion and associated conclusions.

Meropenem pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients with or without burn treated with or without continuous veno-venous hemofiltration

Introduction

Severe burn injury involves widespread skin and tissue damage leading to systemic inflammation, hypermetabolism and multi‐organ failure. The hypermetabolic phase of burn injury has been associated with increased systemic antibiotic clearance; however, critical illness in the absence of burn may also induce similar physiologic changes. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is often implemented in critically ill patients and may also affect antibiotic clearance. Although the pharmacokinetics (PK) of meropenem has been described in both the burn and non‐burn critically ill populations, direct comparative data is lacking.

Methods

For this study, we evaluated PK parameters of meropenem from 23 critically ill patients, burn or non‐burn, treated with or without continuous veno‐venous haemofiltration (CVVH) to determine the contribution of burn and CVVH to the variability of therapeutic meropenem levels.

Results

A two‐compartment model best described the data and revealed creatinine clearance (CrCl) and total burn surface area (TBSA) as significant covariates on clearance (CL) and peripheral volume of distribution (Vp), respectively. Of interest, non‐burn patients on CVVH displayed an overall lower inherent CL as compared to burn patients on CVVH (6.43 vs. 12.85 L/h). Probability of target attainment (PTA) simulations revealed augmented renal clearance (ARC) may necessitate dose adjustments, but TBSA and CVVH would not.

Conclusions

We recommend a standard dose of 1000 mg every 8 hours; however, if ARC is suspected, or the severity of illness requires a more stringent therapeutic target, we recommend a loading dose of 1000–2000 mg infused over 30 minutes to 1 hour followed by continuous infusion (3000–6000 mg over 24 hours), or intermittent infusion of 2000 mg every 8 hours.

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Simulations of Imipenem in Burn Patients With and Without Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration in the Military Health System

Continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) is a life‐sustaining procedure in patients with severe burns and acute kidney injury. Physiologic changes from burn injury and use of CVVH may alter imipenem pharmacokinetics (PK). We aimed to compare imipenem clearance (CL) in burn patients with and without CVVH, determine the effect of burn on imipenem volume of distribution (CVVH, n = 12; no CVVH, n = 11), in combination with previously published models. Model qualification was performed with standard diagnostics and comparing predicted PK parameters/time‐concentration profiles with those in the existing literature. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to evaluate the probability of target attainment. A 2‐compartment model best described the data. Utilizing albumin as a covariate on volume parameters and leveraging the clearance model from prior literature, our model predicted imipenem central volume and CL within a 10% margin of error across healthy, renally impaired, and burn populations. We provide direct comparison of imipenem CL in burn patients with and without CVVH. Notably, there was no significant difference. Large imipenem V_d in patients with severe burns is likely explained by increased capillary permeability, for which serum albumin may be a reasonable surrogate. Dosing 500 mg every 6 hours is adequate for burn patients on renally dosed CVVH; however, suspicion of augmented renal clearance or patients placed on CVVH without renal impairment may necessitate dosing of 1000 mg every 6 hours.