Burn care remains among the most complex of the time-sensitive treatment interventions in medicine today. An enormous quantity of specialized resources are required to support the critical and complex modalities needed to meet the conventional standard of care for each patient with a critical burn injury. Because of these dependencies, a sudden surge of patients with critical burn injuries requiring immediate and prolonged care following a burn mass casualty incident (BMCI) will place immense stress on healthcare system assets, including supplies, space, and an experienced workforce (staff). Therefore, careful planning to maximize the efficient mobilization and rational use of burn care resources is essential to limit morbidity and mortality following a BMCI. The U.S. burn care profession is represented by the American Burn Association (ABA). This paper has been written by clinical experts and led by the ABA to provide further clarity regarding the capacity of the American healthcare system to absorb a surge of burn-injured patients. Furthermore, this paper intends to offer responders and clinicians evidence-based tools to guide their response and care efforts to maximize burn care capabilities based on realistic assumptions when confronted with a BMCI. This effort also aims to align recommendations in part with those of the Committee on Crisis Standards of Care for the Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences. Their publication guided the work in this report, identified here as "conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care." This paper also includes an update to the burn Triage Tables- Seriously Resource-Strained Situations (v.2).

Existing burn center referral criteria were developed several years ago, and subsequent innovations in burn care have occurred. Coupled with frequent errors in the estimation of extent of burn injury and depth by referring providers, patients are both over and under-triaged when the existing criteria are used to support patient care decisions. In the absence of compelling clinical trial data on appropriate burn patient triage, we convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to execute an iterative eDelphi consensus process to facilitate a revision. The eDelphi process panel consisted of n = 61 burn stakeholders and experts and progressed through four rounds before reaching consensus on key clinical domains. The major findings are that 1) burn center consultation is strongly recommended for all patients with deep partial-thickness or deeper burns ≥ 10% TBSA burned, for full-thickness burns ≥ 5% TBSA burned, for children and older adults with specific dressing and medical needs, and for special burn circumstances including electrical, chemical, and radiation injuries; 2) smaller burns are ideally followed in burn center outpatient settings as soon as possible after injury, preferably without delays of a week or more; 3) frostbite, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TENS, and necrotizing soft-tissue infection patients benefit from burn center treatment; and 4) telemedicine and technological solutions are of likely benefit in achieving this standard. Unlike the original criteria, the revised consensus-based guidelines create a framework promoting communication so that triage and treatment are specifically tailored to individual patient characteristics, injury severity, geography, and the capabilities of referring institutions.

Background

Sepsis and septic shock occur commonly in severe burns. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is also common and often results as a consequence of sepsis. Mortality is unacceptably high in burn patients who develop AKI requiring renal replacement therapy and is presumed to be even higher when combined with septic shock. We hypothesized that high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) as a blood purification technique would be beneficial in this population.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the impact of HVHF on the hemodynamic profile of burn patients with septic shock and AKI involving seven burn centers in the United States. Subjects randomized to the HVHF were prescribed a dose of 70 ml/kg/hour for 48 hours while control subjects were managed in standard fashion in accordance with local practices.

Results

During a 4-year period, a total of nine subjects were enrolled for the intervention during the ramp-in phase and 28 subjects were randomized, 14 each into the control and HVHF arms respectively. The study was terminated due to slow enrollment. Ramp-in subjects were included along with those randomized in the final analysis. Our primary endpoint, the vasopressor dependency index, decreased significantly at 48 hours compared to baseline in the HVHF group (p = 0.007) while it remained no different in the control arm. At 14 days, the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome score decreased significantly in the HVHF group when compared to the day of treatment initiation (p = 0.02). No changes in inflammatory markers were detected during the 48-hour intervention period. No significant difference in survival was detected. No differences in adverse events were noted between the groups.

Conclusions

HVHF was effective in reversing shock and improving organ function in burn patients with septic shock and AKI, and appears safe. Whether reversal of shock in these patients can improve survival is yet to be determined.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01213914 . Registered 30 September 2010.

Early excision and autografting are standard care for deeper burns. However, donor sites are a source of significant morbidity. To address this, the ReCell® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device (ReCell) was designed for use at the point-of-care to prepare a noncultured, autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) capable of epidermal regeneration using minimal donor skin. A prospective study was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of ReCell vs meshed split-thickness skin grafts (STSG, Control) for the treatment of deep partial-thickness burns. Effectiveness measures were assessed to 1 year for both ASCS and Control treatment sites and donor sites, including the incidence of healing, scarring, and pain. At 4 weeks, 98% of the ASCS-treated sites were healed compared with 100% of the Controls. Pain and assessments of scarring at the treatment sites were reported to be similar between groups. Significant differences were observed between ReCell and Control donor sites. The mean ReCell donor area was approximately 40 times smaller than that of the Control (P < .0001), and after 1 week, significantly more ReCell donor sites were healed than Controls (P = .04). Over the first 16 weeks, patients reported significantly less pain at the ReCell donor sites compared with Controls (P ≤ .05 at each time point). Long-term patients reported higher satisfaction with ReCell donor site outcomes compared with the Controls. This study provides evidence that the treatment of deep partial-thickness burns with ASCS results in comparable healing, with significantly reduced donor site size and pain and improved appearance relative to STSG.