Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement in hand burns – an easier way to manage a difficult patient: case report

Introduction. Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement may be considered the standard in patients with upper extremity burns management, regarding the low risk of bleeding, wound infections, reduction of surgical timing, and the decreased risk of compartment syndrome development. Case presentation. We present the case of hand and face burns in a patient presenting deep venous thrombosis of the lower limb extended to the level of the vena cava, and bilateral pulmonary embolism. The enzymatic debridement reduced periprocedural bleeding and allowed a faster recovery and therefore the resumption of oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet medication in a patient with important cardiac, arterial, and renal comorbidities. Conclusion. Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement use is recommended in patients presenting upper limb deep burns, especially in anatomically challenging areas, like hand fingers, and especially in those with a previous medical history that predisposes them to periprocedural bleeding and increased risk of poor healing

Venous Thromboembolism in Burn Patients: A 5-Year Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Burn patients manifest all components of Virchow’s triad, amplifying the concern for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Routine prophylaxis for VTE remains a subject of debate, with the central concern being the occurrence of associated adverse events. Materials and Methods: We conducted a five-year retrospective study on burn patients admitted to our burn center. Demographic data, comorbidities, burn lesions characteristics, surgical interventions, anticoagulant medication, the need for transfusions, the presence of a central venous catheter, length of stay, complications, and mortality were recorded. Results: Of the overall number of patients (494), 2.63% (13 patients) developed venous thromboembolic complications documented through paraclinical investigations. In 70% of cases, thrombosis occurred in a limb with central venous catether (CVC). Every patient with VTE had a Caprini score above 8, with a mean score of 12 points in our study group. Conclusions: Considering each patient’s particularities and burn injury characteristics, individualized approaches may be necessary to optimize thromboprophylaxis effectiveness. We suggest routinely using the Caprini Risk Assessment Model in burn patients. We recommend the administration of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in all patients and careful monitoring of patients with Caprini scores above 8, due to the increased risk of VTE. Additionally, ongoing research in this field may provide insights into new strategies for managing thrombotic risk in burn patients