Telehealth experience during COVID-19 at an American burn Association (ABA) verified adult and pediatric burn center

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented changes to healthcare services. Non-emergent, out-patient care was either discontinued, greatly reduced, or switched to telehealth during the first wave of the pandemic. Here, we describe an American Burn Association (ABA) verified Burn Center’s experience with telehealth services during and after the COVID-19 emergency. Material and methods: In this retrospective study, all patients who underwent out-patient care at a large academic hospital’s ABA Burn Center between March 2018 and March 2023 were identified from the electronic medical record system. Descriptive analysis was carried out to delineate trends in outpatient in-person and telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The travel distance saved from the introduction of telehealth was determined. Results: During the study period, 3471 patients underwent a total of 7444 out-patient visits for burn care. There were no telehealth visits prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, 14.9% of all out-patient visits were conducted with telehealth. This decreased to 8.3% and 6.8% of all out-patient care in the second and third years of the pandemic, respectively. The average round trip travel distance saved was 123 miles (2.8–––2312 miles). No complications were reported specific to receiving telehealth care. Conclusions: Telehealth is a feasible option for out-patient burn care in selected patients and reduces travel for patients. Further studies are needed to assess patient and clinician satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and the economic impact of telehealth utilization to help guide appropriateness of use

Western Trauma Association critical decisions in trauma: Preferred triage and initial management of the burned patient.

This is a recommended management algorithm from the Western Trauma Association addressing the management of victims of burn injury. Because there is a paucity of published prospective randomized clinical trials that have generated Class I data, these recommendations are based primarily on published retrospective studies, clinical guidelines, and the expert opinion of members of the Western Trauma Association in conjunction with partner members of the American Burn Association. The algorithm and accompanying comments represent one safe and sensible approach that can be followed at most trauma centers. We recognize that there may be patient or institutional factors that warrant deviation from the published algorithm. We would encourage institutions to use this document as a starting point toward a dialog with local burn centers to collaboratively create a patient-centered care experience for the victims of minor burn injuries arriving at local trauma centers

Missingness matters: a secondary analysis of thromboelastography measurements from a recent prehospital randomized tranexamic acid clinical trial

Background Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been hypothesized to mitigate coagulopathy in patients after traumatic injury. Despite previous prehospital clinical trials demonstrating a TXA survival benefit, none have demonstrated correlated changes in thromboelastography (TEG) parameters. We sought to analyze if missing TEG data contributed to this paucity of findings.Methods We performed a secondary analysis of the Study of Tranexamic Acid During Air Medical and Ground Prehospital Transport Trial. We compared patients that received TEG (YES-TEG) and patients unable to be sampled (NO-TEG) to analyze subgroups in which to investigate TEG differences. TEG parameter differences across TXA intervention arms were assessed within subgroups disproportionately present in the NO-TEG relative to the YES-TEG cohort. Generalized linear models controlling for potential confounders were applied to findings with p<0.10 on univariate analysis.Results NO-TEG patients had lower prehospital systolic blood pressure (SBP) (100 (78, 140) vs 125 (88, 147), p<0.01), lower prehospital Glascow Coma Score (14 (3, 15) vs 15 (12, 15), p<0.01), greater rates of prehospital intubation (39.4% vs 24.4%, p<0.01) and greater mortality at 30 days (36.4% vs 6.8%, p<0.01). NO-TEG patients had a greater international normalized ratio relative to the YES-TEG subgroup (1.2 (1.1, 1.5) vs 1.1 (1.0, 1.2), p=0.04). Within a severe prehospital shock cohort (SBP<70), TXA was associated with a significant decrease in clot lysis at 30 min on multivariate analysis (β=−27.6, 95% CI (−51.3 to –3.9), p=0.02).Conclusions Missing data, due to the logistical challenges of sampling certain severely injured patients, may be associated with a lack of TEG parameter changes on TXA administration in the primary analysis. Previous demonstration of TXA’s survival benefit in patients with severe prehospital shock in tandem with the current findings supports the notion that TXA acts at least partially by improving clot integrity.Level of evidence Level II

Updating the Burn Center Referral Criteria: Results From the 2018 eDelphi Consensus Study.

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

Evaluation of critical care burden following traumatic injury from two randomized controlled trials

Abstract Trauma resuscitation practices have continued to improve with new advances targeting prehospital interventions. The critical care burden associated with severely injured patients at risk of hemorrhage has been poorly characterized. We aim to describe the individual and additive effects of multiorgan failure (MOF) and nosocomial infection (NI) on delayed mortality and resource utilization. A secondary analysis of harmonized data from two large prehospital randomized controlled trials (Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial and Study of Tranexamic Acid during Air and Ground Medical Prehospital Transport (STAAMP) Trial) was conducted. Only those patients who survived beyond the first 24 hours post-injury and spent at least one day in the ICU were included. Patients were stratified by development of MOF only, NI only, both, or neither and diagnosis of early (≤ 3 days) versus late MOF (> 3 days). Risk factors of NI and MOF, time course of these ICU complications, associated mortality, and hospital resource utilization were evaluated. Of the 869 patients who were enrolled in PAMPer and STAAMP and who met study criteria, 27.4% developed MOF only (n = 238), 10.9% developed NI only (n = 95), and 15.3% were diagnosed with both MOF and NI (n = 133). Patients developing NI and/or MOF compared to those who had an uncomplicated ICU course had greater injury severity, lower GCS, and greater shock indexes. Early MOF occurred in isolation, while late MOF more often followed NI. MOF was associated with 65% higher independent risk of 30-day mortality when adjusting for cofounders (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.04–2.6; p = 0.03), however NI did not significantly affect odds of mortality. NI was individually associated with longer mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, hospital stay, and rehabilitation requirements, and the addition of MOF further increased the burden of inpatient and post-discharge care. MOF and NI remain common complications for those who survive traumatic injury. MOF is a robust independent predictor of mortality following injury in this cohort, and NI is associated with higher resource utilization. Timing of these ICU complications may reveal differences in pathophysiology and offer targets for continued advancements in treatment

Mechanism matters: mortality and endothelial cell damage marker differences between blunt and penetrating traumatic injuries across three prehospital clinical trials

Abstract Injury mechanism is an important consideration when conducting clinical trials in trauma. Mechanisms of injury may be associated with differences in mortality risk and immune response to injury, impacting the potential success of the trial. We sought to characterize clinical and endothelial cell damage marker differences across blunt and penetrating injured patients enrolled in three large, prehospital randomized trials which focused on hemorrhagic shock. In this secondary analysis, patients with systolic blood pressure  108 were included. In addition, patients with both blunt and penetrating injuries were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Mortality was characterized using Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional-hazards models. Generalized linear models were used to compare biomarkers. Chi squared tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum were used to compare secondary outcomes. We characterized data of 696 enrolled patients that met all secondary analysis inclusion criteria. Blunt injured patients had significantly greater 24-h (18.6% vs. 10.7%, log rank p = 0.048) and 30-day mortality rates (29.7% vs. 14.0%, log rank p = 0.001) relative to penetrating injured patients with a different time course. After adjusting for confounders, blunt mechanism of injury was independently predictive of mortality at 30-days (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06–3.20, p = 0.029), but not 24-h (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.86–3.18, p = 0.133). Elevated admission levels of endothelial cell damage markers, VEGF, syndecan-1, TM, S100A10, suPAR and HcDNA were associated with blunt mechanism of injury. Although there was no difference in multiple organ failure (MOF) rates across injury mechanism (48.4% vs. 42.98%, p = 0.275), blunt injured patients had higher Denver MOF score (p < 0.01). The significant increase in 30-day mortality and endothelial cell damage markers in blunt injury relative to penetrating injured patients highlights the importance of considering mechanism of injury within the inclusion and exclusion criteria of future clinical trials

Tranexamic Acid During Prehospital Transport in Patients at Risk for Hemorrhage After Injury: A Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance In-hospital administration of tranexamic acid after injury improves outcomes in patients at risk for hemorrhage. Data demonstrating the benefit and safety of the pragmatic use of tranexamic acid in the prehospital phase of care are lacking for these patients. Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of tranexamic acid administered before hospitalization compared with placebo in injured patients at risk for hemorrhage. Design, Setting, and Participants This pragmatic, phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority randomized clinical trial included injured patients with prehospital hypotension (systolic blood pressure = 110/min) before arrival at 1 of 4 US level 1 trauma centers, within an estimated 2 hours of injury, from May 1, 2015, through October 31, 2019. Interventions Patients received 1 g of tranexamic acid before hospitalization (447 patients) or placebo (456 patients) infused for 10 minutes in 100 mL of saline. The randomization scheme used prehospital and in-hospital phase assignments, and patients administered tranexamic acid were allocated to abbreviated, standard, and repeat bolus dosing regimens on trauma center arrival. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Results In all, 927 patients (mean [SD] age, 42 [18] years; 686 [74.0%] male) were eligible for prehospital enrollment (460 randomized to tranexamic acid intervention; 467 to placebo intervention). After exclusions, the intention-to-treat study cohort comprised 903 patients: 447 in the tranexamic acid arm and 456 in the placebo arm. Mortality at 30 days was 8.1% in patients receiving tranexamic acid compared with 9.9% in patients receiving placebo (difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -5.6% to 1.9%;P = .17). Results of Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, accounting for site, verified that randomization to tranexamic acid was not associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.11,P = .18). Prespecified dosing regimens and post-hoc subgroup analyses found that prehospital tranexamic acid were associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality. When comparing tranexamic acid effect stratified by time to treatment and qualifying shock severity in a post hoc comparison, 30-day mortality was lower when tranexamic acid was administered within 1 hour of injury (4.6% vs 7.6%; difference, -3.0%; 95% CI, -5.7% to -0.3%;P < .002). Patients with severe shock (systolic blood pressure <= 70 mm Hg) who received tranexamic acid demonstrated lower 30-day mortality compared with placebo (18.5% vs 35.5%; difference, -17%; 95% CI, -25.8% to -8.1%;P < .003). Conclusions and Relevance In injured patients at risk for hemorrhage, tranexamic acid administered before hospitalization did not result in significantly lower 30-day mortality. The prehospital administration of tranexamic acid after injury did not result in a higher incidence of thrombotic complications or adverse events. Tranexamic acid given to injured patients at risk for hemorrhage in the prehospital setting is safe and associated with survival benefit in specific subgroups of patients.12 month embargo; first published online 5 October 2020This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]