Nutrition and metabolism in burn patients

Abstract Severe burn causes significant metabolic derangements that make nutritional support uniquely important and challenging for burned patients. Burn injury causes a persistent and prolonged hypermetabolic state and increased catabolism that results in increased muscle wasting and cachexia. Metabolic rates of burn patients can surpass twice normal, and failure to fulfill these energy requirements causes impaired wound healing, organ dysfunction, and susceptibility to infection. Adequate assessment and provision of nutritional needs is imperative to care for these patients. There is no consensus regarding the optimal timing, route, amount, and composition of nutritional support for burn patients, but most clinicians advocate for early enteral nutrition with high-carbohydrate formulas. Nutritional support must be individualized, monitored, and adjusted throughout recovery. Further investigation is needed regarding optimal nutritional support and accurate nutritional endpoints and goals

A Comparison of Prognosis Calculators for Geriatric Trauma: A Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly Consortium Study

BACKGROUND The nine-center Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium has validated the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) as a prognosis calculator for injured elders. We compared GTOS\u27 performance to that of the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in a multicenter sample. METHODS Three Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly centers not submitting subjects to the GTOS validation study identified subjects aged 65 years to 102 years admitted from 2000 to 2013. GTOS was specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (Injury Severity Score [ISS] × 2.5) + 22 (if transfused packed red cells (PRC) at 24 hours)]. TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), dichotomizes age (\u3c55 years = 0 and ≥55 years = 1), and was specified using the updated 1995 beta coefficients. TRISS Penetrating was specified as [TRISSP = −2.5355 + (0.9934 × RTS) + (−0.0651 × ISS) + (−1.1360 × Age)]. TRISS Blunt was specified as [TRISSB = −0.4499 + (0.8085 × RTS Total) + (−0.0835 × ISS) + (−1.7430 × Age)]. Each then became the sole predictor in a separate logistic regression model to estimate probability of mortality. Model performances were evaluated using misclassification rate, Brier score, and area under the curve. RESULTS Demographics (mean + SD) of subjects with complete data (N = 10,894) were age, 78.3 years ± 8.1 years; ISS, 10.9 ± 8.4; RTS = 7.5 ± 1.1; mortality = 6.9%; blunt mechanism = 98.6%; 3.1 % of subjects received PRCs. The penetrating trauma subsample (n = 150) had a higher mortality rate of 20.0%. The misclassification rates for the models were GTOS, 0.065; TRISSB, 0.051; and TRISSP, 0.120. Brier scores were GTOS, 0.052; TRISSB, 0.041; and TRISSP, 0.084. The area under the curves were GTOS, 0.844; TRISSB, 0.889; and TRISSP, 0.897. CONCLUSION GTOS and TRISS function similarly and accurately in predicting probability of death for injured elders. GTOS has the advantages of a single formula, fewer variables, and no reliance on data collected in the emergency room or by other observers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level II

A Comparison of Prognosis Calculators for Geriatric Trauma: A Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly Consortium Study

BACKGROUND The nine-center Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium has validated the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) as a prognosis calculator for injured elders. We compared GTOS\u27 performance to that of the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in a multicenter sample. METHODS Three Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly centers not submitting subjects to the GTOS validation study identified subjects aged 65 years to 102 years admitted from 2000 to 2013. GTOS was specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (Injury Severity Score [ISS] × 2.5) + 22 (if transfused packed red cells (PRC) at 24 hours)]. TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), dichotomizes age (\u3c55 years = 0 and ≥55 years = 1), and was specified using the updated 1995 beta coefficients. TRISS Penetrating was specified as [TRISSP = −2.5355 + (0.9934 × RTS) + (−0.0651 × ISS) + (−1.1360 × Age)]. TRISS Blunt was specified as [TRISSB = −0.4499 + (0.8085 × RTS Total) + (−0.0835 × ISS) + (−1.7430 × Age)]. Each then became the sole predictor in a separate logistic regression model to estimate probability of mortality. Model performances were evaluated using misclassification rate, Brier score, and area under the curve. RESULTS Demographics (mean + SD) of subjects with complete data (N = 10,894) were age, 78.3 years ± 8.1 years; ISS, 10.9 ± 8.4; RTS = 7.5 ± 1.1; mortality = 6.9%; blunt mechanism = 98.6%; 3.1 % of subjects received PRCs. The penetrating trauma subsample (n = 150) had a higher mortality rate of 20.0%. The misclassification rates for the models were GTOS, 0.065; TRISSB, 0.051; and TRISSP, 0.120. Brier scores were GTOS, 0.052; TRISSB, 0.041; and TRISSP, 0.084. The area under the curves were GTOS, 0.844; TRISSB, 0.889; and TRISSP, 0.897. CONCLUSION GTOS and TRISS function similarly and accurately in predicting probability of death for injured elders. GTOS has the advantages of a single formula, fewer variables, and no reliance on data collected in the emergency room or by other observers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level II

Burn Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals of Care Delineation for Burned Geriatric Patients

Palliative care specialists (PCS) and burn surgeons (BS) were surveyed regarding: 1) importance of goals of care (GoC) conversations for burned seniors; 2) confidence in their own specialty\u27s ability to conduct these conversations; and 3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter consortium dedicated to palliative care in the injured geriatric patient and beta-tested by BS and PCS unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Burn Association and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Forty-five BS (7.3%) and 244 PCS (5.7%) responded. Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more comfortable having a discussion with laypeople, were more likely to have reported high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to BS. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so. BS favored leading team discussions, whereas palliative specialists preferred jointly led discussions. Both groups agreed that discussions should occur within 72 hours of admission. Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for burned seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on perceptions for the optimal leadership of these discussions

Burn Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals of Care Delineation for Burned Geriatric Patients

Palliative care specialists (PCS) and burn surgeons (BS) were surveyed regarding: 1) importance of goals of care (GoC) conversations for burned seniors; 2) confidence in their own specialty\u27s ability to conduct these conversations; and 3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter consortium dedicated to palliative care in the injured geriatric patient and beta-tested by BS and PCS unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Burn Association and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Forty-five BS (7.3%) and 244 PCS (5.7%) responded. Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more comfortable having a discussion with laypeople, were more likely to have reported high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to BS. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so. BS favored leading team discussions, whereas palliative specialists preferred jointly led discussions. Both groups agreed that discussions should occur within 72 hours of admission. Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for burned seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on perceptions for the optimal leadership of these discussions

Trauma Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals-of-Care Delineation for Injured Geriatric Patients

Background: The value of defining goals of care (GoC) for geriatric patients is well known to the palliative care community but is a newer concept for many trauma surgeons. Palliative care specialists and trauma surgeons were surveyed to elicit the specialties’ attitudes regarding (1) importance of GoC conversations for injured seniors; (2) confidence in their own specialty’s ability to conduct these conversations; and (3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. Methods: A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter, palliative care-focused consortium and beta-tested by trauma surgeons and palliative care specialists unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Results: Respondents included 118 trauma surgeons (8.8%) and 244 palliative care specialists (5.7%). Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more likely to report high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to trauma surgeons. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so and favored their own specialty leading team discussions. Conclusions: Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for injured seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on the optimal leadership of these discussions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved

Trauma Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals-of-Care Delineation for Injured Geriatric Patients

Background: The value of defining goals of care (GoC) for geriatric patients is well known to the palliative care community but is a newer concept for many trauma surgeons. Palliative care specialists and trauma surgeons were surveyed to elicit the specialties’ attitudes regarding (1) importance of GoC conversations for injured seniors; (2) confidence in their own specialty’s ability to conduct these conversations; and (3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. Methods: A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter, palliative care-focused consortium and beta-tested by trauma surgeons and palliative care specialists unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Results: Respondents included 118 trauma surgeons (8.8%) and 244 palliative care specialists (5.7%). Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more likely to report high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to trauma surgeons. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so and favored their own specialty leading team discussions. Conclusions: Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for injured seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on the optimal leadership of these discussions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved