Alicia Lintner

A Novel Classification System for Injuries After Electronic Cigarette Explosions.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) contain lithium batteries that have been known to explode and/or cause fires that have resulted in burn injury. The purpose of this article is to present a case study, review injuries caused by e-cigarettes, and present a novel classification system from the newly emerging patterns of burns. A case study was presented and online media reports for e-cigarette burns were queried with search terms “e-cigarette burns” and “electronic cigarette burns.” The reports and injury patterns were tabulated. Analysis was then performed to create a novel classification system based on the distinct injury patterns seen in the study. Two patients were seen at our regional burn center after e-cigarette burns. One had an injury to his thigh and penis that required operative intervention after ignition of this device in his pocket. The second had a facial burn and corneal abrasions when the device exploded while he was inhaling vapor. The Internet search and case studies resulted in 26 cases for evaluation. The burn patterns were divided in direct injury from the device igniting and indirect injury when the device caused a house or car fire. A numerical classification was created: direct injury: type 1 (hand injury) 7 cases, type 2 (face injury) 8 cases, type 3 (waist/groin injury) 11 cases, and type 5a (inhalation injury from using device) 2 cases; indirect injury: type 4 (house fire injury) 7 cases and type 5b (inhalation injury from fire started by the device) 4 cases. Multiple e-cigarette injuries are occurring in the United States and distinct patterns of burns are emerging. The classification system developed in this article will aid in further study and future regulation of these dangerous devices.

Intravenous Ketamine as an adjunct to procedural sedation during burn wound care and dressing changes

Little has been published regarding intravenous (IV) ketamine for burn wound care in adult patients. Ketamine may serve as a safe alternative to provide conscious sedation and limit opioid administration to patients. The purpose of this study was to characterize IV ketamine use during burn wound care and establish its potential role as a safe adjunct to opioid and benzodiazepine medications. This is a retrospective review of adult patients admitted to a regional burn center who received IV ketamine for burn wound care. Patient demographics, medications, and ketamine-related adverse effects including hypertension and dysphoric reactions were recorded. Cardiopulmonary complications were also tracked. Thirty-six patients met inclusion criteria; fifty total cases were performed. The median patient age was 37 (interquartile range [IQR]: 28-55] years with a median burn size of 9.5 (IQR: 4.0-52) %TBSA. The median ketamine dose administered was 1.2 (IQR: 0.8-2.1) mg/kg. IV midazolam was administered in almost all cases (98%) at a median dose of 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-5.0) mg. Opioids were administered in 13 of 50 cases (26%) at a median morphine equivalent dose of 10 (IQR: 5.0-18) mg. In 46 cases (92%), patients denied unpleasant recall of medication. Dysphoric reactions were observed in three cases (6%). Ketamine-induced hypertension occurred in three cases (6%) and all immediately responded to IV labetalol. There were no cardiopulmonary complications. These findings suggest that IV ketamine provides a safe analgesia and sedative option for burn wound care. Given these findings, IV ketamine for burn wound care warrants further study.

Nebulized Heparin With N-Acetylcysteine and Albuterol Reduces Duration of Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With Inhalation Injury

Objective: Nebulized heparin has been proposed to improve pulmonary function in patients with inhalation injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of nebulized heparin with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and albuterol on the duration of mechanical ventilation in burn patients. Methods: This is a retrospective study evaluating mechanically ventilated adult patients admitted to a regional burn center with inhalation injury. Outcomes were compared between patients who were prescribed a combination of nebulized heparin with NAC and albuterol versus similar patients who did not. Results: A total of 48 patients met inclusion criteria (heparin n = 22; nonheparin n = 26). Patients in the nonheparin group had higher percentage of total body surface area (TBSA) burned (29.00 [5.75-51.88] vs 5.25 [0.50-13.25] %TBSA; P = .009), longer duration of mechanical ventilation (6.50 [2.75-17.00] vs 3.00 [1.00-8.25] days; P = .022), and longer intensive care unit length of stay (LOS) (3.00 [3.00-28.75] vs 5.50 days [2.00-11.25]; P = .033). Upon regression, use of heparin was the only variable associated with reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation (P = .039). Conclusion: Nebulized heparin in combination with NAC and albuterol was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Burn Shock and Resuscitation: Proceedings of a Symposium Conducted at the Meeting of the American Burn Association, Chicago, IL, 21 April 2015

The Special Interest Groups of the American Burn Association provide a forum for interested members of the multidisciplinary burn team to congregate and discuss matters of mutual interest. At the 47th Annual Meeting of the American Burn Association in Chicago, IL, the Fluid Resuscitation Special Interest Group sponsored a special symposium on burn resuscitation. The purpose of the symposium was to review the history, current status, and future direction of fluid resuscitation of patients with burn shock. The reader will note several themes running through the following presentations. One is the perennial question of the proper role for albumin or other fluid-sparing strategies. Another is the unique characteristics of the pediatric burn patient. A third is the need for multicenter trials of burn resuscitation, while recognizing the obstacles to conducting randomized controlled trials in this setting.