| 1. |
- Nilsson, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient controlled sedation using a standard protocol for dressing changes in burns : Patients' preference, procedural details and a preliminary safety evaluation
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Burns. - : Elsevier BV. - 0305-4179 .- 1879-1409. ; 34:7, s. 929-934
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient controlled sedation (PCS) enables patients to titrate doses of drugs by themselves during different procedures involving pain or discomfort. Methods: We studied it in a prospective crossover design using a fixed protocol without lockout time to examine it as an alternative method of sedation for changing dressings in burned patients. Eleven patients with >10% total burn surface area (TBSA) had their dressings changed, starting with sedation by an anaesthetist (ACS). The second dressing change was done with PCS (propofol/alfentanil) and the third time the patients had to choose ACS or PCS. During the procedures, data on cardiopulmonary variables, sedation (bispectral index), pain intensity (VAS), procedural details, doses of drugs, and patients' preferences were collected to compare the two sedation techniques. Results: The study data indicated that wound care in burned patients is feasible with a standardized PCS protocol. The patients preferred PCS to ACS on the basis of self-control, and because they had less discomfort during the recovery period. Wound care was also considered adequate by the staff during PCS. No respiratory (respiratory rate/transcutaneous PCO2) or cardiovascular (heart rate/blood pressure) adverse events were recorded at any time during any of the PCS procedures. The doses of propofol and alfentanil and BIS index decrease were less during PCS than ACS. Procedural pain was higher during PCS but lower after the procedure. Conclusion: We suggest that PCS using a standard protocol is an interesting alternative to anaesthetist-provided sedation during dressing changes. It seems effective, saves resources, is safe, and at same time is preferred by the patients. The strength of these conclusions is, however, hampered by the small size of this investigation and therefore further studies are warranted. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI.
|
|
| 2. |
- Steinvall, Ingrid, 1959-, et al.
(författare)
-
Acute respiratory distress syndrome is as important as inhalation injury for the development of respiratory dysfunction in major burns
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Burns. - : Elsevier BV. - 0305-4179 .- 1879-1409. ; 34:4, s. 441-451
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Respiratory dysfunction is common after major burns. The pathogenesis is, however, still under debate. The aim was to classify and examine underlying reasons for respiratory dysfunction after major burns. Consecutive adult patients (n = 16) with a total burned body surface area of 20% or more who required mechanical ventilation were assessed for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), inhalation injury, sepsis, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), using conventional criteria, together with measurements of cardiovascular variables and viscoelastic properties of the lung including extravascular lung water. Nine patients developed ARDS within 6 days of injury. ARDS was characterized by a large reduction in the PEEP-adjusted PaO2:FiO2 ratio, pulmonary compliance, and increased extra vascular lung water together with increased renal dysfunction rates. Seven patients fulfilled the criteria for inhalation injury. They also had decreased PaO2:FiO2 ratios. There was an increase in extra vascular lung water and a decrease in compliance measures though not to the same extent as in the ARDS group. White blood cell counts dropped from (mean) 21.4 x 10exp9 /l (95% CI 15.3-27.5) in day 1 to 4.3 x 10exp9 /l (2.2-6.5) on day 3, and lower values tended to correlate with the development of ARDS. Sepsis occurred before onset of ARDS in only three cases. One patient fulfilled the criteria for VAP, but none was thought to have VILI. We found that respiratory dysfunction after burns is multifactorial, and ARDS and inhalation injury are most important. The early onset of ARDS, together with the changes in white blood cell count and organ dysfunction, favours a syndrome in which respiratory distress is induced by an inflammatory process mediated by the effect of the burn rather than being secondary to sepsis. The power of these conclusions is, however, hampered by the small number of patients in this study.
|
|
