Outcomes of Tracheostomy on Burn Inhalation Injury.

Eplasty Pub Date : 2023-01-01
Samuel Ruiz, Salomon Puyana, Mark McKenney, Shaikh Hai, Haaris Mir
{"title":"Outcomes of Tracheostomy on Burn Inhalation Injury.","authors":"Samuel Ruiz,&nbsp;Salomon Puyana,&nbsp;Mark McKenney,&nbsp;Shaikh Hai,&nbsp;Haaris Mir","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tracheostomy has been proposed for patients with expected prolonged intubation. This study aims to determine the outcomes of tracheostomy on patients with burn inhalation injuries requiring mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a retrospective review from 2011 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were recording of inhalation injury, ventilator support (at least 24 hours), and total body surface area of <15%. The patients were stratified into 2 groups: tracheostomy (group 1) versus no tracheostomy (group 2). The outcome measures were in-hospital mortality rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, ventilator days, and ventilator- associated pneumonia (VAP).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 33 burn patients met our inclusion criteria. Group 1 consisted of 10 patients and group 2 of 23 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of percent total body surface area. There was a higher intensive care unit length of stay at 23.8 days in group 1 compared with 3.16 days in group 2, a higher hospital length of stay at 28.4 days in group 1 compared with 5.26 days in group 2, and higher ventilator days in group 1 with 20.8 days compared with 2.5 days in group 2. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of mortality. The incidence of VAP was also significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ideal timing and implementation of tracheostomy with inhalation injury has yet to be determined. In this study, tracheostomy was associated with much longer lengths of stay and pneumonia. The impact of the underlying lung injury versus the tracheostomy itself on these observations is unclear. The challenge of characterizing the severity of an inhalation injury based on early visual inspection remains.</p>","PeriodicalId":11687,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":"23 ","pages":"e43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10472420/pdf/eplasty-23-e43.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Tracheostomy has been proposed for patients with expected prolonged intubation. This study aims to determine the outcomes of tracheostomy on patients with burn inhalation injuries requiring mechanical ventilation.

Methods: This study is a retrospective review from 2011 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were recording of inhalation injury, ventilator support (at least 24 hours), and total body surface area of <15%. The patients were stratified into 2 groups: tracheostomy (group 1) versus no tracheostomy (group 2). The outcome measures were in-hospital mortality rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, ventilator days, and ventilator- associated pneumonia (VAP).

Results: A total of 33 burn patients met our inclusion criteria. Group 1 consisted of 10 patients and group 2 of 23 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of percent total body surface area. There was a higher intensive care unit length of stay at 23.8 days in group 1 compared with 3.16 days in group 2, a higher hospital length of stay at 28.4 days in group 1 compared with 5.26 days in group 2, and higher ventilator days in group 1 with 20.8 days compared with 2.5 days in group 2. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of mortality. The incidence of VAP was also significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2.

Conclusions: The ideal timing and implementation of tracheostomy with inhalation injury has yet to be determined. In this study, tracheostomy was associated with much longer lengths of stay and pneumonia. The impact of the underlying lung injury versus the tracheostomy itself on these observations is unclear. The challenge of characterizing the severity of an inhalation injury based on early visual inspection remains.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
气管切开术治疗烧伤吸入性损伤的疗效。
背景:气管切开术已被建议用于预期插管时间延长的患者。本研究旨在确定气管切开术对需要机械通气的烧伤吸入性损伤患者的预后。方法:本研究为2011 - 2019年的回顾性研究。纳入标准为记录吸入性损伤、呼吸机支持(至少24小时)和体表总面积。结果:共有33例烧伤患者符合我们的纳入标准。第一组10例,第二组23例。总的体表面积百分比没有统计学上的显著差异。1组重症监护病房住院时间23.8天,高于2组的3.16天;1组住院时间28.4天,高于2组的5.26天;1组呼吸机使用时间20.8天,高于2组的2.5天。两组患者死亡率差异无统计学意义。VAP发生率1组明显高于2组。结论:吸入性损伤气管切开术的理想时机和实施时机尚未确定。在这项研究中,气管切开术与更长的住院时间和肺炎相关。潜在肺损伤与气管切开术本身对这些观察结果的影响尚不清楚。基于早期目视检查确定吸入性损伤严重程度的挑战仍然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does Size Really Matter? A Review on How to Determine the Optimal Umbilical Size During an Abdominoplasty. The 5 D's to Dunk the Dog: A Retrospective Clinical Review to Prevent Dog-Ear Contour Abnormalities in Vertical Breast Reductions and Breast Lifts. Beneficial Impact of "Supercharged" Pectoralis Major Musculocutaneous Flap With Indocyanine Green Angiography on Reconstruction in a Patient at High Risk for Necrosis. The Safety of Long Inframammary Fold to Nipple Lengths in Inferior Pedicle Breast Reductions: A Decade of Experience. Are Large Intraoperative Fill Volumes Associated With Increased Complications After Tissue Expander Placement?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1