Reducing the Indication for Ventilatory Support in the Severely Burned Patient: Results of a New Protocol Approach at a Regional Burn Center

• Published in: Journal of burn care & research Vol. 37; no. 3; pp. e205 - e212
• Main Authors: Gille, Jochen, Bauer, Nicole, Malcharek, Michael J, Dragu, Adrian, Sablotzki, Armin, Taha, Hischam, Czeslick, Elke
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01-05-2016
• Subjects: Aged; Burn Units - organization & administration; Burns - therapy; Clinical Protocols; Female; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease - prevention & control; Intubation; Male; Middle Aged; Respiration, Artificial - adverse effects; Retrospective Studies
• ISSN: 1559-047X; 1559-0488
• DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000238

Initial management of the severely injured routinely includes sedation and mechanical ventilatory support. However, nonjudiciously applied mechanical ventilatory support can itself lead to poorer patient outcomes. In an attempt to reduce this iatrogenic risk, a standardized, in-house, five-point protocol providing clinical guidance on the use and duration of ventilation was introduced and analyzed, and the impact on patient outcomes was assessed. In 2007, a protocol for early spontaneous breathing was introduced and established in clinical practice. This protocol included: 1) early extubation (≤6 hours after admission) in the absence of absolute ventilatory indication; 2) avoidance of "routine intubation" in spontaneously breathing patients; 3) early postoperative extubation, including patients requiring multiple surgical interventions; 4) intensive chest and respiratory physiotherapy with routine application of expectorants; and 5) early active mobilization. A retrospective clinical study compared patients (group A) over a 2-year period admitted under the new protocol with a historical patient group (group B). Patients in group A (n = 38) had fewer ventilator days over the time-course of treatment (3 [1; 5.8] vs 18.5 days [0.5; 20.5]; P = .0001) with a lower rate of tracheostomies (15.8 vs 54%; P = .0003). Patients on ventilation at admission in group A had shorter ventilation periods after admission (4.75 [4; 22.25] vs 378 hours [8.5; 681.5]; P = .0003), and 66.7% of these patients were extubated within 6 hours of admission (vs 9.1% in group B). No patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria required re- or emergency intubation. In the first 5 days of treatment, significantly lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were recorded in group A. There was also a trend for lower mortality rates (0 [0%] vs 6 [14%]), sepsis rates (24 [63.2%] vs 37 [88.1%]), and cumulative fluid balance on days 3 and 7 in group A. In contrast, group A demonstrated an elevated rate of pneumonia (15 [39.5%] vs 8 [19%]). These trends, however, lacked statistical significance. Our five-point protocol was safe and easily translated into clinical practice. In the authors experience, this protocol significantly reduced the ventilatory period in severely injured. Furthermore, this study suggests that many injured may be over-treated with routine ventilation, which carries accompanying risks.