Infections in Burn Patients

The impact of ulinastatin on wound infection and healing in patients with burn wounds: A meta-analysis

Burn injuries result in localised tissue damage and precipitate systemic responses; routine clinical treatments, which typically include metabolic nutritional support and anti-infection therapies, do not yield optimal outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of ulinastatin on wound infection and healing in patients with burns to provide reliable evidence-based recommendations for burn treatment. An electronic search of the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, supplemented by manual searches, was conducted from database inception to October 2023 to collect randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of ulinastatin for the treatment of burns. Two researchers screened all retrieved articles according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria; the included studies were evaluated for quality, and the relevant data were extracted. Stata 17.0 software was employed for data analysis. Overall, 8 RCTs with 803 patients were included, with 404 and 399 in the ulinastatin and conventional treatment groups, respectively. The analysis revealed that wound infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.35, p = 0.001) and complications (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.10-0.42, p < 0.001) were significantly lower, and wound healing time (standardised mean differences [SMD] = -1.31, 95% CI: -2.05 to -0.57, p = 0.001) was significantly shorter, in the ulinastatin groups than in the control group. This meta-analysis revealed that ulinastatin can effectively reduce the incidence of wound infections and complications and significantly shorten the duration of wound healing in patients with burns, thereby promoting early recovery in these patients.

Sepsis in surgical patients: Burn sepsis

Patients with large burn injuries remain a challenge. The loss of skin barrier integrity and induced immunosuppression after injury increases their vulnerability to infection. Sepsis remains the primary cause of death for burn-injured patients who survive their acute injury and resuscitation. The objective of this work is to describe the current understanding and management of sepsis in the burn-injured patient and newer strategies to approach its management. Current understanding of the systemic inflammatory response to burn injury and sepsis, preventative strategies, and novel research will be discussed. Understanding the origin of burn sepsis from wounds themselves is key to understanding current paradigms. Infection control and management begins from the time of injury and continues throughout the patient's hospital course. The use of personal protective equipment, burn unit design considerations, and optimization of prevention protocols and catheter care all play a role in burn sepsis prevention and management. The emergence of drug-resistant pathogens poses a particular challenge for burn patients due to the chronicity with which their wounds are sometimes open. The difficulty of systemic antibiotics to reach wounds has underscored the need to anticipate resistant organisms moving forward. Antibiotic strategies and newer approaches, such as phage therapy, will be discussed. Multi-omics approaches to understanding burn sepsis have developed in hopes of identifying patients more susceptible or at risk of developing burn sepsis. As with many aspects of burn care, a multidisciplinary, proactive approach to the management of burn sepsis is key to minimizing the morbidity and mortality associated with this complication.

Central venous catheter tip colonization and associated bloodstream infection in patients with severe burns under routine catheter changing

BACKGROUND

Although routine changing of central venous catheters (CVCs) is commonly performed in patients with severe burns, information on pathogen colonization of the CVC tip and associated bloodstream infections (BSIs) is limited in those patients.

METHODS

The medical records of 214 patients with severe burns who underwent routine CVC changing at 7-day intervals and their results of 686 pairs of CVC tips and concurrent blood cultures were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate the CVC colonization rate and associated BSI pathogens.

RESULTS

Of the 686 CVCs, 137 (20.0%) were colonized by pathogens, and 81 (59.1%) of them had BSIs caused by the same pathogen. Nonflame burn (P = .002), total body surface area burn ≥30% (P = .004), femoral catheterization (P = .001), CVC changing during pre-existing BSI (P < .001), and renal replacement therapy (P = .017) were associated with catheter-related BSI in the multivariate analysis. Most BSIs were caused by Gram-negative bacteria (most commonly Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa).

CONCLUSIONS

The CVC colonization rate in patients with severe burns and routine CVC changing was not high. Lengthening the CVC duration might be attempted in patients at a lower risk of catheter-related BSI although further prospective studies are necessary.