Life after electrical injury. Risk factors for psychiatric sequelae

Low-voltage electrical accidents, immediate reactions and acute health care associated with self-reported general health 4 years later

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Electricians frequently experience low-voltage electrical accidents. Some such accidents involve long-term negative health consequences. Early identification of victims at risk for long-term injury may improve acute medical treatment and long-term follow-up. This study aimed to determine acute exposure, health effects and treatment associated with general health ≥ 2 years after low-voltage electrical accidents.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, 89 male electricians who had experienced an electrical accident between 1994 and 2001 participated in a 2003 follow-up health examination. They were identified from a registry of low-voltage electrical accidents and included in the study. Based on exposure descriptions in the original accident reports, they were stratified into the following three groups: a current arc accident group (N = 34, mean age 38.8 years [standard deviation, SD = 12.2, range = 21-59]) and two groups with the passage of current through the body, either fixed to the current source ("no-let-go" group; N = 35, mean age 34.0 years [SD = 10.5, range = 21-57]) or not ("let-go" group; N = 20, mean age = 38.7 years [SD = 10.3, range = 21-63]). They retrospectively described acute reactions and assessed their current general health at the health examination. Multivariate linear regression, ordinal logistic regression and Fisher's exact test were used to compare acute reactions with health at follow-up in each exposure group.

RESULTS

The multivariate analysis indicated that after accidents with the passage of current through the body, severe acute headache (β = - 0.56, p = 0.013), years since the accident (β = - 0.16, p = 0.017) and the accident being perceived as frightening (β = - 0.48, p = 0.040) were negatively associated with general health ≥ 2 years later (R² = 0.25, p = 0.002). If the exposure included a no-let-go experience, then acute severe body numbness (β = - 0.53, p = 0.029) was also negatively associated with general health (R² = 0.38, p = 0.002). Without such experience, only acute confusion (β = - 0.90, p = 0.029) was negatively associated with the health at follow-up (R² = 0.24, p = 0.029). In univariate analyses, after the passage of current through the body, acute dizziness (p = 0.029), apathy (p = 0.028), confusion (p = 0.007) and irregular heartbeat (p ≤ 0.05) were associated with poor long-term general health. The no-let-go group, more often than the let-go group, reported panic (p = 0.001), fear of death (p = 0.029), confusion (p = 0.014), exhaustion (p = 0.009), bodily numbness (p = 0.013) and immediate unconsciousness (p = 0.019). Acute symptoms beyond the first day after a current arc accident were associated with poor long-term general health (p = 0.015).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The acute reactions negatively associated with general health ≥ 2 years after low-voltage electrical accidents should alert the clinician in the acute phase after an electrical accident to the risk of developing negative long-term health effects. Future studies should specify long-term health beyond the concept of general health.

Long-term consequences of electrical injury without initial signs of severity: The AFTER-ELEC study

BACKGROUND

There is no specificity of emergency or long-term management of benign electrical injuries (EI). The main objective of our work was to describe the occurrence of long-term complications of EI considered as benign.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective study of a cohort of adult patients who consulted for EI without initials signs of severity in an emergency department between 2012 and 2019. All included patients were secondarily contacted by telephone at least one year after their EI to complete a questionnaire.

RESULTS

76 adult patients visited the emergency department and 48 of them could be contacted by phone. 82% of the recalled patients had at least one complication following their EI. The main long-term complications were neurological (65%), psychological (58%) and cardiological (31%). Patients recalled eight years after EI had higher rates of neuropsychological complications than those recalled one year after EI. Only the time spent in the emergency department was statistically longer in patients who developed long-term complications compared to those who did not.

DISCUSSION

The occurrence of long-term neuropsychological complications predominates. The knowledge and management of these long-term consequences must be particularly well known by emergency physicians because they are often the first medical contact of the patient. Our results also seem to show a crescendo in time of the occurrence of long-term complications.

CONCLUSION

all health professionals involved in the care of victims of a EI must be made widely aware of the occurrence of these long-term complications, particularly neuropsychological ones, in order to improve the long-term patient care.

Mental disorders following electrical injuries-A register-based, matched cohort study

Introduction

Electrical injuries happen every day in homes and workplaces. Not only may these injuries cause physical damage and disability, they may also cause mental disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate if persons with an electrical injury suffer from mental disorders in the following years.

Material and methods

In a prospective matched cohort design, we identified 14.112 electrical injuries in two Danish registries and matched these with persons with dislocation/sprain injuries or eye injuries, respectively, as well as with persons from the workforce from the same occupation, using year of injury, sex and age as matching variables. We identified possible outcomes in terms of mental diagnoses in the Danish National Patient registry, based on literature, including reviews, original studies and case-reports as well as experiences from clinical praxis. The associations were analyzed using conditional cox- and logistic regression.

Results

We found that the following of the examined outcomes were associated with exposure to an electrical injury compared to the matched controls. Some of the outcomes showed the strongest associations shortly after the injury, namely ‘mental disorders due to known physiological condition’, ‘anxiety and adjustment disorders’, and especially the ‘Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)’ subgroup. The same pattern was seen for ‘Depression’ although the associations were weaker. Other conditions took time to develop (‘Somatoform disorders’), or were only present in the time to event analysis (‘other non-psychotic mental disorders’ and ‘sleep disorders’). The findings were consistent in all three matches, with the highest risk estimates in the occupation match.

Conclusion

Electrical injuries may result in mental disorders, both acute and several years after. However, the absolute risk is limited as most of the outcomes are rare.

Cognition and mental wellbeing after electrical accidents: a survey and a clinical study among Swedish male electricians

PURPOSE

The purpose was to examine long-term consequences of exposure to electrical current passing through the body. We investigated (1) whether electricians after having experienced an electrical accident report more cognitive problems and lower mental wellbeing and (2) have objectively verifiable reduced cognitive function; and (3) which circumstances at the time of the accident affect long-term subjective cognitive function and mental wellbeing?

METHODS

A survey of male electricians who had experienced electrical accidents (n = 510) and a clinical study in a subsample (n = 23) who reported residual health problems was carried out. Both groups were examined regarding subjective cognitive function (Euroquest-9) and mental wellbeing (Symptom Checklist-90 subscales). The clinical study included neuropsychological tests of memory, attention, spatial function, and premorbid intellectual capacity. A matched control group was retrieved from reference data.

RESULTS

The survey participants reported more cognitive problems and lower mental wellbeing than referents. Of the examined circumstances, having experienced mortal fear at the time of the accident and health complaints, especially mental symptoms, for > 1 week after the accident were the most significant risk factors for later subjective cognitive problems and lower mental wellbeing. The only statistically significant difference in neuropsychological tests was better performance in part of the memory tests by the clinical study group compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The participants reported more cognitive problems and lower mental wellbeing than referents, but no long-term objective cognitive dysfunction was detected. Emotional response at the time of the accident and health complaints in the aftermath of the accident may constitute important indications for medical and psychological follow-ups.

High Impedance Electrical Accidents: Importance of Source and Subject Impedance

In most cases, the diagnosis of an electrical injury or electrocution is straightforward. However, there is a necessity for much closer analysis in many cases. There exist sophisticated electrical safety standards that predict outcomes for shocks of various currents applied to different parts of the body. Unfortunately, the actual current is almost never known in an accident investigation. A common source of errors is the assumption that the source (including the return) has zero impedance. Another surprisingly common problem is the erroneous assumption that the body current is equal to the source current capability.

METHODS

We used the following methodology for analyzing such cases: (1) Determine body pathway, (2) Estimate body pathway impedance, (3) Determine source voltage, (4) Determine source impedance, (5) Calculate delivered current using total pathway impedance, and (6) Ignore available current as it is largely confounding in most cases.

RESULTS

We analyzed 6 difficult cases using the above methodology. This includes 2 subtle situations involving pairs of matched case-control subjects where a subject was electrocuted while his work partner was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful calculations of the amplitude and duration of the shock is required for understanding the limits and potential causation of such electrical injury. This requires the determination of both the source and body pathway impedance. Available current is usually irrelevant and overemphasized.

Acute and long-term clinical, neuropsychological and return-to-work sequelae following electrical injury: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine acute and long-term clinical, neuropsychological, and return-to-work (RTW) effects of electrical injuries (EIs). This study aims to further contrast sequelae between low-voltage and high-voltage injuries (LVIs and HVIs). We hypothesise that all EIs will result in substantial adverse effects during both phases of management, with HVIs contributing to greater rates of sequelae.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study evaluating EI admissions between 1998 and 2015.

SETTING

Provincial burn centre and rehabilitation hospital specialising in EI management.

PARTICIPANTS

All EI admissions were reviewed for acute clinical outcomes (n=207). For long-term outcomes, rehabilitation patients, who were referred from the burn centre (n=63) or other burn units across the province (n=65), were screened for inclusion. Six patients were excluded due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions. This cohort (n=122) was assessed for long-term outcomes. Median time to first and last follow-up were 201 (68-766) and 980 (391-1409) days, respectively.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Acute and long-term clinical, neuropsychological and RTW sequelae.

RESULTS

Acute clinical complications included infections (14%) and amputations (13%). HVIs resulted in greater rates of these complications, including compartment syndrome (16% vs 4%, p=0.007) and rhabdomyolysis (12% vs 0%, p<0.001). Rates of acute neuropsychological sequelae were similar between voltage groups. Long-term outcomes were dominated by insomnia (68%), anxiety (62%), post-traumatic stress disorder (33%) and major depressive disorder (25%). Sleep difficulties (67%) were common following HVIs, while the LVI group most frequently experienced sleep difficulties (70%) and anxiety (70%). Ninety work-related EIs were available for RTW analysis. Sixty-one per cent returned to their preinjury employment and 19% were unable to return to any form of work. RTW rates were similar when compared between voltage groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first investigation to determine acute and long-term patient outcomes post-EI as a continuum. Findings highlight substantial rates of neuropsychological and social sequelae, regardless of voltage. Specialised and individualised early interventions, including screening for mental health concerns, are imperative to improvingoutcomes of EI patients.

Protocols for documentation of electrical injuries for electrical safety inspectors and emergency medical practitioners

BACKGROUND

Electric shocks are common, and victims report difficulty in finding practitioners with knowledge of the injury. Medical Practitioners, especially in private practice, report lack of knowledge of the injury and lack of expertise in assessing and treating the injury. The authors are often requested to suggest investigation protocols, assessment protocols, and treatment protocols, and to provide educational information.

METHODS

The international body establishing electrical standards on the effects of current on the body (International Electrotechnical Commission, Maintenance Team 4 (MT4) of Technical Committee 64 (TC64)) have established protocols for the factors which require documentation and reporting of the injury. This article provides a narrative approach to using these protocols in accord with the standards (IEC 60479). The level of evidence is Level III (US/Canada classification). TYPE: This article collects together and collates physical and medical aspects of investigating electric shocks, and summarizes those of importance, and which are potentially forgotten. The thoroughness of initial assessment is emphasized.

SUBSTANCE

Summaries are set out to guide first attenders and emergency medical personnel as to findings and observations which must be recorded for later comprehensive medicolegal reporting and which are often overlooked.

CONCLUSION

Wider teaching in the nature of electric shocks will enhance assessment of victims and thorough recording of pertinent information and thus will enhance later medicolegal reporting. Many such factors are initially overlooked and lead to inadequate reporting for forensic purposes.

Perceived Electrical Injury: Misleading Symptomology Due to Multisensory Stimuli

BACKGROUND

An electrical accident victim's recollection is often distorted by Bayesian inference in multisensory integration. For example, hearing the sound and seeing the bright flash of an electrical arc can create the false impression that someone had experienced an electrical shock. These subjects will often present to an emergency department seeking either treatment or reassurance.

CASE REPORTS

We present seven cases in which the subjects were startled by an electrical shock (real or perceived) and injury was reported. Calculations of the current and path were used to allocate causality between the shock and a history of chronic disease or previous trauma. In all seven cases, our analysis suggests that no current was passed through the body. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Symptomology seen as corroborating may actually be confounding. Witness and survivor descriptions of electrical shocks are fraught with subjectivity and misunderstanding. Available current is usually irrelevant and overemphasized, such as stress on a 100-ampere welding source, which is orders of magnitude beyond lethal limits. History can also be biased for a number of reasons. Bayesian inference in multisensory perception can lead to a subject sincerely believing they had experienced an electrical shock. Determination of the current pathway and calculations of the amplitude and duration of the shock can be critical for understanding the limits and potential causation of electrical injury.

Life-changing or trivial: Electricians' views about electrical accidents

BACKGROUND:

It is well known that electrical accidents can cause physical injury. Less well known is that long-term consequences may include emotional and cognitive problems.

OBJECTIVE:

To explore electricians’ experiences and perceptions of work-related electrical accidents, with focus on psychological short- and long-term consequences, including how contacts with health care services and the workplace were perceived.

METHODS:

Semi-structured interviews with 23 Swedish male electricians, aged 25– 68, who had experienced at least one electrical accident and reported residual sensory, musculoskeletal, cognitive or emotional symptoms. Data was analyzed by means of qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS:

Immediate emotional reactions included surprise, confusion, fear, anxiety, and anger; also long-term consequences were seen. Experiencing a no-let-go situation was particularly stressful. The cause of the accident, and questions about guilt and blame were central in the aftermath. Lack of knowledge and routine among health care professionals concerning electrical injury was reported, as well as lack of medical and psychological follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS:

For some informants, the accident had been a life-changing event, while for others it was an event of little importance. Adequate handling at the workplace, and from health care personnel, including follow-up, could facilitate rehabilitation and return to work.

Review of Adult Electrical Burn Injury Outcomes Worldwide: An Analysis of Low-Voltage vs High-Voltage Electrical Injury

The aims of this article are to review low-voltage vs high-voltage electrical burn complications in adults and to identify novel areas that are not recognized to improve outcomes. An extensive literature search on electrical burn injuries was performed using OVID MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases from 1946 to 2015. Studies relating to outcomes of electrical injury in the adult population (≥18 years of age) were included in the study. Forty-one single-institution publications with a total of 5485 electrical injury patients were identified and included in the present study. Fourty-four percent of these patients were low-voltage injuries (LVIs), 38.3% high-voltage injuries (HVIs), and 43.7% with voltage not otherwise specified. Forty-four percentage of studies did not characterize outcomes according to LHIs vs HVIs. Reported outcomes include surgical, medical, posttraumatic, and others (long-term/psychological/rehabilitative), all of which report greater incidence rates in HVI than in LVI. Only two studies report on psychological outcomes such as posttraumatic stress disorder. Mortality rates from electrical injuries are 2.6% in LVI, 5.2% in HVI, and 3.7% in not otherwise specified. Coroner's reports revealed a ratio of 2.4:1 for deaths caused by LVI compared with HVI. HVIs lead to greater morbidity and mortality than LVIs. However, the results of the coroner's reports suggest that immediate mortality from LVI may be underestimated. Furthermore, on the basis of this analysis, we conclude that the majority of studies report electrical injury outcomes; however, the majority of them do not analyze complications by low vs high voltage and often lack long-term psychological and rehabilitation outcomes after electrical injury indicating that a variety of central aspects are not being evaluated or assessed.

Post electrical or lightning injury syndrome: a proposal for an American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual formulation with implications for treatment

In the past, victims of electrical and lightning injuries have been assessed in a manner lacking a systematic formulation, and against ad hoc criteria, particularly in the area of neuropsychological disability. In this manner patients have, for example, only been partially treated, been poorly or incorrectly diagnosed, and have been denied the full benefit of compensation for their injuries. This paper contains a proposal for diagnostic criteria particularly for the neuropsychological aspects of the post injury syndrome. It pays attention to widely published consistent descriptions of the syndrome, and a new cluster analysis of post electrical injury patients. It formulates a proposal which could be incorporated into future editions of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). The major neuropsychological consequences include neurocognitive dysfunction, and memory subgroup dysfunction, with ongoing consequences, and sometimes including progressive or delayed psychiatric, cognitive, and/or neurological symptoms. The proposed diagnostic criteria insist on a demonstrated context for the injury, both specifying the shock circumstance, and also physical consequences. It allows for a certain delay in onset of symptoms. It recognizes exclusory conditions. The outcome is a proposal for a DSM classification for the post electrical or lightning injury syndrome. This proposal is considered important for grounding patient treatment, and for further treatment trials. Options for treatment in electrical or lightning injury are summarised, and future trials are foreshadowed.

Effectiveness of pain management following electrical injury

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of pain management after electrical injury. A retrospective hospital chart review was conducted among electrically injured patients discharged from the outpatient burn clinic of a rehabilitation hospital (July 1, 1999, to July 31, 2008). Demographic data, numeric pain ratings (NPRs) at initial assessment and discharge, medications, nonpharmacologic modalities, and their effects before admission and after rehabilitation were collected. Pain management effects were compared between high (> or =1000 v) and low (<1000 v) voltage, and between electrical contact and electrical flash patients, using Student's t-test and chi, with a P < .05 considered significant. Of 82 electrical patients discharged during the study period, 27 were excluded because of incomplete data, leaving 55 patients who had a mean age +/-SD of 40.7 +/- 11.3 years, TBSA of 19.2 +/- 22.7%, and treatment duration of 16.5 +/- 15.7 months. The majority were men (90.9%), most injuries occurred at work (98.2%), mainly caused by low voltage (n = 32, 58.2%), and the rest caused by high voltage (n = 18, 32.7%). Electrical contact was more common (54.5%) than electrical flash (45.5%). Pain was a chief complaint (92.7%), and hands were the most affected (61.8%), followed by head and neck (38.2%), shoulders (38.2%), and back torso (38.2%). Before rehabilitation, the most common medication were opioids (61.8%), relieving pain in 82.4%, followed by acetaminophen (47.3%) alleviating pain in 84.6%. Heat treatment was the most common nonpharmacologic modality (20.0%) relieving pain in 81.8%, followed by massage therapy (14.5%) alleviating pain in 75.0%. During the rehabilitation program, antidepressants were the most common medication (74.5%), relieving pain in 22.0%, followed by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (61.8%), alleviating pain in 70.6%. Massage therapy was the most common nonpharmacologic modality (60.0%), alleviating pain in 75.8%, and then cognitive behavioral therapy (54.5%), alleviating pain in 40.0%. There were pain improvements in all anatomic locations after rehabilitation except for the back torso, where pain increased 0.7 +/- 2.9 points. Opioids were more commonly used in high voltage (P < .05), and cognitive behavioral therapy in low-voltage injuries (P < .05). Opioids were used in both electrical flash and electrical contact injuries. Pain in electrically injured patients remains an important issue and should continue to be addressed in a multimodal way. It is hoped that this study will guide us to design future interventions for pain control after electrical injury.

Psychiatric morbidity following electrical injury and its effects on cognitive functioning

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in a large sample of electrical injury (EI) patients in three phases of recovery and its effects on cognitive functioning.

METHODS

Eight-six self-referred EI patients received psychiatric and neuropsychological evaluations. Descriptive statistics were conducted to examine the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity. Polytomous logistic regression was used to identify predictors of psychiatric diagnosis. Between-subjects analysis of variances (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of psychiatric morbidity on cognitive functioning.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight percent of subjects warranted a psychiatric diagnosis. Long-term patients compared to acute patients were more likely to be diagnosed with two diagnoses than not having any diagnosis (OR=14.30, 95% CI 1.40-38.71). Patients with two diagnoses performed worse than both patients with a single or no diagnosis on all cognitive outcome measures (P<.05). Voltage level, chronic pain and litigation status did not predict psychiatric morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatric difficulties commonly emerge and persist following EI. EI patients with psychiatric conditions exhibited poorer cognitive performance as compared to EI patients with no post-injury psychiatric difficulties. Health care professionals need to devote careful attention to psychiatric and cognitive status when treating survivors of EI.

Neuropsychological changes following electrical injury

The clinical presentation of electrical injury commonly involves physical, cognitive, and emotional complaints. Neuropsychological studies, including case reports, have indicated that electrical injury (EI) survivors may experience a broad range of impaired neuropsychological functions, although this has not been clarified through controlled investigation. In this study, we describe the neuropsychological test findings in a series of 29 EI patients carefully screened and matched to a group of 29 demographically similar healthy electricians. Participants were matched by their estimated premorbid intellectual ability. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to assess group differences in the following neuropsychological domains: attention and mental speed, working memory, verbal memory, visual memory, and motor skills. EI patients performed significantly worse on composite measures of attention/mental speed and motor skills, which could not be explained by demographic differences, injury parameters, litigation status, or mood disturbance. Results suggest that cognitive changes do occur in patients suffering from electrical injury.

Electrical injury through the eyes of professional electricians

This paper presents the first results of an attitudinal survey that was conducted among professional electricians in order to explore their knowledge and beliefs related to occupational electrical injury. Four hundred eighty-one out of 1200 questionnaires were returned and analyzed. The presented statistical and qualitative data reflect electricians' personal experiences with electrical injury, their communication patterns around electrical trauma, their understanding of possible electrical injury sequelae, their safety beliefs and attitudes towards occupational dangers, and the reasons for their occupational choice. We expect that the results of this study will enhance our understanding of the psychological profile, environment, and culture of electrical workers. The collected data may also help to identify those at risk for poor outcome after electrical injury and determine a new set of risk factors to be taken into account by medical professionals, social workers, and union/utility training officers.