Comparison of three techniques using the Parkland Formula to aid fluid resuscitation in adult burns

Terms, Definitions, Nomenclature, and Routes of Fluid Administration

Fluid therapy is administered to veterinary patients in order to improve hemodynamics, replace deficits, and maintain hydration. The gradual expansion of medical knowledge and research in this field has led to a proliferation of terms related to fluid products, fluid delivery and body fluid distribution. Consistency in the use of terminology enables precise and effective communication in clinical and research settings. This article provides an alphabetical glossary of important terms and common definitions in the human and veterinary literature. It also summarizes the common routes of fluid administration in small and large animal species.

The Pre-Hospital Initial Fluid Therapy Estimate in Early Nasty Burns (PHIFTEEN B, 15-B) Guideline applied to a retrospective cohort of Intensive Care Unit patients with major burns

BACKGROUND

Appropriate fluid administration in severe burns is a cornerstone of early burns management. The American Burns Association's (ABA) recommendation is to administer 2 mL-4 mL × burnt Body Surface Area (BSA) × weight in the first 24 h with half administered in the first eight hours. Unfortunately, the calculations involved are complex and clinicians do not estimate the BSA or weight well, which can lead to errors in the amount of fluid administered. To simplify cognitive load to calculate the fluid resuscitation of early burns, the investigators derived the PHIFTEEN B (15-B) guideline. The 15-B guideline estimates the initial hourly fluid for adults ≥ 50 kg to be: 15 mL × BSA (to the nearest 10%) AIMS: To model and determine the accuracy of the 15-B calculated based on the characteristics of a retrospective cohort of patients admitted with ≥ 20% BSA to the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (RBWH) Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

METHODS

The 15-B formula was retrospectively calculated on the prehospital BSA estimate on patients admitted to the RBWH ICU. In addition, the 15-B guideline was modelled against a variety of weights and BSAs. The fluid volume was deemed to be clinically significant if it was greater than 250 mL/h outside the ABA's recommendations.

RESULTS

The ICU cohort consisted of 107 patients (63.2% male, median age 37 years), with a median ICU estimated BSA of 40% and a median ICU weight estimation of 80 kg. In 43.9% of the cohort, the magnitude of the proportional difference between prehospital and ICU BSA estimate was greater than 25%. The 15-B formula accurately estimated the hourly fluid for all BSA (20%-100%) and weight combinations (50 kg-140 kg) in a BSA- weight matrix. When prehospital BSA estimate was utilized, 15-B guideline accurately estimated the fluid to be given within clinically significant limits for 97.2% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The 15-B formula is a simple, easy to calculate guideline which approximates the early fluid estimates in severely burned patients despite inaccuracy in prehospital BSA estimates.

Nurses Can Resuscitate

Fluid resuscitation in the first 48 hours postburn is crucial in the management of burn shock. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate nurses' adherence to a nurse-driven fluid resuscitation protocol at one adult burn center. Their secondary goal was to establish that the use of a nursing-driven protocol did not result in over resuscitation. Following implementation of a nurse-driven burn resuscitation protocol, a 48-hour data resuscitation data collection tool was developed by the burn physicians and nurses. All resuscitations were reviewed in real-time and in burn leadership meeting to identify opportunities for improvement. Follow-up with nursing staff was done in real time by the clinical nurse specialist following each burn resuscitation. Twenty-two patients requiring formal fluid resuscitation were included in the review. Patients had a median age of 36.5(IQR: 38.74) years and were predominantly male. They found that in the first 24 hours that patients received 3.47 ml/kg/hr and then in the next 24 hours they received an average of 2.68 ml/kg/hr. All 22 patients' resuscitation was initiated using the Parkland formula in the emergency department, and nurses were successful in consistently adjusting fluid infusions consistent with the protocol. Using a multidisciplinary approach and preparatory and real-time education processes, burn nurses can successfully guide burn resuscitation. Providing education and follow-up in real time can improve the process.

Response of a local hospital to a burn disaster: Contributory factors leading to zero mortality outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the outcomes of a local healthcare system in managing a burn mass casualty incident (BMCI).

METHODS

Thirty-three victims admitted to the National Taiwan University Hospital within 96h of the explosion were included in the study. Data were recorded on: patient demographics, Baux score, laboratory data, management response, treatment strategies, and outcomes. Case notes from June 27, 2015 to November 2015 were reviewed with a focus on fluid resuscitation, ventilation support, nutrition, infection control, sepsis treatment, and wound closure plan.

RESULTS

Female predominance (mean age: 21.7 years) and lower extremity circumferential flame burns were the characteristics of the burn injury. The mean Baux score was 70±18. The mean burn area was 42% of the total body surface area (TBSA). A total of 79% patients arrived at the hospital within 24h of sustaining injuries. Intensive care unit (ICU) admission criteria were modified to accommodate patients with 40% TBSA of burns, facilities were expanded from 4 ICU beds to 18 beds, and new staff was recruited. A total of 36% patients (n=12/33, 62±13 TBSA of burns) required fluid resuscitation. The mean volume of Lactate Ringer administered in the first 24h of burns was 3.34±2.18ml/kg/%TBSA, while the mean volume of fresh frozen plasma administered was 0.60±0.63ml/kg/h. Forty-two percent patients were intubated on the day of admission, and 71% of the intubated patients had inhalation injuries that were confirmed by diagnostic bronchoscopy. The mean intubation period was 17±9 days. The incidence of pulmonary edema was 58% (n=7/12), possibly due to sub-optimal monitoring. Of these, 57% (n=4/7) patients progressed to adult respiratory distress syndrome, but were successfully treated with early strict fluid restriction, systemic antibiotics, ventilation support, and bronchial lavage. A total of 94% patients received grafting. The mean grafted area was 4432.3±3891cm². Tube feeding was provided to patients with burns >40% TBSA. All patients tolerated gastric tube feeding without conversion to duodenal switch. On admission, all patients received prophylactic antibiotics. Septic shock was noted in 12 patients, but no mortality occurred. The mean hospital stay was 1.5 days per percent burn.

CONCLUSIONS

This article highlights the value of precise triage, traffic control, and effective resource allocation in treating a BMCI. Effective supporting systems for facility expansion, staff recruitment, medical supplies and clear-cut treatment strategies for severely burned patients are contributory factors leading to zero mortalities in our series, in addition to young age and minimal inhalation injuries. The need for reevaluation of the safety of cornstarch powder in festival activities is clear.

The accuracy of timed maximum local anaesthetic dose calculations with an electronic calculator, nomogram, and pen and paper

Forty anaesthetists calculated maximum permissible doses of eight local anaesthetic formulations for simulated patients three times with three methods: an electronic calculator; nomogram; and pen and paper. Correct dose calculations with the nomogram (85/120) were more frequent than with the calculator (71/120) or pen and paper (57/120), Bayes Factor 4 and 287, p = 0.01 and p = 0.0003, respectively. The rates of calculations at least 120% the recommended dose with each method were different, Bayes Factor 7.9, p = 0.0007: 14/120 with the calculator; 5/120 with the nomogram; 13/120 with pen and paper. The median (IQR [range]) speed of calculation with pen and paper, 38.0 (25.0-56.3 [5-142]) s, was slower than with the calculator, 24.5 (17.8-37.5 [6-204]) s, p = 0.0001, or nomogram, 23.0 (18.0-29.0 [4-100]) s, p = 1 × 10^-7 . Local anaesthetic dose calculations with the nomogram were more accurate than with an electronic calculator or pen and paper and were faster than with pen and paper.

Review of Burn Research for Year 2014

Management of burn injuries requires treatments and interventions from many disciplines. Worldwide, burn patients suffer from physical and psychological challenges that impact their lives socially and economically. In this review, we will highlight a handful of the numerous articles published in multiple areas of burn care. The areas of burn care addressed in the article are: epidemiology; burn resuscitation, critical care, and infection; nutrition and metabolism; pain and rehabilitation; prevention and firefighter safety; psychology; and reconstruction and wounds.

Evaluation of 2 novel devices for calculation of fluid requirements in pediatric burns

OBJECTIVES

The Parkland formula for maintenance and resuscitation fluid requirements in the first 24 hours after pediatric burns is widely used, but calculation errors frequently occur. Two different novel aids to calculation, a dedicated electronic device and a mechanical disc calculator, are described and compared with the conventional method of calculation (pen and paper, assisted by a general purpose calculator).

METHODS

In a blinded randomized volunteer study, 21 participants performed a total of 189 calculations using simulated patient data to compare the accuracy and speed of 3 different methods for calculating resuscitation fluid requirements based on the pediatric Parkland formula. Bespoke software generated the simulated patient data and recorded accuracy and speed of all participant responses.

RESULTS

Sixty-five percent of calculations with the electronic device, 35% using the disc and 44% using the pen/paper methods were within ±5% of the correct value and considered "correct" for clinical purposes. The method used strongly affected the tendency to make errors (logistic regression). With thresholds of error magnitude classed as very small (>5%), small (>25%), medium (>50%) and large (>100%) of the correct value respectively, the electronic method produced fewer errors than both disc and pen/paper methods at all error thresholds. Disc produced more errors than pen/paper at the greater than 5% threshold but fewer at the greater than 25%, greater than 50%, and greater than 100% thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Both novel devices provide safer and faster alternatives to conventional methods for calculation of fluid requirements in pediatric burns.

Modeling Fluid Resuscitation by Formulating Infusion Rate and Urine Output in Severe Thermal Burn Adult Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Acute burn injuries are among the most devastating forms of trauma and lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Appropriate fluid resuscitation after severe burn, specifically during the first 48 hours following injury, is considered as the single most important therapeutic intervention in burn treatment. Although many formulas have been developed to estimate the required fluid amount in severe burn patients, many lines of evidence showed that patients still receive far more fluid than formulas recommend. Overresuscitation, which is known as “fluid creep,” has emerged as one of the most important problems during the initial period of burn care. If fluid titration can be personalized and automated during the resuscitation phase, more efficient burn care and outcome will be anticipated. In the present study, a dynamic urine output based infusion rate prediction model was developed and validated during the initial 48 hours in severe thermal burn adult patients. The experimental results demonstrated that the developed dynamic fluid resuscitation model might significantly reduce the total fluid volume by accurately predicting hourly urine output and has the potential to aid fluid administration in severe burn patients.

A comparison of two smartphone applications and the validation of smartphone applications as tools for fluid calculation for burns resuscitation

We conducted a randomised, blinded study to compare the accuracy and perceived usability of two smartphone apps (uBurn(©) and MerseyBurns(©)) and a general purpose electronic calculator for calculating fluid requirements using the Parkland formula. Bespoke software randomly generated simulated clinical data; randomly allocated the sequence of calculation methods; recorded participants' responses and response times; and calculated error magnitude. Participants calculated fluid requirements for nine scenarios (three for each: calculator, uBurn(©), MerseyBurns(©)); then rated ease of use (VAS) and preference (ranking), and made written comments. Data were analysed using ANOVA and qualitative methods. The sample population consisted of 34 volunteers who performed a total of 306 calculations. The three methods showed no significant difference in incidence or magnitude of errors. Mean (SD) response time in seconds for the calculator was 86.7 (50.7), compared to 71.7 (42.9) for uBurn(©) and 69.0 (35.6) for MerseyBurns(©). Both apps were significantly faster than the calculator (p=0.013 and p=0.017 respectively, ANOVA: Tukey's HSD test). All methods showed a learning effect (p<0.001). The participants rated ease of use on a VAS scale with a higher score indicating greater ease of use. The calculator was easiest to use with a mean score (SD) of 12.3 (2.1), followed by MerseyBurns(©) with 11.8 (2.7) and then uBurn(©) with 11.3 (2.7). The differences were not found to be significant at the p=0.05 level after using paired samples t-test and a multiple correction was applied manually. Preference ranking followed a similar trend with mean rankings (SD) of 1.85 (0.17), 1.94 (0.74) and 2.18 (0.90) for the calculator, MerseyBurns(©) and uBurn(©) respectively. Again, none of these differences were significant at the p=0.05 level.