3.9 Article

Objective estimates of the incidence and consequences of multiple organ dysfunction and sepsis after burn trauma

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005373-200103000-00016

Keywords

burn trauma; sepsis; organ failure; multiple organ dysfunction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Organ dysfunction and sepsis are frequent after major burn trauma, represent quantifiable consequences of the systemic response to injury, and mag be important end points by which to measure treatment effectiveness. However, standard and widely applied methods for their measurement have not been applied to burn trauma victims. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify these complications after burn trauma. Methods: Patients with greater than or equal to 20% total body surface area burns admitted to a single center were prospectively enrolled, Standard sepsis criteria and multiple organ dysfunction (MOD) scores for the pulmonary, renal, cardiovascular, hepatic, and hematologic systems were determined. The incidence and risk factors for severe MOD (cumulative MOD score greater than or equal to6) and severe sepsis were determined. The relationships between these complications and mortality and resource utilization were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses, Results: A total of 85 patients were enrolled over 1 year. Severe MOD developed in 24 (28%) and severe sepsis or septic shock developed in 12 (14%). Both were associated with increasing age and burn size and were more likely to occur in men, Most patients who developed severe MOD or severe sepsis survived (71% and 67%, respectively), and both were associated with longer intensive care unit stays and duration of mechanical ventilation. Conclusion: According to simple and objective scoring systems, severe MOD and severe sepsis/septic shock are both related to burn size, age, and male sex, Both are related to intensive care unit length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available