Background: In patients with burns, an early accurate diagnosis of burn depth facilitates optimal treatment. Laser Doppler imaging combined with clinical assessment leads to an accurate estimate of burn depth. However, the actual effects of the introduction of laser Doppler imaging on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes, and costs are unknown. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Dutch burn centers, including 202 patients with burns of indeterminate depth. In the standard care group, estimation of burn depth was based on clinical assessment only; in the laser Doppler imaging group, clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging were combined. Primary outcome was time to wound healing. Furthermore, therapeutic decisions and cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Results: Mean time to wound healing was 14.3 days (95 percent CI, 12.8 to 15.9 days) in the laser Doppler imaging group and 15.5 days (95 percent CI, 13.9 to 17.2 days) in the standard care group (p = 0.258). On the day of randomization, clinicians decided significantly more often on operative or nonoperative treatment in the laser Doppler imaging group (p < 0.001), instead of postponing their treatment choice. Analyses in a subgroup of admitted patients requiring surgery showed a significant earlier decision for surgery and a shorter wound healing time in the laser Doppler imaging group. Mean total costs per patient were comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Laser Doppler imaging improved therapeutic decisions. It resulted in a shorter wound healing time in the subgroup of admitted patients requiring surgery and has the potential for cost savings of €875 per scanned patient.
BACKGROUND: Frailty is a predictor of adverse outcomes in elderly patients. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is an often-used frailty assessment instrument. However, the CFS's reliability and validity in patients with burn injuries are unknown. This study aimed to assess the CFS's inter-rater reliability and validity (predictive validity, known group validity and convergent validity) in patients with burn injuries treated to specialized burn care.METHODS: A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 50 years with burn injuries, with a primary admission in 2015-2018, were included. Based on information in the electronic patient files, a research team member scored the CFS retrospectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Krippendorff's α. Validity was assessed using logistic regression analysis. Patients with a CFS ≥ 5 were considered frail.RESULTS: In total, 540 patients were included, with a mean age of 65.8 years (SD 11.5) and a Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) burned of 8.5%. The CFS was used to assess frailty in 540 patients and the reliability of the CFS was scored for 212 patients. Mean CFS was 3.4(SD 2.0). Inter-rater reliability was adequate, Krippendorff's α 0.69 (95%CI 0.62-0.74). A positive frailty screening was predictive of a non-home discharge location (OR 3.57, 95%CI 2.16-5.93), a higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR 1.06-8.77), and a higher mortality rate within 12 months after discharge (OR 4.61, 95%CI 1.99-10.65) after adjustment for age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. Frail patients were more likely to be older (for<70 vs. ≥70 years odds ratio 2.88, 95%CI 1.95-4.25) and their comorbidities were more severe (ASA ≥3 vs 1-2 OR 6.43, 95%CI 4.26-9.70) (known group validity). The CFS was significantly related (rSpearman=0.55) to the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) frailty screening, reflecting a fair-good correlation between the CFS and DSMS frailty screening outcomes.CONCLUSION: The Clinical Frailty scale is reliable and has shown its validity, including its association with adverse outcomes in patients with burn injury admitted to specialized burn care. Early frailty assessment with the CFS must be considered, to optimize early recognition and treatment of frailty.
BACKGROUND: The population of elderly patients with burn injuries is growing. Insight into long-term mortality rates of elderly after burn injury and predictors affecting outcome is limited. This study aimed to provide this information.METHODS: A multicentre observational retrospective cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥65 years, admitted with burn injuries between 2009 and 2018, were included. Data were retrieved from electronic patient records and the Dutch Burn Repository R3. Mortality rates and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess predictors for in-hospital mortality and mortality after discharge at 1 year and five-year. Survival analysis was used to assess predictors of five-year mortality.RESULTS: In total, 682/771 admitted patients were discharged. One-year and five-year mortality rates were 8.1 and 23.4%. The SMRs were 1.9(95%CI 1.5-2.5) and 1.4(95%CI 1.2-1.6), respectively. The SMRs were highest in patients aged 75-80 years at 1 year (SMRs 2.7, 95%CI 1.82-3.87) and five-year in patients aged 65-74 years (SMRs 10.1, 95%CI 7.7-13.0). Independent predictors for mortality at 1 year after discharge were higher age (OR 1.1, 95%CI 1.0-1.1), severe comorbidity, (ASA-score ≥ 3) (OR 4.8, 95%CI 2.3-9.7), and a non-home discharge location (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.8). The relative risk of dying up to five-year was increased by age (HR 1.1, 95%CI 1.0-1.1), severe comorbidity (HR 2.3, 95%CI 1.6-3.5), and non-home discharge location (HR 2.1, 95%CI 1.4-3.2).CONCLUSION: Long-term mortality until five-year after burn injury was higher than the age and sex-matched general Dutch population, and predicted by higher age, severe comorbidity, and a non-home discharge destination. Next to pre-injury characteristics, potential long-lasting systemic consequences on biological mechanisms following burn injuries probably play a role in increased mortality. Decreased health status makes patients more prone to burn injuries, leading to early death.
