Suppr超能文献

使用电损伤治疗算法的机构经验

Institutional Experience Using a Treatment Algorithm for Electrical Injury.

作者信息

Nisar Saira, Keyloun John W, Kolachana Sindhura, McLawhorn Melissa M, Moffatt Lauren T, Travis Taryn E, Shupp Jeffrey W, Johnson Laura S

机构信息

Firefighters' Burn and Surgical Research Laboratory, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.

The Burn Center, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, District of Columbia, USA.

出版信息

J Burn Care Res. 2021 May 7;42(3):351-356. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irab020.

Abstract

Electrical injury has low incidence but is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Variability in diagnosis and management among clinicians can lead to unnecessary testing. This study examines the utility of an electrical injury treatment algorithm by comparing the incidence of testing done on a cohort of patients before and after implementation. Demographics, injury characteristics, and treatment information were collected for patients arriving to a regional burn center with the diagnosis of electrical injury from January 2013 to September 2018. Results were compared for patients admitted before and after the implementation of an electrical injury treatment algorithm in July 2015. There were 56 patients in the pre-algorithm cohort and 38 in the post-algorithm cohort who were of similar demographics. The proportion of creatine kinase (82% vs 47%, P < .0006), troponin (79% vs 34%, P < .0001), and urinary myoglobin (80% vs 45%, P < .0007) testing in the pre-algorithm cohort was significantly higher compared to post-algorithm cohort. There were more days of telemetry monitoring (median [IQR], 1 [1-5] vs 1 [1-1] days, P = .009) and greater ICU length of stays (4 [1-5] vs 1 [1-1] days, P = .009), prior to algorithm implementation. There were no significant differences in total hospital lengths of stay, incidence of ICU admissions, in-hospital mortality, or 30-day readmissions. This study demonstrates an electrical injury evaluation and treatment algorithm suggests a mode of triage to cardiac monitoring and hospital admission where necessary. Use of this algorithm allowed for reduction in testing and health care costs without increasing mortality or readmission rates.

摘要

电击伤发病率较低,但致残率和死亡率较高。临床医生在诊断和治疗方面的差异可能导致不必要的检查。本研究通过比较实施电击伤治疗算法前后一组患者的检查发生率,探讨该算法的实用性。收集了2013年1月至2018年9月因电击伤诊断入住某地区烧伤中心患者的人口统计学资料、损伤特征和治疗信息。对2015年7月实施电击伤治疗算法前后入院的患者结果进行比较。算法实施前队列中有56例患者,算法实施后队列中有38例患者,两组患者的人口统计学特征相似。算法实施前队列中肌酸激酶检测比例(82%对47%,P<0.0006)、肌钙蛋白检测比例(79%对34%,P<0.0001)和尿肌红蛋白检测比例(80%对45%,P<0.0007)显著高于算法实施后队列。在算法实施前,遥测监测天数更多(中位数[四分位间距],1[1 - 5]天对1[1 - 1]天,P = 0.009),重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间更长(4[1 - 5]天对1[1 - 1]天,P = 0.009)。总住院时间、ICU入院率、住院死亡率或30天再入院率无显著差异。本研究表明,电击伤评估和治疗算法建议了一种必要时进行心脏监测和住院治疗的分诊模式。使用该算法可减少检查和医疗费用,而不增加死亡率或再入院率。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验