Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 770 Welch Road suite 400, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
UW Burn Center at Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, 325 9th Ave Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
J Burn Care Res. 2024 Jan 5;45(1):17-24. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irad165.
The treatment of burn patients using amphetamines is challenging due hemodynamic liabilty and altered physiology. Wide variation exists in the operative timing for this patient population. We hypothesize that burn excision in patients admitted with amphetamine positivity is safe regardless of timing. Data from two verified burn centers between 2017 and 2022 with differing practice patterns in operative timing for amphetamine-positive patients. Center A obtains toxicology only on admission and proceeds with surgery based on hemodynamic status and operative urgency, whereas Center B sends daily toxicology until a negative test results. The primary outcome was the use of vasoactive agents during the index operation, modeled using logistic regression adjusting for burn severity and hospital days to index operation. Secondary outcomes included death and inpatient complications. A total of 270 patients were included, and there were no significant differences in demographics or burn characteristics between centers. Center A screened once and Center B obtained a median of four screens prior to the surgery. The adjusted OR of requiring vasoactive support intraoperatively was not associated with negative toxicology result (P = .821). Having a body surface area burned >20% conferred a significantly higher risk of vasoactive support (adj. OR 13.42 [3.90-46.23], P < .001). Mortality, number of operations, stroke, and hospital length of stay were similar between cohorts. Comparison between two verified burn centers indicates that waiting until a negative amphetamine toxicology result does not impact intraoperative management or subsequent burn outcomes. Serial toxicology tests are unnecessary to guide operative timing of burn patients with amphetamine use.
使用安非他命治疗烧伤患者具有挑战性,因为存在血液动力学风险和改变的生理学。该患者人群的手术时机存在广泛差异。我们假设,无论时机如何,对于安非他命阳性的烧伤患者,切除烧伤组织是安全的。本研究纳入了 2017 年至 2022 年期间两个经过验证的烧伤中心的数据,这两个中心在安非他命阳性患者的手术时机方面存在不同的实践模式。中心 A 仅在入院时进行毒理学检查,并根据血液动力学状态和手术紧急程度进行手术,而中心 B 则每天进行毒理学检查,直到检测结果为阴性。主要结局是在指数手术期间使用血管活性药物,使用逻辑回归模型进行调整,以调整烧伤严重程度和到指数手术的住院天数。次要结局包括死亡和住院并发症。共纳入 270 例患者,两个中心之间在人口统计学或烧伤特征方面无显著差异。中心 A 筛查一次,中心 B 在手术前获得了中位数为 4 次的筛查结果。术中需要血管活性支持的调整比值比与阴性毒理学结果无关(P=.821)。烧伤面积>20%的患者需要血管活性支持的风险显著更高(调整比值比 13.42[3.90-46.23],P<.001)。死亡率、手术次数、中风和住院时间在两组之间相似。对两个经过验证的烧伤中心的比较表明,等待安非他命毒理学检查结果为阴性并不影响术中管理或随后的烧伤结局。对使用安非他命的烧伤患者进行连续毒理学检查以指导手术时机是没有必要的。