Background: Patients who suffer severe burns are at higher risk for local and systemic infections. In recent years, emerging resistant pathogens have forced burn care providers world wide to search for alternative forms of treatment. Multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., and various fungal strains have been the major contributors to the increase in morbidity and mortality rates. Multi-drugresistant S. aureus remains the major cause of gram-positive burn wound infections world wide. Treatment strategies include rigorous isolation protocols and new types of antibiotics where necessary. Methods: We reviewed 398 severely burned patients (burns >40% total body surface area [TBSA]) admitted to our hospital between 2000 and 2006. Patients who did not contract multi-drug-resistant gram-negative organisms during their hospital course and received our standard antibiotic regimen-vancomycin and piperacillin= tazobactam-served as controls (piperacillin=tazobactam; n ¼ 280). The treatment group consisted of patients who, during their acute hospital stay, developed infections with multi-drug-resistant gram-negative pathogens and were treated with vancomycin and colistin for at least three days (colistin; n ¼ 118). Results: Gram-negative organisms continue to cause the most severe infections in burn patients. Colistin has reemerged as a highly effective antibiotic against multiresistant Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter infections of burns. Patients who required colistin therapy had a significantly larger average total and full-thickness burn than patients treated with piperacillin=tazobactam and vancomycin, and the mortality rate was significantly higher in the colistin group (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the colistin and piperacillin= tazobactam groups in the incidence of neurotoxicity, hepatic toxicity, or nephrotoxicity. The main fungal pathogens in burn patients are Candida spp., Aspergillus spp., and Fusarium spp. A definitive diagnosis is more difficult to obtain than in bacterial infections. Amphotericin B and voriconazole remain the two most important anti-fungal substances in our practice. Conclusions: Innovations in fluid management, ventilatory support, surgical care, and antimicrobial therapy have contributed to a significant reduction in morbidity and mortality rates in burn patients. Vancomycin and clindamycin are the two most important reserve antibiotics for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Oxazolidinones and streptogramins have showed high effectiveness against gram-positive infections. Colistin has re-emerged as a highly effective antibiotic against multiresistant Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter infections. Current challenges include Candida, Aspergillus, and molds. The development of new agents, prudent and appropriate use of antibiotics, and better infection control protocols are paramount in the ongoing battle against multi-resistant organisms.

Objective To assess the impact of obesity on morbidity and mortality in severely burned patients. Background Despite the increasing number of people with obesity, little is known about the impact of obesity on postburn outcomes. Methods A total of 405 patients were prospectively enrolled as part of the multicenter trial Inflammation and the Host Response to Injury Glue Grant with the following inclusion criteria: 0 to 89 years of age, admitted within 96 hours after injury, and more than 20% total body surface area burn requiring at least 1 surgical intervention. Body mass index was used in adult patients to stratify according to World Health Organization definitions: less than 18.5 (underweight), 18.5 to 29.9 (normal weight), 30 to 34.9 (obese I), 35 to 39.9 (obese II), and body mass index more than 40 (obese III). Pediatric patients (2 to ≤18 years of age) were stratified by using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization body mass index-for-age growth charts to obtain a percentile ranking and then grouped as underweight (<5th percentile), normal weight (5th percentile to <95th percentile), and obese (≥95th percentile). The primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes were clinical markers of patient recovery, for example, multiorgan function, infections, sepsis, and length of stay. Results A total of 273 patients had normal weight, 116 were obese, and 16 were underweight; underweight patients were excluded from the analyses because of insufficient patient numbers. There were no differences in primary and secondary outcomes when normal weight patients were compared with obese patients. Further stratification in pediatric and adult patients showed similar results. However, when adult patients were stratified in obesity categories, log-rank analysis showed improved survival in the obese I group and higher mortality in the obese III group compared with obese I group (P < 0.05). Conclusions Overall, obesity was not associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with mild obesity have the best survival, whereas morbidly obese patients have the highest mortality.

IntroductionIntensive insulin treatment (IIT) has been shown to improve outcomes post-burn in severely burnt patients. However, it increases the incidence of hypoglycemia and is associated with risks and complications. We hypothesized that exenatide would decrease plasma glucose levels post-burn to levels similar to those achieved with IIT, and reduce the amount of exogenous insulin administered.MethodsThis open-label study included 24 severely burned pediatric patients. Six were randomized to receive exenatide, and 18 received IIT during acute hospitalization (block randomization). Exenatide and insulin were administered to maintain glucose levels between 80 and 140 mg/dl. We determined 6 AM, daily average, maximum and minimum glucose levels. Variability was determined using mean amplitude of glucose excursions (MAGE) and percentage of coefficient of variability. The amount of administered insulin was compared in both groups.ResultsGlucose values and variability were similar in both groups: Daily average was 130 ± 28 mg/dl in the intervention group and 138 ± 25 mg/dl in the control group (P = 0.31), MAGE 41 ± 6 vs. 45 ± 12 (respectively). However, administered insulin was significantly lower in the exenatide group than in the IIT group: 22 ± 14 IU patients/day in the intervention group and 76 ± 11 IU patients/day in the control group (P = 0.01). The incidence rate of hypoglycemia was similar in both groups (0.38 events/patient-month).ConclusionsPatients receiving exenatide received significantly lower amounts of exogenous insulin to control plasma glucose levels. Exenatide was well tolerated and potentially represents a novel agent to attenuate hyperglycemia in the critical care setting.Trial registrationNCT00673309.

Background Several scar-scoring scales exist to clinically monitor burn scar development and maturation. Although scoring scars through direct clinical examination is ideal, scars must sometimes be scored from photographs. No scar scale currently exists for the latter purpose. Materials and methods We modified a previously described scar scale (Yeong et al., J Burn Care Rehabil 1997) and tested the reliability of this new scale in assessing burn scars from photographs. The new scale consisted of three parameters: scar height, surface appearance, and color mismatch. Each parameter was assigned a score of 1 (best) to 4 (worst), generating a total score of 3 to 12. Five physicians with burns training scored 120 representative photographs using the original and modified scales. Reliability was analyzed using coefficient of agreement, Cronbach’s alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient, variance, and coefficient of variance. Analysis of variance was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Color mismatch and scar height scores were validated by analyzing actual height and color differences. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient, the coefficient of agreement, and Cronbach’s alpha were higher for the modified scale than the original scale. The original scale produced more variance than the modified scale. Sub-analysis demonstrated that, for all categories, the modified scale had greater correlation and reliability than the original scale. The correlation between color mismatch scores and actual color differences was 0.84 and between scar height scores and actual height was 0.81. Conclusions The modified scar scale is a simple, reliable, and useful scale for evaluating photographs of burn patients.