No abstract

No abstract

Background The microparticle content (MP%) of apheresis platelets—a marker of platelet activation—is influenced by donor factors and by external stressors during collection and storage. This study assessed the impact of apheresis technology and other factors on the activation status (MP%) of single‐donor apheresis platelets. Study Design and Methods Data from six US hospitals that screened platelets by measuring MP% through dynamic light scattering (ThromboLUX) were retrospectively analyzed. Relative risks (RRs) were derived from univariate and multivariable regression models, with activation rate (MP% ≥15% for plasma‐stored platelets; ≥10% for platelet additive solution [PAS]‐stored platelets) and MP% as outcomes. Apheresis platform (Trima Accel vs Amicus), storage medium (plasma vs PAS), pathogen reduction, storage time, and testing location were used as predictors. Results Data were obtained from 7511 platelet units collected using Trima (from 16 suppliers, all stored in plasma, 20.0% were pathogen‐reduced) and 2456 collected using Amicus (from four different collection facilities of one supplier, 65.0% plasma‐stored, 35.0% PAS‐stored, none pathogen‐reduced). Overall, 30.0% of Trima platelets were activated compared to 45.6% of Amicus platelets (P < .0001). Multivariable analysis identified apheresis platform as significantly associated with platelet activation, with a lower activation rate for Trima than Amicus (RR: 0.641, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.578; 0.711, P < .0001) and a 6.901% (95% CI: 5.926; 7.876, P < .0001) absolute reduction in MP%, when adjusting for the other variables. Conclusion Trima‐collected platelets were significantly less likely to be activated than Amicus‐collected platelets, irrespective of the storage medium, the use of pathogen reduction, storage time, and testing site.

Introduction In the U.S. about 450,000 people per year receive medical burn care through hospital emergency departments, hospital outpatient clinics, free-standing urgent care centers and private physician offices. Burns are generally classified in terms of depth and severity. Outpatient management of partial thickness burns normally involves the application of an ointment, which may contain an antibiotic and is widely used in burn care. This clinical study has been designed to prospectively evaluate potential benefits of an enzymatic debrider in partial thickness burn wounds compared to antibiotic only treatment. The primary purpose of this study is to compare an enzymatic debrider with a topical antibiotic ointment in the proportion healed at 3 weeks after initiation of treatment, and time to healing (in weeks). Methods A convenience sample of 20 subjects, aged 19–56, with an acute thermal burn injury less than 72 hours old, and less than 10% TBSA were randomly assigned to outpatient treatment with an enzymatic debrider or a topical antibiotic. The proportion of subjects healed after 3 weeks of treatment was analyzed using ANOVA. In addition, a t-test comparison between the enzymatic debrider and the topical antibiotic was performed. Results For partial thickness burns, the mean time to heal using an enzymatic debrider was 18 days compared to 28 days for the topical antibiotic. However, there was no statistical significance in burn wound closure between subjects receiving an enzymatic debrider compared to a topical antibiotic, t (13) = .677; p = .510. An analysis of variance comparing an enzymatic debrider and a topical antibiotic also showed no statistical significance in time to heal (F=.849, p=374). Conclusions Due to the small sample size, the results from this study do not support the use of an enzymatic debrider versus a topical antibiotic in treating partial thickness burn injuries to advance wound closure or shorten time to heal. The results of this study show clinical significance, with burn wounds healed in 18 days when an enzymatic debrider was used compared to 28 days when a topical antibiotic was used. The lack of statistical significance was due to an under-powered study. Furthermore, partial thickness burns should spontaneously heal within 7–14 days, regardless of the topical treatment, excluding concomitant co-morbidities. Applicability of Research to Practice Continued research is necessary, employing larger sample sizes to adequately compare the use of an enzymatic debrider compared to topical antibiotics in deep partial thickness burn wounds. In addition, outpatient management of deep thickness and full-thickness burn injuries, utilizing sharp debridement in conjunction with enzymatic debridement, in patients who decline surgical treatment of burn wounds should be explored, analyzing time to heal, scar evaluation, and cost analysis,

Introduction Accurate burn assessment is crucial to prescribing appropriate treatment and is dependent upon the experience of the provider and the timing of diagnosis relative to the burn injury evaluation. Differentiating between a deep partial thickness and full thickness burn may not be easily discernible. To augment the clinical diagnosis of burn depth, a laser doppler image measures the microvascular blood flow of injured tissue to predict burn wound healing. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical assessment of burn wounds by experienced burn providers compared to the laser doppler image assessment in predicting which burn wounds should heal spontaneously in 3 weeks. Methods A retrospective chart review from 2012–2016, included 54 subjects. The clinical assessment included a description of burn variables relevant to the determination of spontaneous burn wound healing (burn depth, total body surface area, mechanism of injury, anatomical location, clinical burn depth diagnosis, and laser doppler image). A chi-square analysis compared the clinical diagnosis and the laser doppler assessment of burn wound depth, as well as the correlation between clinical diagnosis versus laser doppler image in predicting spontaneous burn wound healing. Results Comparing partial thickness burn injuries, there were 38 clinically diagnosed partial thickness injuries (by experienced burn providers) and 38 partial thickness burn injures diagnosed via LDI. Deep partial thickness burn injuries were diagnosed clinically in 9 subjects, compared to 10 via LDI. Full thickness burn injuries were diagnosed clinically in 7 subjects and 6 via LDI. A chi-square test was performed to examine the relationship between clinical diagnosis of burn depth and laser doppler image. The relation between these variables was significant,X2= 26.884, p&lt; .000. Comparing clinically diagnosed burn depth to LDI, each approach (clinical or LDI) diagnosed 42 subjects with partial thickness or deep partial thickness burn injuries and all healed spontaneously. Two of the clinically diagnosed full thickness burn injuries required skin grafting. Six patients were lost to follow-up (X2= 17.745, p &lt; .001). Conclusions This study confirms there is no difference between an experienced burn provider’s clinical diagnosis of burn wound depth and prognosis for spontaneous healing compared to a laser doppler image prognosis of burn wound healing. Applicability of Research to Practice In an era of advanced technologies, expert clinical bedside assessment is the standard of care.

No abstract