BackgroundMany pathophysiologic alterations in patients with major burns can cause changes in the response of propofol. The aim of this study is to determine the appropriate induction dose of propofol using a slow infusion rate for major burn patients to obtain desirable sedation and hypnotic conditions with minimal hemodynamic changes.Methods45 adults with major burns and who were electively scheduled for escharectomy less than a week after injury were recruited. For induction with propofol, the patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups (group 1: 1.5 mg/kg, n = 20 and group 2: 2.0 mg/kg, n = 25). The infusion rate was 20 mg/kg/hr. The systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), the heart rate, the bispectral index and the modified observers' assessment of the alertness/sedation scale (OAA/S) were measured before the induction and after the propofol infusion, as well as immediately, 3 and 5 minutes after intubation.ResultsThe SBP and DBP were significantly decreased after the propofol infusion in both group, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. The BIS values after the propofol infusion and intubation were 44.2 ± 16.1 and 43.5 ± 13.8 in group 1, and 45.6 ± 10.3 and 46.5 ± 11.4 in group 2, respectively, and there were no differences between the 2 groups.ConclusionsWhen propofol is administrated to major burn patients, an induction dose of 1.5 mg/kg is appropriate and a slow infusion rate of 20 mg/kg/hr is safe for maintaining the desired hypnotic conditions and this dose and rate cause no significant hemodynamic problems.

The infiltration of dilute epinephrine solution has been used for many years to provide hemostasis. However, epinephrine has adverse cardiovascular effects, such as arrhythmia, pulmonary edema, and even cardiac arrest. We have experienced epinephrine-induced cardiovascular crisis, with severe hypertension, tachycardia, and cardiac arrest after subcutaneous infiltration of a 2% lidocaine and 1 : 200,000 epinephrine solution in a patient with an asymptomatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. We provided successfully advanced cardiac life support in the operating room and cardioverted the patient back into a sinus rhythm with no untoward effects. The patient recovered without any apparent sequelae after intensive care.

Many medical institutions in Korea have recently been performing an antibody screening test as one of the essential elements of a pre-transfusion test. The Dia antigen is well known as one of the antigens with low incidence among Caucasians; however, it has been discovered with a relatively higher incidence among Mongoloid populations. The frequency of the Dia antigen among the Korean population is estimated to be 6.4-14.5%. But in Korea, a screening panel of cells from abroad without Dia positive cells has been commonly used when a patient has an unexpected antibody screening test. Here we report a case of acute hemolytic transfusion reaction due to Anti-Dia antibody. To prevent other transfusion reaction by anti-Dia antibody, addition of Dia positive cells as unexpected antibody screening test is recommended.