Is the Parkland formula still the best method for determining the fluid resuscitation volume in adults for the first 24 hours after injury? — A retrospective analysis of burn patients in Germany

BackgroundR Rapid fluid resuscitation is a crucial therapy during the treatment of patients with extensive burns. In 1968, the Parkland Formula was introduced for the calculation of the estimated volume of the resuscitation fluid. Since then, different methods for the calculation of fluid resuscitation volume have been developed. We aimed to evaluate if the Parkland formula is still the most effective method for fluid resuscitation volume calculation in burn patients.MethodsIn the period between January 2015 and January 2019, data from 569 patients over 16 years old with burns of more than 20% total body surface area (TBSA) and at least 15% TBSA full thickness burns were entered in the German burn registry. The patients were divided into 5 groups (0, +1, ?1, +2, ?2) according to the volume of the resuscitation fluid they received. Group 0 patients received the amount of fluid calculated according to the Parkland formula (n = 83). The 4 other groups received reduced (-1, -2) or increased (+1, +2) fluid volumes in comparison to the value obtained by the Parkland formula.ResultsPatients in Group 0 presented a significantly lower mortality in the first week (4.5%) compared to groups –2 (16.7%) and group +2 (19.5%) (p = 0.021). Furthermore, the mean number of operations in group +2 (5.81) was higher than in group ?2 (3.81). Surviving patients from group +2 presented a longer hospital stay (68.1 days) compared to the other groups. Additionally, the logistic regression analysis showed a higher survival of patients in groups ?2 and ?1 (regression coefficients ?0.11 and ?0.086; Odds Ratio 0.896 and 0.918; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0,411–1.951 and 0.42–2.004).ConclusionIn this retrospective study, register based analysis a restrictive fluid regime was associated with a higher survival compared to the liberal Parkland guided fluid regime.     

Determining host factors contributing to disease severity in a family cluster of 29 hospitalized SARS‐CoV‐2 patients: Could genetic factors be relevant in the clinical course of COVID‐19?

In this study, we report a large family cluster consisting of 29 genetically related patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19). We sought to determine the clinical characteristics relevant to the clinical course of COVID‐19 by comparing the family cluster to unrelated patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection so that the presence of potential determinants of disease severity, other than traditional risk factors previously reported, could be investigated. Twenty‐nine patient files were investigated in group 1 and group 2 was created with 52 consecutive patients with COVID‐19 having age and gender compatibility. The virus was detected for diagnosis. The clinical, laboratory and imaging features of all patients were retrospectively screened. Disease course was assessed using records regarding outcome from patient files retrospectively. Groups were compared with respect to baseline characteristics, disease severity on presentation, and disease course. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of comorbidity and smoking history. In terms of inhospital treatment, use differed not significantly between two groups. We found that all 29 patients in the group 1 had severe pneumonia, 18 patients had severe pneumonia. Hospitalization rates, length of hospital stay, and transferred to intensive care unit were found to be statistically significantly higher in the group 1. In the present study, COVID‐19 cases in the large family cluster were shown to have more severe disease and worse clinical course compared with consecutive patients with COVID‐19 presenting to the same time. We believe further studies into potential genetic mechanisms of host susceptibility to COVID‐19 should include such family clusters.     

NF‐κB activation mediates LPS‐or zymosan‐induced hypotension and inflammation reversed by BAY61‐3606, a selective Syk inhibitor,in rat models of septic and non‐septic shock

We have previously demonstrated that the activation of the spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk)/inhibitory‐κB (IκB)‐α/nuclear factor‐κB (NF‐κB) p65 signalling pathway contributes to hypotension and inflammatory response in a rat models of zymosan (ZYM)‐induced non‐septic shock. The purpose of this study was to further examine the possible mechanism underlying the effect of inhibition of Syk by BAY61‐3606 via NF‐κB activity at the level of nuclear translocation regarding the production of vasodilator and proinflammatory mediators in lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (septic)‐ and ZYM (non‐septic)‐induced shock. Administration of LPS (10 mg/kg, ip) or ZYM (500 mg/kg, ip) to male Wistar rats decreased mean arterial pressure and increased heart rate that was associated with an increase in the activities of cyclooxygenase and nitric oxide synthase, tumour necrosis factor‐α, and interleukin‐8 levels, and NF‐κB activation and nuclear translocation in sera and/or cardiovascular and renal tissues. BAY61‐3606 (3 mg/kg, ip), the selective Syk inhibitor, given 1 hour after LPS‐ or ZYM injection reversed all the above‐mentioned effects. These results suggest that Syk contributes to the LPS‐ or ZYM‐induced hypotension and inflammation associated with transactivation of NF‐κB in septic and non‐septic shock.