Following reports of heparin use in burn treatment, an ethics-committee-approved prospective randomized study with controls compared results obtained using traditional usual burn treatment without heparin with results in similar patients similarly treated with heparin added topically. The subjects were 100 consecutive burn patients (age <15 years) with second-degree superficial and deep burns of 5-45 % total body surface area size. Two largely similar cohort groups-a control group (C) and a heparin group (H) with 50 subjects per group-were randomly treated. The 50 control group patients received traditional routine treatment, including topical antimicrobial cream, debridement, and, when needed, skin grafts in the early postburn period. The 50 heparin group patients, without topical cream, were additionally treated, starting on day 1 postburn, with 200 IU/ml sodium aqueous heparin solution USP (heparin) dripped on the burn surfaces and inserted into the blisters two to four times a day for 1-2 days, and then only on burn surfaces for a total of 5-7 days, before skin grafting, when needed. Thereafter, control and heparin group treatment was similar. It was found that the heparin patients complained of less pain and received less pain medicine than the control patients. The heparin group needed fewer dressings and oral antibiotics than the control group. The 50 heparin group patients had 4 skin graftings (8 %), while the 50 control group patients had 10 (20 %). Five control group patients died (mortality 10 %). No heparin group patients died. The number of days in hospital for the heparin group versus control group was significantly less (overall P < 0.0001): 58 % of heparin group patients were discharged within 10 days versus 6 % of control group patients; 82 % of heparin group patients were out in 20 days versus 14 % of control group patients; 98 % of the heparin group versus 44 % of the control group were out in 30 days; and while 100 % of heparin group patients were discharged by day 40, 56 % of the control group required up to another 10 days. Burns in heparin group patients healed on average in 15 days (maximum period 37 days) versus an average of 25 days (maximum >48 days) in control group patients (P < 0.0006). Procedures and costs in the heparin group were much reduced compared with the control group. Differences between the heparin and control groups are presented for the sake of comparison. It was concluded that heparin applied topically for 5-7 days improved burn treatment: it reduced pain, pain medicine, dressings, and use of antibiotics; it significantly reduced IV fluids (P < 0.04), days in hospital (P < 0.0001), and healing time (P < 0.0006); and it reduced skin grafts, mortality, and costs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175678PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0674-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

burn treatment
8
heparin
5
comparative study
4
study paediatric
4
paediatric thermal
4
thermal burns
4
burns treated
4
treated topical
4
topical heparin
4
heparin heparin
4

Similar Publications

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the pathophysiology, treatment methods, outpatient rehabilitation, and future directions related to burn injuries. It details the classification of burns, treatment strategies, wound care management, and rehabilitation processes. Modern approaches, such as AI-supported models and telemedicine, are highlighted in burn treatment.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are becoming more prevalent among post-burn populations. With the increase in awareness of the significance of psychosocial injury adjustment for holistic health-related quality of life, beyond just physical, occupational, and functional recovery. However, the incidence of depression and PTSD in the adult population is inconsistent across published studies.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Pediatric hand traumas are common injuries in childhood. The incidence and type of injury vary with age. In our country, there are only two publications in which only crush is examined in etiology.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Chronic spinal (back/neck) pain is common and costly. Psychosocial treatments are available but have modest effects. Knowledge of treatment mechanisms (mediators and moderators) can be used to enhance efficacy.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Hypertrophic scar (HS) is a common fibroproliferative disorders with no fully effective treatments. The conversion of fibroblasts to myofibroblasts is known to play a critical role in HS formation, making it essential to identify molecules that promote myofibroblast dedifferentiation and to elucidate their underlying mechanisms. In this study, we used comparative transcriptomics and single-cell sequencing to identify key molecules and pathways that mediate fibrosis and myofibroblast transdifferentiation.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!