4.4 Article

Coagulation side effects of enzymatic debridement in burned patients

期刊

BURNS
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 1272-1281

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2022.11.008

关键词

Bromelain based enzymatic; debridement; Burn patient; Coagulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of enzymatic and surgical debridement on coagulation in burn patients. The results showed that enzymatic debridement did not increase the risk of coagulation abnormalities compared to the standard surgical approach.
Objectives: Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement has emerged as a valuable option to the standard surgical intervention for debridement in burn injuries. Adverse effects on coagulation parameters after enzymatic debridement have been described. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of enzymatic and surgical debridement on coagulation. Methods: Between 03/2017 and 02/2021 patients with burn injuries with a total body surface area (TBSA) >= 1% were included in the study. Patients were categorized into two groups: the surgically debrided group and the enzymatically debrided group. Coagulation parameters were assessed daily for the first seven days of hospitalization. Results: In total 132 patients with a mean TBSA of 17% were included in this study, of which 66 received enzymatic debridement and 66 received regular surgical-debridement. Patients receiving enzymatic debridement presented significantly higher factor-V concentration values over the first seven days after admission (p = < 0.01). Regarding coagulation parameters, we found no difference in INR-, aPTT-, fibrinogen-, factor-XIII- and thrombocyte-concentrations over the first seven days (p = > 0.05). Conclusion: Enzymatic debridement in burned patients does not appear to increase the risk of coagulation abnormalities compared with the regular surgical approach. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据