The investigators hypothesize that the scheduled use of bronchoscopy on a regular basis after inhalation injury in burn patients will improve outcome by providing pulmonary hygiene, decrease the incidence of pneumonia, and detect pneumonia earlier than standard treatment without bronchoscopy.
The role of bronchoscopy in most hospitals has been limited to obtaining lavage fluid for culture and assessing the degree of airway injury, which has been shown to be predictive of outcome. Severe inhalation injury, which is characterized by pulmonary edema, bronchial edema, and secretions, can occlude the airway and lead to atelectasis and pneumonia. Aggressive use of bronchoscopy is highly effective in removing foreign particles and accumulated secretions that worsen the inflammatory response and impede ventilation. While it seems intuitive that bronchoscopy would improve pulmonary hygiene by removing secretions and denuded epithelial slough in burn patients, there has not been any published data to support or deter the use of bronchoscopy for inhalation injury nor document an improvement in morbidity or mortality secondary to bronchoscopy as a therapeutic intervention. Recent research has shown that the process of intubation for mechanical ventilation provides a portal for bacterial contamination, after which the damaged tracheobronchial mucosa quickly becomes colonized with pathogenic organisms in over 50% of the patients. Furthermore, within 15 minutes of smoke inhalation, there is significant airway edema and thickening, more prominently in the lower trachea than the upper portion. These factors place the patient with inhalation injury at high risk for pneumonia. We have used the National Burn Repository data to previously show that patients who receive aggressive use of bronchoscopy after inhalation injury have an improved outcome in terms of decreased ventilator days, decreased ICU length of stay, decreased incidence of pneumonia, and a trend towards improved mortality. However, that data was unable to document why. It was also unable to confirm that the findings were not due to institutional bias. Therefore, one of the conclusions from that study was that a prospective trial is needed to confirm the findings. Our hypothesis is that a scheduled and sequential use of bronchoscopy after inhalation injury as a therapeutic tool to remove secretions, slough, carbonaceous material, and screen for the early detection of pneumonia by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) will improve outcome. We will attempt to document this improvement by using the following endpoints: length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ventilator days, incidence of pneumonia, overall morbidity and mortality with and without bronchoscopy.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
28
Scheduled bronchoscopy.
Hurley Medical Center
Flint, Michigan, United States
All Cause Mortality
Bronchoscopy group deaths n=0. Control group deaths n=1.
Time frame: until death or discharge from hospital, data reviewed every 6 months
Respiratory Associated Mortality
Bronchoscopy group deaths n=0. Control group deaths n=1.
Time frame: until death or discharge from hospital, data reviewed every 6 months
Incidence of Pneumonia
Bronchoscopy group- 4/13 (31%) Control group- 6/15 (40%)
Time frame: until discharge from the hospital, data reviewed every 6 months
Length of Mechanical Ventilation
Days of mechanical ventilation (bronchoscopy 5.1 days, 95% CI +/- 3.6 days versus control 6.7 days, 95% CI +/- 6.3 days, p = 0.7).
Time frame: until discharge from hospital, data reviewed every 6 months
Length of ICU Stay
Number of ICU days (bronchoscopy 10 days, 95% CI +/- 10 days versus control 18 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.4).
Time frame: until discharge from hospital, data reviewed every 6 months
Length of Hospital Stay
Number of hospital days (bronchoscopy 21 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days versus control 26 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.5).
Time frame: until discharge from hospital, data reviewed every 6 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.