The Self-Inflicted Burns - Typology and its Prognostic Relevance in a 14-Year Review of Self-Inflicted Burns in a Tertiary Referral Centre

Self-inflicted burns (SIB) are responsible for 2-6% of admissions to Burn Units in Europe and North America, and for as many as 25% of admissions in developing nations. Recently, a promising new tool was proposed to stratify SIB patients in the following subgroups: "typical", "delirious", and "reactive". However, as far as the authors know, the clinical usefulness of this instrument has not yet been validated by others. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 56 patients admitted to our Burn Unit with the diagnosis of SIB injury in the past 14 years. The following parameters were evaluated: demographic features; psychiatric illness; substance abuse; mechanism of injury; burn depth, total body surface area (TBSA) involved, Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI); length of hospital stay, and mortality. All patients were followed up by a psychologist and a psychiatrist, and were classified according to the SIB-Typology Tool, into three classes: "typical", "delirious" and "reactive". There was a slight predominance of the "typical" type (44.6%), followed by the "delirious" type (30.4%), and, finally the "reactive" type (25.0%). Mortality was significantly higher in the "typical" subgroup. In conclusion, the SIB-Typology Tool appears to be a valuable instrument in the clinical management of SIB patients.

The Use of Statins in People at Risk of Developing Diabetes Mellitus: Evidence and Guidance for Clinical Practice

Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels using statins is associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular (CV) events in a wide range of patient populations. Although statins are generally considered to be safe, recent studies suggest they are associated with an increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes (T2D). This led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change their labelling requirements for statins to include a warning about the possibility of increased blood sugar and HbA1c levels and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to issue guidance on a small increased risk of T2D with the statin class. This review examines the evidence leading to these claims and provides practical guidance for primary care physicians on the use of statins in people with or at risk of developing T2D. Overall, evidence suggests that the benefits of statins for the reduction of CV risk far outweigh the risk of developing T2D, especially in individuals with higher CV risk. To reduce the risk of developing T2D, physicians should assess all patients for T2D risk prior to starting statin therapy, educate patients about their risks, and encourage risk-reduction through lifestyle changes. Whether some statins are more diabetogenic than others requires further study. Statin-treated patients at high risk of developing T2D should regularly be monitored for changes in blood glucose or HbA1c levels, and the risk of conversion from pre-diabetes to T2D should be reduced by intensifying lifestyle changes. Should a patient develop T2D during statin treatment, physicians should continue with statin therapy and manage T2D in accordance with relevant national guidelines.

Variation in Haemodynamic Monitoring for Major Surgery in European Nations: Secondary Analysis of the EuSOS Dataset

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiac output monitoring may improve patient outcomes after major surgery. However, little is known about the use of this technology across nations. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study. Patients aged 16 years and over undergoing major non-cardiac surgery in a 7-day period in April 2011 were included into this analysis. The objective is to describe prevalence and type of cardiac output monitoring used in major surgery in Europe. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 12,170 patients from the surgical services of 426 hospitals in 28 European nations. One thousand four hundred and sixteen patients (11.6 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, and 2343 patients (19.3 %) received a central venous catheter. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were more frequently exposed to cardiac output monitoring (ASA I and II, 643 patients [8.6 %]; ASA III-V, 768 patients [16.2 %]; p < 0.01) and central venous catheter (ASA I and II, 874 patients [11.8 %]; ASA III-V, 1463 patients [30.9 %]; p < 0.01). In elective surgery, 990 patients (10.8 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, in urgent surgery 252 patients (11.7 %) and in emergency surgery 173 patients (19.8 %). A central venous catheter was used in 1514 patients (16.6 %) undergoing elective, in 480 patients (22.2 %) undergoing urgent and in 349 patients (39.9 %) undergoing emergency surgery. Nine hundred sixty patients (7.9 %) were monitored using arterial waveform analysis, 238 patients (2.0 %) using oesophageal Doppler ultrasound, 55 patients (0.5 %) using a pulmonary artery catheter and 44 patients (2.0 %) using other technologies. Across nations, cardiac output monitoring use varied from 0.0 % (0/249 patients) to 27.5 % (19/69 patients), whilst central venous catheter use varied from 5.6 % (7/125 patients) to 43.2 % (16/37 patients). CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients undergoing major surgery is exposed to cardiac output monitoring whilst one in five receives a central venous catheter. The use of both technologies varies widely across Europe.