Dataset Information

Quantifying the efficacy of first aid treatments for burn injuries using mathematical modelling and in vivo porcine experiments.

ABSTRACT: First aid treatment of burns reduces scarring and improves healing. We quantify the efficacy of first aid treatments using a mathematical model to describe data from a series of in vivo porcine experiments. We study burn injuries that are subject to various first aid treatments. The treatments vary in the temperature and duration. Calibrating the mathematical model to the experimental data provides estimates of the thermal diffusivity, the rate at which thermal energy is lost to the blood, and the heat transfer coefficient controlling the loss of thermal energy at the interface of the fat and muscle. A limitation of working with in vivo experiments is the difficulty of measuring variations in temperature across the tissue layers. This limitation motivates us to use a simple, single layer mathematical model. Using the solution of the calibrated mathematical model we visualise the temperature distribution across the thickness of the tissue. With this information we propose a novel measure of the potential for tissue damage. This measure quantifies two important factors: (i) the volume of tissue that rises above the threshold temperature associated with the accumulation of tissue damage; and (ii) the duration of time that the tissue remains above this threshold temperature.

SUBMITTER: Simpson MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5589934 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantifying the efficacy of first aid treatments for burn injuries using mathematical modelling and in vivo porcine experiments.

Simpson Matthew J MJ McInerney Sean S Carr Elliot J EJ Cuttle Leila L

Scientific reports 20170907 1

First aid treatment of burns reduces scarring and improves healing. We quantify the efficacy of first aid treatments using a mathematical model to describe data from a series of in vivo porcine experiments. We study burn injuries that are subject to various first aid treatments. The treatments vary in the temperature and duration. Calibrating the mathematical model to the experimental data provides estimates of the thermal diffusivity, the rate at which thermal energy is lost to the blood, and t ...[more]

PMID: 28883527

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of two acute burn dressings, Burnaid hydrogel dressing and plasticised polyvinylchloride film, on reducing acute pain scores in paediatric burn patients following appropriate first aid.DesignSingle-centre, superiority, two-arm, parallel-group, prospective randomised controlled trial.Participants and settingPaediatric patients (aged ≤16) presenting to the Emergency Department at the Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, with an acute thermal burn were approached for participation in the trial from September 2017-September 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomised to receive either (1) Burnaid hydrogel dressing (intervention) or (2) plasticised polyvinylchloride film (Control) as an acute burn dressing.Primary and secondary outcomesObservational pain scores from nursing staff assessed 5 min post application of the randomised dressing, measured using the Face Legs Activity Cry and Consolability Scale was the primary outcome. Repeated measures of pain, stress and re-epithelialisation were also collected at follow-up dressing changes until 95% wound re-epithelialisation occurred.ResultsSeventy-two children were recruited and randomised (n=37 intervention; n=35 control). No significant between-group differences in nursing (mean difference: -0.1, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.5, p=0.72) or caregiver (MD: 1, 95% CI -8 to 11, p=0.78) observational pain scores were identified. Moreover, no significant differences in child self-report pain (MD: 0.3, 95% CI -1.7 to 2.2, p=0.78), heart rate (MD: -3, 95% CI -11 to 5, p=0.41), temperature (MD: 0.6, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.24, p=0.53), stress (geometric mean ratio: 1.53, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.53, p=0.10), or re-epithelialisation rates (MD: -1, 95% CI -3 to 1, p=0.26) were identified between the two groups.ConclusionsA clear benefit of Burnaid hydrogel dressing as an analgesic adjunct to first aid for the treatment of acute paediatric burns was not identified in this investigation.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12617001274369).

Project description:BackgroundBurns are a painful and traumatic experience, particularly in children. Reduced pain and anxiety positively influences re-epithelialisation rates in paediatric burn patients, however current literature fails to fully explain the effects of pain and anxiety and their links with wound healing. This study will determine if Burnaid® hydrogel dressing is an effective treatment for reducing pain in the acute period of a burn injury. It is hypothesised that a reduction in pain will then improve re-epithelialisation time in comparison to plastic wrap, which is standard practice at our institution - a metropolitan tertiary paediatric hospital located in Brisbane, Australia.Methods/designA randomised controlled trial will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of Burnaid® as an analgesic adjunct to cold running water first aid for the treatment of paediatric burns. Participants will include children aged between 0 and 16?years with an acute thermal burn injury (total burn surface area <?20%) presenting to the Department of Emergency within 24?h of the burn occurring. Participants will be randomised into one of two groups: (1) Burnaid® hydrogel (intervention arm) or (2) plastic wrap (control arm). Participants will also be stratified into one of two groups based on factors that influence pain intensity: (1) high pain risk or (2) low pain risk. High pain risk factors include foot burns, hot coal/ash/fire pit burns, burn area greater than 5%, and circumferential burns. The primary outcome is the intervention's effect on reducing acute pain. Secondary outcomes include days to re-epithelialisation, pulse rate, temperature, salivary cortisol and ?-amylase, anxiety, and cost-effectiveness. Sample size calculations have shown that 36 participants will be recruited into each group.DiscussionThis study will provide comprehensive data on the analgesic properties of Burnaid® as an adjunct to first aid for the treatment of acute paediatric thermal burns. If the intervention is effective in reducing pain, Burnaid® will be integrated as standard practice within the hospital's Department of Emergency. This study replicates a real-world scenario in order to identify clinically significant analgesic and wound-healing effects.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001274369 . Prospectively registered on 5 Sept 2017.

Project description:BackgroundThe UK was the first country to start national COVID-19 vaccination programmes, initially administering doses 3 weeks apart. However, early evidence of high vaccine effectiveness after the first dose and the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant prompted the UK to extend the interval between doses to 12 weeks. In this study, we aimed to quantify the effect of delaying the second vaccine dose in England.MethodsWe used a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, calibrated to COVID-19 surveillance data from England, including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data, using a Bayesian evidence-synthesis framework. We modelled and compared the epidemic trajectory in the counterfactual scenario in which vaccine doses were administered 3 weeks apart against the real reported vaccine roll-out schedule of 12 weeks. We estimated and compared the resulting numbers of daily infections, hospital admissions, and deaths. In sensitivity analyses, we investigated scenarios spanning a range of vaccine effectiveness and waning assumptions.FindingsIn the period from Dec 8, 2020, to Sept 13, 2021, the number of individuals who received a first vaccine dose was higher under the 12-week strategy than the 3-week strategy. For this period, we estimated that delaying the interval between the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses from 3 to 12 weeks averted a median (calculated as the median of the posterior sample) of 58 000 COVID-19 hospital admissions (291 000 cumulative hospitalisations [95% credible interval 275 000-319 000] under the 3-week strategy vs 233 000 [229 000-238 000] under the 12-week strategy) and 10 100 deaths (64 800 deaths [60 200-68 900] vs 54 700 [52 800-55 600]). Similarly, we estimated that the 3-week strategy would have resulted in more infections compared with the 12-week strategy. Across all sensitivity analyses the 3-week strategy resulted in a greater number of hospital admissions. In results by age group, the 12-week strategy led to more hospitalisations and deaths in older people in spring 2021, but fewer following the emergence of the delta variant during summer 2021.InterpretationEngland's delayed-second-dose vaccination strategy was informed by early real-world data on vaccine effectiveness in the context of limited vaccine supplies in a growing epidemic. Our study shows that rapidly providing partial (single-dose) vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the burden of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths overall.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research; UK Medical Research Council; Community Jameel; Wellcome Trust; UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; and EU.

Dataset Information

Quantifying the efficacy of first aid treatments for burn injuries using mathematical modelling and in vivo porcine experiments.

Publications

Quantifying the efficacy of first aid treatments for burn injuries using mathematical modelling and in vivo porcine experiments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets