| Literature DB >> 24764516 |
Charles Handford1, Pauline Buxton2, Katie Russell3, Caitlin Ea Imray4, Scott E McIntosh5, Luanne Freer6, Amalia Cochran7, Christopher He Imray8.
Abstract
Frostbite presentation to hospital is relatively infrequent, and the optimal management of the more severely injured patient requires a multidisciplinary integration of specialist care. Clinicians with an interest in wilderness medicine/freezing cold injury have the awareness of specific potential interventions but may lack the skill or experience to implement the knowledge. The on-call specialist clinician (vascular, general surgery, orthopaedic, plastic surgeon or interventional radiologist), who is likely to receive these patients, may have the skill and knowledge to administer potentially limb-saving intervention but may be unaware of the available treatment options for frostbite. Over the last 10 years, frostbite management has improved with clear guidelines and management protocols available for both the medically trained and winter sports enthusiasts. Many specialist surgeons are unaware that patients with severe frostbite injuries presenting within 24 h of the injury may be good candidates for treatment with either TPA or iloprost. In this review, we aim to give a brief overview of field frostbite care and a practical guide to the hospital management of frostbite with a stepwise approach to thrombolysis and prostacyclin administration for clinicians.Entities:
Keywords: Frostbite; Heparin; Hypothermia; Iloprost; Rewarming; TPA; Thrombolysis
Year: 2014 PMID: 24764516 PMCID: PMC3994495 DOI: 10.1186/2046-7648-3-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Extrem Physiol Med ISSN: 2046-7648
ACCP classification criteria for grading evidence in clinical guideline[13]
| 1A | Strong recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens or vice versa | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies |
| 1B | Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens or vice versa | RCTs with important limitations or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies |
| 1C | Strong recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens or vice versa | Observational studies or case series |
| 2A | Weak recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies |
| 2B | Weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens | RCTs with important limitations or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies |
| 2C | Weak recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks and burden; benefits, risk and burden may be closely balanced | Observational studies or case series |
RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Figure 1Immediate hospital management of frostbite injury.
Classification scheme for the severity of frostbite injury[19]
| Extent of initial lesion at day 0 after rewarming | Absence of initial lesion | Initial lesion on distal phalanx | Initial lesion on intermediary (and) proximal phalanx | Initial lesion on carpal/tarsal |
| Bone scanning at day 2 | Useless | Hypofixation of radiotracer uptake area | Absence of radiotracer uptake on the digit | Absence of radiotracer uptake area on the carpal/tarsal region |
| Blisters at day 2 | Absence of blisters | Clear blisters | Haemorrhagic blisters on the digit | Haemorrhagic blisters over carpal/tarsal region |
| Prognosis at day 2 | No amputation | Tissue amputation | Bone amputation of digit | Bone amputation of the limb |
| No sequelae | Fingernail sequelae | Functional sequelae | +/− systemic involvement | |
| +/− sepsis functional sequelae |
A proposed screening and treatment tool for the use of thrombolysis in cases of frostbite[17]
| Treatment screen (four ‘yes’ answers required to proceed to angiography) | Are the patient's gas exchange and haemodynamics stable? |
| | Is flow absent after rewarming (no capillary refill or Doppler signals)? |
| | Was the cold exposure time less than 24 h? |
| | Is the warm ischaemia time less than 24 h? |
| Treatment protocol | Perform angiography with intra-arterial vasodilators |
| | If there is still no flow after angiography with vasodilators, infuse tissue plasminogen activator (rTPA) with systemic heparinization with priority to the hands; other sites receive a systemic dose |
| | Repeat angiography after 24 h |
| Indications for stopping the infusion of the rTPA | When restored flow has been confirmed by angiography or clinical examination |
| | If major bleeding complication occurs |
| | After 72-h treatment |
| Post lysis anticoagulation | One month of subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin at prophylactic dose |
Figure 2Algorithm for the use of rTPA and iloprost in the management of frostbite injuries.
Figure 3Intra-arterial administration of rTPA and heparin and administration of intravenous iloprost. (a) Algorithm for the intra-arterial administration of tTPA and heparin for in-hospital thrombolysis of severe frostbite injury. (b) Algorithm for the administration of intravenous iloprost for in-hospital thrombolysis of severe frostbite injury.