Mile Stanojcic1, Peter Chen, Fangming Xiu, Marc G Jeschke. 1. *Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada†Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada‡Ross Tilley Burn Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparing the inflammatory and immunological trajectories in burned adults versus burned elderly patients to gain novel insights and better understanding why elderly have poor outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite receiving the same treatment and clinical consideration as all other burn patients, elderly patients continue to have substantially poorer outcomes compared with adults. In light of an aging population, gaining a better understanding of their susceptibility to complications and creating new treatment strategies is imperative. METHODS: We included 130 burn patients (94 adults: <65 years old and 36 elderly: ≥65 years old) and 10 healthy controls in this study. Immune activity and expression was assessed using bioplex at various time points. Clinical outcomes such as infection, sepsis, and mortality were prospectively collected. RESULTS: Elderly burn patients had significantly lower burn size but significantly higher Baux scores. Morbidity and mortality was significantly increased in the elderly cohort. Immune biomarkers indicated that elderly are immune compromised and unable to respond with the expected inflammatory response during the early phase after injury. This trajectory changes to a hyperinflammatory pattern during the later phase after burn. These findings are even more pronounced when comparing sepsis versus nonsepsis patients as well as survivors versus nonsurvivors in the elderly. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly burned patients mount a delayed immune and dampened inflammatory response early after burn injury that changes to an augmented response at later time points. Late-onset sepsis and nonsurvivors had an immune exhaustion phenotype, which may represent one of the main mediators responsible for the striking mortality in elderly.
OBJECTIVE: Comparing the inflammatory and immunological trajectories in burned adults versus burned elderly patients to gain novel insights and better understanding why elderly have poor outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite receiving the same treatment and clinical consideration as all other burn patients, elderly patients continue to have substantially poorer outcomes compared with adults. In light of an aging population, gaining a better understanding of their susceptibility to complications and creating new treatment strategies is imperative. METHODS: We included 130 burn patients (94 adults: <65 years old and 36 elderly: ≥65 years old) and 10 healthy controls in this study. Immune activity and expression was assessed using bioplex at various time points. Clinical outcomes such as infection, sepsis, and mortality were prospectively collected. RESULTS: Elderly burn patients had significantly lower burn size but significantly higher Baux scores. Morbidity and mortality was significantly increased in the elderly cohort. Immune biomarkers indicated that elderly are immune compromised and unable to respond with the expected inflammatory response during the early phase after injury. This trajectory changes to a hyperinflammatory pattern during the later phase after burn. These findings are even more pronounced when comparing sepsis versus nonsepsispatients as well as survivors versus nonsurvivors in the elderly. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly burned patients mount a delayed immune and dampened inflammatory response early after burn injury that changes to an augmented response at later time points. Late-onset sepsis and nonsurvivors had an immune exhaustion phenotype, which may represent one of the main mediators responsible for the striking mortality in elderly.
Authors: C Franceschi; M Bonafè; S Valensin; F Olivieri; M De Luca; E Ottaviani; G De Benedictis Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: S Endo; K Inada; M Kikuchi; Y Yamada; T Kasoi; M Kondo; S Hoshi; H Yamashita; M Suzuki; M Yoshida Journal: Burns Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: C D Wohltmann; G A Franklin; P W Boaz; F A Luchette; P A Kearney; J D Richardson; D A Spain Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: R J Forsey; J M Thompson; J Ernerudh; T L Hurst; J Strindhall; B Johansson; B-O Nilsson; A Wikby Journal: Mech Ageing Dev Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 5.432
Authors: Gerald McGwin; Richard L George; James M Cross; Donald A Reiff; Irshad H Chaudry; Loring W Rue Journal: Shock Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Naeem K Patil; Liming Luan; Julia K Bohannon; Yin Guo; Antonio Hernandez; Benjamin Fensterheim; Edward R Sherwood Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vincent Uyttendaele; Jennifer L Dickson; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 9.097