Main Guideline

8/18/2019 Main Guideline

1/9

Practice Guidelines for the Management

of Electrical InjuriesBrett Arnoldo, MD,* Matthew Klein, MD† Nicole S. Gibran, MD

There has been increasing emphasis on the develop-ment of practice guidelines and validated measure-ments to evaluate surgical practice. Initiatives such asthe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program(NSQIP) have demonstrated the importance of anoutcome-based approach to improving surgical care.

The development of guidelines and outcome-basedbenchmarks requires established standards of practicethat should be based on level I data from well-designed prospective randomized trials.

Electrical burns are potentially devastating injuries with both short- and long-term sequelae. In 2001, the American Burn Association published a set of practiceguidelines for various aspects of burn care in the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation . However, guidelinesfor the management of electrical burns were not in-cluded. Two fundamental—and controversial—issuesin the management of electrical burns are cardiac mon-

itoring and evaluation and treatment of the injured up-per extremity. We have reviewed and analyzed the avail-able literature in an effort to develop practice guidelinesfor these two important issues.

SECTION I: CARDIAC MONITORING

AFTER ELECTRICAL INJURIES

Recommendations

Standards. An electrocardiogram (ECG) shouldbe performed on all patients who sustain electricalinjuries (high and low voltage).

Guidelines1. Children and adults who sustain low-voltage

electrical injuries, have no ECG abnormalities,

no history of loss of consciousness, and no otherindications for admission (ie, soft-tissue injury),can be discharged from the emergency room.

2. All patients with history of loss of consciousnessor documented dysrhythmia either before or af-ter admission to the emergency room should be

admitted for telemetry monitoring. Patients with ECG evidence of ischemia should be ad-mitted and placed on cardiac monitors.

3. Creatine kinase enzyme levels, including MBfraction, are not reliable indicators of cardiacinjury after electrical burns and should not beused in decisions regarding patient disposition.Insufficient data exists on troponin levels to for-mulate a guideline.

Options. Electrical injuries can result in potentially fatal cardiac dysrhythmias. The need for cardiac eval-uation and subsequent cardiac monitoring are critical

components in electrical burn management. Most pa-tients who sustain electrical injuries undergo ECGevaluation, and patients with documented dysrhyth-mias, cardiac ischemia, or history of loss of conscious-ness will be admitted to the hospital for further eval-uation and monitoring. However, the appropriatecardiac diagnostic tests and the indications for hospi-tal admission, necessity of cardiac monitoring, andappropriate duration of cardiac monitoring have notbeen well established.

OVERVIEW

Purpose

The purpose of this guideline review is to review the cur-rent data on practices for diagnosing cardiac injury andindications for cardiac monitoring after electrical injury.

Users

These guidelines are designed to aid physicians in makingdecisions regarding patient disposition, diagnostic testsand management of patients following electrical injury.

From the *University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas; and †University of Washington Burn Center, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

Address correspondence to Nicole S. Gibran, MD, University of Washington Burn Center, Harborview Medical Center, Box 359796, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.

Copyright © 2006 by the American Burn Association.1559-047X/2006

DOI: 10.1097/01.BCR.0000226250.26567.4C

439

Edited by Foxit ReaderCopyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2006For Evaluation Only.


2/9

Clinical Problem

The potential for development of cardiac dysrhyth-mia, cardiac arrest, and myocardial damage after elec-trical injury has been well documented.1–5 Cardiacdysrhythmias, cardiac standstill, and myocardial in-

jury can occur after both low- (1000 V) and high- voltage (1000 V) injury. The potential for cardiacdysrhythmia and injury has prompted routine cardiacevaluation and low threshold for patient admissionand of all patients who sustain electrical injury. Whereas obtaining an ECG is a well-established com-ponent of the early evaluation of patients after elec-trical injury, the indications for patient admissionand appropriate duration of cardiac monitoringhave been less clear. Traditionally, patients withlow-voltage injuries who have normal ECGs and nohistory of loss of consciousness are discharged from

the hospital. However, appropriate management of patients who sustain high-voltage injuries has notbeen well defined. Generally, patients who have ahistory of loss of consciousness, ECG abnormalities,or have injuries that would otherwise require admis-sion are admitted to the hospital and are placed ontelemetry monitors. There are several issues related tothe cardiac evaluation and monitoring that need to beaddressed: 1) Should all patients with high-voltageelectrical injuries be admitted to the hospital, even if there is no evidence of cardiac abnormality? 2) Whatis the role of cardiac enzymes in the evaluation and

management of electrical injuries? 3) How longshould patients be monitored on telemetry?

Process

A Medline search was conducted of all available liter-ature from 1966 to 2004 using the key words elec-trical, burns, cardiac, monitoring. In addition, severalarticles were not identified in the Medline search but were referenced in the articles reviewed and werefound to be relevant: a total of 27 articles were reviewed and found to be relevant.

References were classified as Class 1 evidence (pro-

spective, randomized, controlled trials); Class II evi-dence (prospective or retrospective studies based onclearly reliable data); Class III evidence (evidenceprovided by clinical series, comparative studies, casereviews or reports); or as a technology assessment (astudy that examined the utility/reliability of a partic-ular technology).

Scientific Foundation

Cardiac Abnormalities. All studies reviewed con-firmed that cardiac abnormalities—including dys-rhythmias and myocardial damage—occur after both

low-voltage and high-voltage injuries, reinforcing theneed for ECG evaluation of all patients. NonspecificST-T changes were the most common ECG abnor-mality,2,6,7 and atrial fibrillation was the most com-mon dysrhythmia.

Criteria for Admission

Admission and cardiac monitoring for patients withhistory of loss of consciousness, ECG abnormalities,or with other indications for admission (ie, TBSA burned, need for extremity monitoring) are standardpractices in all series of electrical injuries reviewed. Inaddition, the majority of patients with low-voltageinjuries and normal ECG are discharged home fromthe emergency room without complication. Thesafety of this practice also was confirmed in two seriesof pediatric patients.1,8 The possible exceptions in-

clude patients with other injuries that require hospi-talization or children with an oral burn that wouldrequire monitoring for labial artery bleeding.

Virtually all patients with high-voltage injuries areadmitted for cardiac monitoring; however, it is un-clear whether this step is necessary. With increasingemphasis on cost-effectiveness, the routine admissionof all patients with high-voltage injury must be ques-tioned. Hunt,9 Bailey et al,1 and Arrowsmith et al10

reported that all cardiac irregularities were evidenteither on admission to the emergency room or withinseveral hours of hospitalization and in 1986, Purdue

and Hunt

5

reported that no serious arrhythmias oc-curred in any patient who a normal ECG on admis-sion. Taken together, these studies suggest that anegative initial evaluation could obviate the need forhospital admission solely for cardiac monitoring.However, these were observations based on retro-spective data and are inadequate to form the basis of a practice guideline. On the basis of their findings,Purdue and Hunt5 generated the following set of admission criteria for electrically injured patients: 1)loss of consciousness or cardiac arrest in the field; 2)documented cardiac arrhythmia in the field; 3) ab-normal ECG; or 4) a separate indication for admis-sion. They applied these criteria prospectively to 10consecutive patients and reported no complications.This study is the first to investigate not routinely monitoring patients who sustained high-voltageinjuries. However, this series is too small to affectpractice.

One study suggested that presentation of cardiacabnormalities could be delayed. Jensen et al11 re-ported three patients with a delay in the onset of symptoms after low-voltage (two patients) and high- voltage (one patient) injuries. All presented to theemergency room only after they developed chest pain

Journal of Burn Care & Research440 Arnoldo et al July/August 2006

Edited by Foxit ReaderCopyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2006For Evaluation Only.


3/9

and palpitations. However, none of the patients hadECGs or any sort of evaluation at the time of injury and, therefore, this study does not provide substan-tive evidence of truly late dysrhythmia presentation.

Duration of MonitoringNo published studies have directly studied the appro-priate duration of telemetry monitoring after injury.Several series reported monitoring for 24 hours afteradmission if there were no ECG abnormalities onadmission or monitoring for 24 hours after resolutionof dysrhythmias.1,8,12 Arrowsmith et al10 reportedthat all patients with dysrhythmias resolved within48 hours of admission either spontaneously or withpharmacologic intervention. However, there are nodata available to formulate appropriate managementguidelines for this issue.

Utility of Creatine Kinase

Creatine kinase levels frequently are obtained afterelectrical injury. CK has long been used as an indica-tor of muscle injury and can help in determining theextent of extremity muscle injury. The MB subunithas been reported to be more specific for myocardiumand, therefore, has been used to evaluate cardiac injury after electrical injury. Only one study reported areliable correlation between serum CK-MB levels andcardiac injury. Chandra et al6 reported that the timecourse of the MB fraction increase and decrease was a

reliable indicator of cardiac ischemia. However, thisstudy does not correlate the elevated enzyme levels withany other study of cardiac injury. Conversely, the evi-dence of poor or questionable correlation was quitestrong. Several studies demonstrated that CK-MBlevels poorly predict cardiac injury and that theelevated enzyme levels likely result from noncar-diac muscle injury.7,13–15 Housinger et al7 sug-gested that positive MB fractions in the absence of ECGfindings should be interpreted with caution becausethey may not signify cardiac injury. Given the paucity of evidence supporting the utility of CK-MB levels, thislaboratory value should not be used as a diagnosticcriterion for cardiac injury after electrical injury.

SUMMARY

The current practices of admitting patients with his-tory of loss of consciousness, documented dysrhyth-mia in the field, or ECG abnormalities are wellsupported in the literature. Similarly, dischargingpatients from the emergency room with low-voltageinjuries and normal ECGs is well established. How-ever, few data are available to support establishmentof guidelines for the management of patients with

high-voltage injuries and normal ECGs. The twostudies that addressed this question have populationsizes that are too small to support changes in practice.Future prospective and randomized studies (as de-scribed herein) are needed to effectively establish

practice guidelines. In addition, there is inadequateevidence to formulate guidelines for the duration of monitoring for patients with ECG abnormalities.

Sufficient data are available to conclude thatCK-MB is an unreliable diagnostic test for cardiacinjury after electrical injury. The presence of skeletalmuscle injury in these patients confounds the resultsof this laboratory test. No studies identified in thisreview examined the specificity and utility of troponinlevels in determining cardiac injury.

Key Issues for Further Evaluation

1. Utility of troponin: CK and CK-MB not specificfor cardiac muscle. Insufficient data exists eval-uating the utility of troponin in assessing cardiacinjury.

2. Duration of monitoring: insufficient data existsto determine the optimal duration of telemetry monitoring after electrical injury for patients who have abnormal ECGs or history of loss of consciousness. There have been no studies thatdirectly examined this specific question.

3. Admission for high-voltage injuries: insufficientdata exists to establish guidelines for whether to

admit patients who sustain high-voltage injuriesbut have normal ECG’s and no history of loss of consciousness. The available data suggest thatthese patients could be discharged but further,prospective evaluation is required.

Evidentiary Table

Studies on the practices of cardiac evaluation andmonitoring are summarized in Table 1.

II. EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT

OF THE UPPER EXTREMITY

Recommendations

Standards. Insufficient data exist to support atreatment standard for this topic.

Guidelines1. Patients with high-voltage electrical injury to

the upper extremity should be referred to spe-cialized burn centers experienced with these injuries as per American Burn Association referralcriteria.

2. Indications for surgical decompression includeprogressive neurologic dysfunction, vascular

Journal of Burn Care & Research Volume 27, Number 4 Arnoldo et al 441


4/9

Table 1. Evidence table

Reference Study Description Data Class Conclusions/Comments

Ahrenholz et al,

198813Retrospective study of 125 patients

admitted with electrical injuries

II Demonstrated that there is a poor correlation between

elevated CK-MB levels and cardiac injury

Arrowsmith et al,199710

Retrospective study of 145 patientsadmitted with electrical injuries to

determine incidence of cardiac

complications

II All patients with cardiac complications had them at thetime of admission. Patients with normal ECG and no

loss of consciousness do not require admission for

cardiac monitoring

Bailey et al,

199543Retrospective review of 141 children

admitted to the emergency department

with household electrical injuries

II Children with normal ECG and low voltage injuries do

not require cardiac monitoring. Authors also suggested

that ECG is not indicated for children with low-voltage

injuries, no loss of consciousness, no tetany, no water

contact, and no current crossing the heart region

Bailey et al,

20001Prospective evaluation of a set of admission

guidelines after electrical injury.

Guidelines were applied to a total of 224

patients

II Guidelines for admission were used in the majority of

cases. According to the guidelines, all patients with

high-voltage injuries were admitted, as were patients

with low-voltage injuries with ECG abnormalities, past

cardiac history, water contact, and tetany

Chandra et al,

19906Prospective evaluation of 34 patients

admitted with high-voltage electrical

injuries to determine predictors of

myocardial damage

II Time course of CK-MB elevation in patients with

electrical injuries suggests that it is cardiac in etiology.

ECG may not be reliable for diagnosing myocardial

damage

Cunningham,

199144Retrospective study of 70 patients admitted

with electrical injury

II Discharged all patients with low-voltage injuries who are

asymptomatic and had normal ECG without

complication

Guinard et al,

198715Prospective evaluation of 10 patients

admitted with electrical injuries

III Demonstrated poor reliability of CK-MB to identify

cardiac injuries

Housinger et al,

19857Prospective study of 16 patients to determine

incidence of possible myocardial damage

following electrical burn

III Demonstrated poor correlation between elevation of

CK-MB levels and ECG abnormalities. Pyrophosphate

scans were used as diagnostic standard for cardiac

injury

Hunt et al,

19809Retrospective review of 102 patients with

high-voltage injuries

II All cardiac abnormalities were evident either on

admission of within several hours of hospitalization

Jensen et al,

198711Three case reports of late presentation of

cardiac abnormalities after electrical injury

III Three patients with late presentation of cardiac

abnormalities. However, none of the patients were

evaluated immediately after injury

Lewin et al,

19834Case report of 19-year old patient with

myocardial injury after electrical injury

III Demonstrated correlation of CK-MB levels with ECG

abnormalities and myocardial injury

Purdue and Hunt,

19865Retrospective study of 48 patients admitted

with high-voltage injuries. On the basis of

these findings, a prospective study of 10

patients applying guidelines for admission

II Designed a protocol for determining which patients

should be admitted following high voltage injury. No

complications following discharge of patients with high

voltage injuries and no other indications for

admission.Comment: First study to demonstrate safety of discharging patients with high-voltage injuries and

normal ECGs. However, small group of patients studied

Wallace et al,

19958Retrospective study of 35 pediatric patients

with both low and high voltage injuries

II Children with low-voltage injuries and normal ECGs can

be discharged. However, all patients with high-voltage

injuries were admitted and monitored

Zubair et al,

199712Retrospective study of 127 pediatric patients

with low- and high-voltage injuries

II Recommend 4 hours of monitoring for all patients before

discharge and admission of all patients with high-

voltage injuries, loss of consciousness, or ECG

abnormalities



5/9

compromise, increased compartment pressure,and systemic clinical deterioration from sus-pected ongoing myonecrosis. Decompressionincludes forearm fasciotomy and assessment of muscle compartments. The decision to include

a carpal tunnel release should be made on acase-by-case basis.

Options. There are several methods to evaluate theinjured extremity. Compartment pressures may bemeasured as an adjunct to clinical examination. Pres-sures greater than 30 mm Hg, or tissue pressurereaching within 10 to 20 mm Hg of diastolic pres-sure, may be used as evidence of increased compart-ment pressure and potential deep-tissue injury, indi-cating the need for surgical decompression in theappropriate clinical setting. Technetium-99m pyro-phosphate scan may be used as an adjunct to clinical

examination at centers experienced with this technol-ogy. Doppler flow meter can be used as an adjunct toassess extremity perfusion. It should not be relied onas the sole indicator of deep-tissue viability and ade-quate perfusion.

OVERVIEW

Purpose

The purpose of this guideline is to review the princi-ples of monitoring and treatment of high-voltageelectrical burn injury to the upper extremity. The up-

per extremity is commonly injured after high-voltageelectrical and carries with it a high rate of morbidity.

Clinical Problem

Burns resulting from high-voltage electric current(1000 V) often are associated with a greater degreeof deep-tissue injury than is initially appreciated. As aresult these rather infrequent injuries, which make uponly 3% to 12% of burn center admissions,16 are as-sociated with high amputation rates and greater useof resources than comparable %TBSA cutaneousburns.6,10,17 Unnecessary exploration can increase

morbidity, length of stay, and the use of scarce re-sources. Delayed exploration and decompression inthe compromised extremity, however, may result inincreased amputation rates along with increased or-gan failure and mortality.31

Process

A Medline search from 1966 to the present was usedto evaluate monitoring and the need for early explo-ration and fasciotomy in electrical injury to the ex-tremity. A search for the key words, “electrical injury,” “fasciotomy,” “compartment syndrome,”

“compartment pressure,” “Doppler flow meter,”“technetium 99m pyrophosphate,” “infrared pho-toplethysmography,” and “burn injury” was per-formed, and relevant articles were reviewed. Stud-ies of patients with lower-extremity injuries were

included because of the scarcity of data involving ex-clusively the upper extremity. An attempt was madehowever to analyze the data involving the upper ex-tremity exclusively where possible.

Scientific Foundation

Electrical injuries, including lightning strikes, shouldbe referred to a specialized burn center as per Amer-ican Burn Association criteria.18 Many surgeons ad- vocate immediate surgical exploration (usually withinthe first 24 hours), and decompression of patients with high-voltage electrical injuries.19,20–32 Early ex-

ploration, fasciotomy, and débridment are followedby serial débridment of necrotic tissue and subse-quent closure. These studies are somewhat difficult tointerpret; however, because of the differences in thedegree of injury no prospective, randomized, con-trolled trials evaluating immediate exploration havebeen performed. The rational for this aggressive ap-proach relates to thermal mechanics. Joule’s law de-fining the amount of power (heat) delivered to anobject:

Power (J-Joule) I2 (Current) times R (Resistance). Accordingly, deep muscle necrosis can occur in the

muscle adjacent to bone, which has a high resis-tance.33–35 Failure to perform adequate fasciotomy and to evaluate all muscle compartments may lead tomisdiagnosis of deep thermal injury.20 This approachhowever, commits the patient to several operationsand may prolong hospital stay and morbidity.

In the d’Amato20 series, six patients underwentemergency exploratory surgery and amputation forobvious necrotic extremities, followed by serial dé-bridment. No patient required an amputation formisdiagnosed deep muscle necrosis. However,missed injury was present in two patients, who re-quired further surgical intervention, although neitherrequired amputation because of the missed injury.Parshley’s series evaluated 41 patients with 27 ex-tremities explored. Amputation rate was 40% with 10extremities salvaged, which the authors attribute toearly aggressive operative intervention. Haberal’s se-ries of 94 patients had an amputation rate of 43%. Theauthors attributed this high amputation rate in partbecause of a delay in surgical exploration as a result of patients being transferred from nonspecialized facili-ties. Achauer et al21 reported a series of 22 patients with an amputation rate of 40%. They recommend“extensive debridement of all damaged tissue and ex-



6/9

Table 2. Evidentiary table: high-voltage electric injury to upper extremity

Reference Description Data Class Comments

Quinby et al,

197825Retrospective review of 44 patients

divided into 22 with electric arc and

22 with flow of current

II In conductive burns with entrance site in hand, incision was

carried from hand to interconnect the arc burns at wrist,

elbow, and shoulder. Fasciotomies done if musclediscolored, or tense, transverse carpal ligament release done.

Amputation rate 68%

Luce et al,

198426Retrospective review of 31 patients II Fasciotomy and wound exploration and debridement within

24 hours of admission Amputation rate 35.5%

Parshley et al,

198522Retrospective review 41 patients with

passage of current

II Early fasciotomy in patients with passage of current

Amputation rate 40%

Achauer et al,

199421Retrospective analysis of electric injury

of the hand in 22 patients

II Extensive debridement and compartment release almost always

done on day of injury. Amputation rate 40%

Mann et al,

199631Retrospective review 62 patients with

high voltage upper extremity injury

II Fasciotomy indications: severe pain and loss of arterial

Doppler signal, neurologic deterioration, systemic clinical

deterioration from suspected ongoing myonecrosis. Carpal

tunnel release performed along with fasciotomy. 16 of 62

patients (25.8%) required emergent decompression withinfirst 24 hours. Amputation rate in these patients 45%.

Overall amputation rate 10%

Yowler et al,

199832Retrospective chart review 51 patients

with high voltage injuries to the

upper and lower extremity

III Indications for fasciotomy: Elevated muscle compartment

pressure greater than 30 mmHg. Neurologic dysfunction,

vascular compromise, extensive deep burn. 11 patients

under went 18 major amputations

DiVincenti et al,

196924Retrospective review of 65 electrical

injuries over 17 years, upper and

lower extremities included, high and

low voltage injuries included

III Early fasciotomy indicated for cyanosis of distal uninjured skin,

impaired capillary refill, progressive neurologic change,

brawny edema and muscle compartment tightness.

Amputation rate 32.5%

Butler et al,

197723Retrospective review of 182 cases over

twenty years. Includes high voltage

and low voltage injuries

III 40 patients underwent an average of 5 operations. Marked

swelling of the wrist and hand, the volar carpal ligament is

divided at time of extremity fasciotomy. Amputation rate65%

Mann et al,

197527Series of 8 patients with high voltage

injury. Includes upper and lower

extremities

III Early decompression fasciotomy and debridement.

Amputations done on at least one extremity in all patients

D’Amato et al,

199420Series of 6 patients with high voltage

upper extremity injury

III Mandatory exploration of forearm and hand compartments

following initial resuscitation. All patients required

amputation

Hussmann et al,

199545Retrospective evaluation of 38 high

voltage injuries. Included upper and

lower extremity

III Early serial debridement of obviously necrotic tissue,

fasciotomy including carpal tunnel release for “compartment

syndrome” 39 amputations performed in 38 patients

Saffle et al,

198035Evaluation of wick catheter to measure

intramuscular compartment

pressures (IMP) in 31 extremities in18 patients, compared with clinical

and Doppler findings

II Recommended routine measurement of IMP as a more

sensitive than Doppler pulses, and use of a threshold value

of 30 mmHg for performance of escharotomy

Moylan et al,

197136Prospective evaluation of ultrasonic

flowmeter to assess circulatory

changes in 60 limbs in 24 patients

with circumferential burns

II Escharotomy is indicated when Doppler flow is absent in distal

arteries or arches. Note: This paper documents that Doppler

pulses can be present in the face of clinical evidence of tissue

compression and ischemia

Salisbury et al,

197437Evaluated post-mortem intrinsic

muscle biopsies following extremity

burns. Presence of necrosis was

similar in patients with (72.2%) and

without (66%) escharotomies

II/III Muscle ischemia or necrosis can occur with intact pulses and even

following escharotomy. Note: since this was a post-mortem

study, tissue necrosis may have been a non specific finding

(Continued)



7/9

tensive compartment release done as an emergency (almost always on the day of injury).” Luce reporteda series of 31 patients with an extremity amputationrate of 35.5% who “were taken to the operating room within 24 hours of admission.” In the DiVincenti etal24 series of 65 patients, there was an amputation rateof 32.5%. There are no studies that specifically eval-uated the impact of timing on treatment outcome.

Some recent literature has supported a more selec-tive approach to management may reduce the num-ber of operative interventions and subsequently themorbidity of high voltage electrical injury.31,32 Mannet al31 followed a selective management algorithm forupper-extremity high-voltage electrical injury. Indi-cations for surgical decompression included extrem-ities that exhibited progressive peripheral nerve dys-function, clinical manifestations of compartmentsyndrome, or injury sufficient to cause difficulty inresuscitating the patient. Sixty-two patients had a to-tal of 100 upper-extremity injuries. Early (within 24hours of admission), surgical decompression was re-quired in 22% of injured upper extremities. An am-

putation was ultimately required in 10% of the ex-tremities. Extremities that were not decompressedimmediately did not require amputation. The ampu-tation rate for those patients requiring immediate sur-gical decompression was 45%. This amputation rate issimilar to previous studies, which appear to includepatients with lesser degree of injury. In theseries fromthe Army Institute of Surgical research,32 51 patients with high-voltage injury were managed selectively.Indications for operative intervention were evidenceof neurologic dysfunction, vascular compromise, ex-tensive deep burn, or increased muscle compartmentpressures (repeated measurements 30 mm Hg). A total of 11 patients (21.6%) underwent 18 major ex-tremity amputations.

No precedent exists in the literature for measuringcompartment pressures in the setting of high-voltageupper-extremity electrical injury. Some surgeons ad- vocate their use, however, on the basis of the ortho-pedic and vascular literature.33,34 Measurement of compartment pressures in circumferential extremity burn wounds has been recommended by Saffle et al.35

Table 2. (Continued )

Reference Description Data Class Comments

Smith et al,

198438Prospective evaluation of infrared

photoplethysmography (PPG) to

evaluate vascular status in burnedextremities and compared with IMP,

Doppler, and muscle blood flow

(MBF). PPG correlated well with

IMP and MBF, but poorly with

Doppler with changes noted with

IMP30 mm Hg

III Advocated use of PPG as a noninvasive method of assessing

vascular compromise. This study supports an IMP30 mm

Hg as an appropriate threshold for escharotomy in burnedextremities

Chen et al,

200339High resolution color and pulse

Doppler ultrasonography used to

determine burn wound area in 12

patients with deep electrical injury

III Different tissue found to have differing degree of injury.

Concluded that ultrasound could demonstrate morphologic

changes in subcutaneous tissue, muscle, and blood vessels

after deep electric injury

Hunt et al,

197940Technetium-99 m pyrophosphate scans

performed in 14 patients with high

voltage electrical injury. Scans wereperformed between first and fifth day

post injury

II Location and extent of muscle injury was correctly ascertained

preoperatively in all patients

Affleck et al,

200141Retrospective review of computerized

registry identified 11 patients who

underwent Pyrophosphate (PyP)

scan. Eight patients had high voltage

electrical injury, one had frostbite,

and two had soft-tissue infection

III Revealed a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 100% showing

demarcation between viable and nonviable tissue, confirmed

at operation

Hammond et al,

199442Early scanning (within 3 days of injury)

with PyP in 19 limbs in 15 patients

with electrical injury. Sensitivity of

75% and specificity of 100%

II Compared to control group of 17 patients treated without

PyP scan, the scan was not associated with reduced length

of stay, or with decreased number of surgical procedures



8/9

A wick-catheter technique was used to measure intra-muscular pressures. A threshold of 30 mm Hg was anindication for escharotomy (based on vascular com-partment syndrome literature). Whether or not thiscan be extrapolated to include electric injury is un-

clear. In addition, Moylan et al36 showed that ultra-sonic (Doppler flow meter) signal from the distal ar-teries and palmar arch was a more sensitive indicatorof perfusion than clinical palpation. Salisbury 37 dem-onstrated, however, that this objective measure of perfusion could not be relied on as the sole indicatorof deep tissue viability and need for escharotomy incircumferential burns. Therefore, more sensitive in-dicators of perfusion have been investigated.

Small studies have evaluated the use of infraredphotoplethysmography (PPG) to assess vascularcompromise in injured extremities, including direct

vascular injury, crushing forces, and severe burns.38

PPG correlated well with muscle blood flow, and in-tramuscular pressure, but not with Doppler measure-ments.

Recently, high-resolution color and pulse Dopplerultrasound has been used to evaluate wound area inelectrical injuries.39 In this study, 12 patients withdeep electric injury were evaluated. It was found thatdegree of injury differed between tissue types.Changes in course, and blood flow speed also werenoted in injured tissue. Findings were all confirmed atsubsequent operation.

Some authors recommend the use of nuclear med-icine scans in an attempt to identify areas of musclenecrosis.40,41 Other studies have questioned the util-ity of nuclear scans in this setting. They have fallenout of favor in routine cases,42 although some centersreported use of this modality selectively.

SUMMARY

No definitive data exist to show that immediate sur-gical decompression reduces the need for amputationin any series. The management of these patients hastraditionally included immediate (within the first 24hours), surgical exploration and decompression. A more selective approach based on clinical findingsmay be used at specialized centers.

Key Issues for Further Evaluation

Evaluation of the Upper Extremity. Studies toevaluate the utility of measuring compartment pres-sures in the presence of electrical injury need to beperformed. It is unclear whether data from the ortho-pedic and vascular literature can be extrapolated toburn care. In addition, studies evaluating more non-invasive technologies, such as infrared PPG and high-

resolution ultrasound, may add much-needed clarity to this clinical problem.

Surgical Management. Prospective randomizedstudies that evaluate immediate vs expectant débrid-ment using well-defined criteria would be useful in

defining guidelines for surgical management of theinjured extremity.

Evidentiary Table. Table 2 summarizes researchon the monitoring and treatment of high-voltage up-per-extremity injury.

REFERENCES

1. Bailey B, Gaudreault P, Thiviege RL. Experience with guide-lines for cardiac monitoring after electrical injury in children. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:671–5.

2. Das KM. Electrocardiographic changes following electricalshock. Ind J Pediatr 1974;41:192–4.

3. DiVincenti FC, Moncrief JA, Pruitt BA. Electrical injuries: a

review of 65 cases. J Trauma 1969;9:497.4. Lewin RF, Arditti A, Sclarovsky S. Non-invasiveevaluation of

electrical cardiac injury. Br Heart J 1983;49:190–2.5. Purdue GF, Hunt JL. Electrocardiographic monitoring after

electrical injury: necessity of luxury. J Trauma 1986;26:166.6. Chandra NC, Siu CO, Munster AM. Clinical predictors of

myocardial damage after high voltage electrical injury. CritCare Med 1990;18:293–7.

7. Housinger TA, Green L, Shahanigan S, Saffle JR, WardenGD. A prospective study of myocardial damage in electricalinjuries. J Trauma 1985;25:122.

8. Zubair M, Bessner GE. Pediatric electrical burns: manage-ment strategies. Burns 1997;23:413–20.

9. Hunt JL, Sato RM, Baxter CR. Acute electric burns. ArchSurg 1980;115:434–8.

10. Arrowsmith J, Usgaocar RP, Dickson WA. Electrical injury

and frequency of cardiac complications. Burns 1997;23:676–8.11. Jensen PJ, Thomsen PEB, Bagger JP, Norgaard A, Baandrup

U. Electrical injury causing ventricular arrhythmias. BrHeart J 1987;57:279–83.

12. Wallace BH, Cone JB, Vanderpool RD, et al. Retrospectiveevaluation of admission criteria for paediatric electrical inju-ries. Burns 1995;21:590.

13. Ahrenholz DH, Schubert W, Solem LD. Creatine kinase as aprognostic indicator in electrical injury. Surgery 1988;104:741–7.

14. Baxter CR. Present concepts in the management of majorelectrical injury. Surg Clin N Am 1970;50:1401–18.

15. Guinard JP, Chiolero R, Buchser E, et al. Myocardial injury after electrical burns: short and long term study. Scand J PlastReconstr Surg 1987;21:301–2.

16. Vazquez D,SolanoI, Pages E,GarciaL, Serra J.Thoracicdischerniation, cord compression, paraplegia caused by electricalinjury: case report and review of the literature. J Trauma1994;37:328–32.

17. Arnoldo BA, Purdue GP, Kowalske K, et al. Electricalinjuries: a 20-year review. J Burn Care Rehabil 2004;25:479–84.

18. American Burn Association.AdvancedBurn andLife SupportCourse. Chicago: American Burn Association; 2001.

19. Haberal M. Electrical burns: a five-year experience—1985Evans lecture. J Trauma 1986;26:103–9.

20. d’Amato TA, Kaplan IB, Britt LD. High-voltage electricalinjury: a role for mandatory exploration of deep muscle com-partments. J Natl Med Assoc 1994;86:535–7.

21. Achauer B, Applebaum R, Vander Kam VM. Electrical burninjury to the upper extremity. Br J Plast Surg 1994;47:331–40.

22. Parshley P, Kilgore J, Pulito JF, Smiley PW, Miller SH. Ag-



9/9

gressive approach to the extremity damaged by electric cur-rent. Am J Surg 1985;150:78–82.

23. Butler E, Gant TD. Electrical injuries, with special referenceto the upper extremities. Am J Surg 1977;134:95–101.

24. DiVincenti F, Moncrieff JA, Pruitt BA. Electrical injuries: areview of 65 cases. J Trauma 1969;9:497–507.

25. Quinby WJ, Burke JF, Trelstad RL, Caulfield J. The use of microscopy as a guide to primary excision of high tensionelectrical burns. J Trauma 1978;18:423–9.

26. Luce E, Gottlieb SE. “True” high-tension electrical injuries. Ann Plast Surg 1984;12:321–6.

27. Mann RJ, Wallquist JM. Early fasciotomy in the treatment of high-voltage electrical burns of the extremities. South Med J1975;68:1103–8.

28. Chilbert M, Maiman DJ, Sances Jr., A, et al. Measures of tissue resistivity in experimental electrical burns. Trauma1985;25:209–15.

29. Lee LC, Kolodney MS. Electrical injury mechanisms: dynamicsof the thermal response. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;80:663–71.

30. Zelt RG, Daniel RK, Ballard PA, Grissette Y, Heroux P.High-voltage electrical injury: chronic wound evolution.Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;82:1027–39.

31. Mann R, Gibran N, Engrav L, Heimbach D. Is immediate

decompression of high voltage electrical injuries to the upperextremity always necessary. J Trauma 1996;40(4):584–9.

32. Yowler CJ, Mozingo DW, Ryan JB, Pruitt BA. Factors con-tributing to delayed extremity amputation in burn patients.J Trauma 1998;45:522–6.

33. Heckman M, Whitesides TJ, Grewe S, Judd R, Miller M,Lawrence JD. Histologic determination of the ischemicthreshold of muscle in the canine compartment syndromemodel. J Ortho Trauma 1993;7:199.

34. Quinn R, Ruby S. Compartment syndrome after elective re- vascularization for chronic ischemia. A case report and review of the literature. Arch Surg 1992;127:865.

35. Saffle J, Zeluff G, Warden G. Intra-muscular pressure in theburned arm: measurement and response to escharotomy. Am J Surg 1980;140:825–31.

36. Moylan J, WellfordW, Pruitt B. Circulator changes followingcircumferential extremity burns evaluated by ultrasonicflowmeter: An analysis of 60 thermally injured limbs.J Trauma 1971;11:763–849.

37. Salisbury R, McKeel D, Mason A. Ischemic necrosis of theintrinsic muscles of the hand after thermal injuries. J BoneJoint Surg 1974;56A:1701–7.

38. Smith Jr., D, Bendick PJ, Madison S. Evaluation of vascularcompromise in the injured extremity: a photoplethysmo-graphic technique. J Hand Surg 1984;9:314–9.

39. ChenYX, XuY, Guo ZR, etal. The application ofultrasonog-raphy in thediagnosis of deep electric injury. Zhonghua ShaoShang Za Zhi 2003;19(1):38–41.

40. Hunt JL, Lewis S, Parkey R, Baxter C. The use of techne-tium-99m stannous pyrophosphate scintigraphy to identify muscle damage in acute electric burns. J Trauma 1978;19:409–13.

41. Affleck DG, Edelman L, Morris SE, Saffle JR. Assessment of tissue viability in complex extremity injuries: utility of the

pyrophosphate nuclear scan. J Trauma 2001;50:263–9.42. Hammond JW, Ward W. The use of technetium-99 pyro-phosphate scanning in the management of high-voltage elec-tric injuries. Am Surg 1994;60:886–8.

43. Bailey B, Gaudreault P, Thiviege RL, Turgeon JP. Cardiacmonitoring of children with household electrical injuries. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:612–7.

44. Cunningham PA. The need for cardiac monitoring afterelectrical injury. Med J Aust 1991;154:765–6.

45. Hussmann J, Kucan JO, Russell RC, et al. Electrical injuries,morbidity, outcome and treatment rationale. Burns 1995;21:530–35.


Documents

Main Guideline