Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

Gen Surg Casestrauma

Gen Surg Cases · trauma

Over-resuscitated burn with rising pressures and missed referral — down-titration, sepsis trigger, and transfer rescue

Fellowship clinical-management station on burn over-resuscitation: creep down-titration, ABA sepsis trigger, excision timing, ESPEN feeding, referral rescue.

clinical-management1 min readVerification in progress

Target exams

FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
On this page
Study tools

Target exams

FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
Prompt
A 41-year-old man with 35% mixed-depth burns is 18 hours post-injury on high crystalloids: urine output 90 ml/hr, lactate 4.1 mmol/l, base deficit −6, increasing ventilator pressures and a tense abdomen. He was initially kept at a nonburn hospital despite hand and face involvement. The candidate must down-titrate resuscitation with the creep numbers, run the inhalation/sepsis workup with the ABA trigger, set excision and feeding plans with the timing and ESPEN numbers, and rescue the referral with the gap data.

Expected management

  • Down-titrate now, never inherit the rate: 6.3 +/- 2.9 with 76% above the 4.3 Baxter ceiling happened through failure to titrate down and tolerance of high urine output — his 90 ml/hr with rising pressures and tense abdomen is creep, not success.[7]
  • Re-target to least fluid for perfusion with urine output recognised as a poor target — creep buys respiratory failure and compartment syndromes including intra-abdominal hypertension.[8]
  • Re-run endpoints as five together with lactate superior and no single endpoint sufficient — his lactate and base deficit, not his urine output, decide the next hour.[9]
  • Trigger the sepsis workup at >3 ABA criteria (temperature, tachycardia, tachypnea/ventilation, platelets from day 3, hyperglycemia, feed intolerance) — but remember the trigger's area is 0.638 with only heart rate and temperature correlating, so culture and examine rather than declare.[25]
  • Plan excision inside the controversy: counsel the 0–3-day cohort benefit (deaths 3.84 vs 6.09%, infection 37.84 vs 42.48%) against the systematic-review late-mortality signal — book early excision for infection and stay while resuscitation and airway come first.[22]
  • Feed early enterally with protein 1.5–2 g/kg, glucose capped at 55% and 5 mg/kg/h with ≤8 mmol/l control, fat ≤30%, and early trace/vitamin replacement — energy by Toronto equation without calorimetry accepting overfeeding risk.[34]
  • Rescue the referral today: hand and face burns meeting criteria are the classic kept-back pattern, 48% of eligible nonburn cases go untransferred, and every nonburn death had qualified — transfer to the burn centre now.[17]

Examiner traps

  • Chasing the 90 ml/hr urine output upward while lactate and pressures rise — the documented reason creep never reversed.[7]
  • Calling the ABA trigger a diagnosis at 0.638 — it prompts cultures, never certainty.[25]
  • Booking definitive excision before resuscitation and airway are controlled — early surgery helps infection and stay only after perfusion and ventilation.[22]
  • Defending the nonburn plan for hand/face burns — the gap data condemns exactly this patient.[17]
References7ShowHide
  1. [7]Cartotto R, Zhou A. Fluid creep: the pendulum hasn't swung back yet! J Burn Care Res, 2010.PMID 20616649
  2. [8]Peeters Y, Lebeer M, Wise R, et al. An overview on fluid resuscitation and resuscitation endpoints in burns: Past, present and future. Part 2 - avoiding complications by using the right endpoints with a new personalized protocolized approach. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther, 2015.PMID 26480868
  3. [9]Belaunzaran M, Raslan S, Ali A, et al. Utilization and Efficacy of Resuscitation Endpoints in Trauma and Burn Patients: A Review Article. Am Surg, 2022.PMID 34761698
  4. [17]Carter JE, Neff LP, Holmes JH 4th. Adherence to burn center referral criteria: are patients appropriately being referred? J Burn Care Res, 2010.PMID 20061833
  5. [22]De La Tejera G, Corona K, Efejuku T, et al. Early wound excision within three days decreases risks of wound infection and death in burned patients. Burns, 2023.PMID 37369613
  6. [25]Hogan BK, Wolf SE, Hospenthal DR, et al. Correlation of American Burn Association sepsis criteria with the presence of bacteremia in burned patients admitted to the intensive care unit. J Burn Care Res, 2012.PMID 22210056
  7. [34]Rousseau AF, Losser MR, Ichai C, et al. ESPEN endorsed recommendations: nutritional therapy in major burns. Clin Nutr, 2013.PMID 23582468
PreviousOpen-book pelvis with perineal communication and shock — haemorrhage now, sepsis next, fixation lasttraumaNextStable soft-sign neck with negative CTA but persistent dysphagia — the gullet workup and the carotid blush plantrauma