Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2010 Jan-Feb;56(1):51-5.

[Comparative study of conventional and topical heparin treatments for burns analgesia].

[Article in Portuguese]

Author information

1
Hospital de Restauração, PE.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

This was a prospective, randomized, open-label study controlled by active comparator. The aim was to assess analgesic efficacy and overall tolerability of a burn treatment based on topic administration of unfractionated heparin.

METHODS:

Fifty eight male or female patients were randomized for conventional treatment (group C) or topical heparin treatment (group TH). Ages of patients enrolled ranged from 18 to 55 years. They had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on 10% to 30% of the body surface (BS) caused by fire or scald, no hemorrhagic diseases, no hypersensitivity to heparin and less than 10% of the BS burned to 3rd degree. The group C had frequent debridement under anesthesia or analgesia and received silver sulfadiazine dressings. The group TH had the first debridement and their wounds left open to receive 4200 IU of unfractionated heparin topically for each 1% of burned BS, three times daily. Efficacy was evaluated from files of the 38 patients who completed the study according to demand of analgesic medications and response to the pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Tolerability was evaluated from the files of all 58 randomized patients by the comparative incidence of adverse reactions.

RESULTS:

The group TH demanded less analgesic medications (11.83 +/- 9.38 per patient against 33.35 +/- 20.63 for the C group, p<0.01), reported less pain in the VAS, had less fever and more bleeding than group C. There was no difference in the incidence of local infection, septicemia and safety exams.

CONCLUSION:

The group TH presented less pain without important tolerability problems.

PMID:
20339787
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Scientific Electronic Library Online
Loading ...
Support Center