The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Correction to Ryan et al., N Engl J Med 338(6):362-366 February 5, 1998.

Correspondence
PreviousPrevious
Volume 338:1848-1850 June 18, 1998 Number 25
NextNext

Estimates of the Probability of Death from Burn Injuries

 

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-Related Article
 by Ryan, C. M.
-Related Article
 by Ryan, C. M.
To the Editor: The article by Ryan et al. (Feb. 5 issue)1 concerning estimates of the probability of death from burn injuries raises three issues. Assessing the probability of death is useful when mortality is a relevant end point. This is not the case in patients with burns covering 20 percent of body-surface area or less and no associated problems, such as inhalation injury. In this study, such patients constituted 77.5 percent of the total population of 1665 patients, and the mortality rate in this subgroup was 0.46 percent. Including these very-low-risk patients adds no useful information. The model should be restricted to patients with a greater risk of this end point, which could change the weight given to the variables. Furthermore, there were only 22 patients with a high probability of death (87 percent), with a lower boundary of the 95 percent confidence interval of 78 percent. This can be interpreted as equivalent to a probability of error of 22 percent if one assumes that these patients will die. We think that this number is too small to allow reliable estimates of mortality.

A model that gives individual estimates within a continuous range should be preferred to one that gives only four risk strata (0.3 percent, 3 percent, 33 percent, and 87 percent). Indeed, all tests used to assess the severity of illness in patients in the intensive care unit (the Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation III and the Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II) provide probabilities within a continuous range. This allows one to evaluate models by calculating their discriminant power (the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve) and their calibration (goodness-of-fit test).2 Because these data are lacking in the study by Ryan et al., their model cannot be compared with other models proposed for use in patients with burn injuries, such as the one described by Smith et al.,3 which relies on the same variables and provides individual estimates of the probability of death within a continuous range.


Jean Edouard Rohan, M.D.
Cristina Esteban, M.D.
Philippe Loirat, M.D.
Hôpital Foch
92151 Suresnes, France

References

  1. Ryan CM, Schoenfeld DA, Thorpe WP, Sheridan RL, Cassem EH, Tompkins RG. Objective estimates of the probability of death from burn injuries. N Engl J Med 1998;338:362-366. [Free Full Text]
  2. Hosmer DW Jr, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley, 1989.
  3. Smith DL, Cairns BA, Ramadan F, et al. Effect of inhalation injury, burn size and age on mortality: a study of 1447 consecutive burn patients. J Trauma 1994;37:655-659. [Medline]

 
To the Editor: Ryan et al. did not discuss an important finding in their study: the 12-fold increase in the percentage of patients with do-not-resuscitate orders between the period from 1975 to 1984 and the period from 1990 to 1994. Could the authors discuss the reasons for this large increase and address the question of futility in the burn unit? The data appear to suggest that if a person is over the age of 41 years, has a burn size in excess of 61 percent of body-surface area, and has sustained an inhalation injury, then in all probability that person will die during hospitalization. What moral obligation is there to continue to treat if this prognostication is accurate?


Thomas G. Hooyman, Ph.D.
Catholic Health Initiatives
Denver, CO 80202


 
The authors reply:

To the Editor: The system for objectively estimating the probability of death from burn injuries is designed to help health care providers furnish initial information on mortality to patients and families, assist medical personnel with triage at injury scenes, and help researchers plan inclusion criteria for clinical trials in which mortality is a relevant end point. For these purposes, the method should be easy to use and applicable to all patients with burn injuries who require hospital treatment. Our goal was to develop a method based on a limited set of clinically apparent risk factors that could easily be determined. This method is not meant to replace severity scores that use continuous variables, such as the Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation III index, or burn formulas1,2 that were developed for other purposes and have been found to be impractical in these settings.

Our study identified a population (patients over 60 years of age with a burn size of more than 40 percent of body-surface area and inhalation injury) with a high risk of death (87 percent), as noted by Dr. Hooyman. There were only a small number of patients in this group, resulting in the lower boundary of the 95 percent confidence interval (78 percent) noted by Dr. Rohan and colleagues. We think that this level of precision is adequate for the above-mentioned purposes, especially given the complex nature of decisions about whether to provide resuscitation in situations in which the risk of death is high.

The increased incidence of patients with burn injuries who had do-not-resuscitate orders between the period from 1975 to 1984 and the period from 1990 to 1994 coincides with the growing emphasis on patient autonomy. Documentation of advance directives became mandatory for Medicare reimbursement in 1991.

Medical futility remains undefined. Patients and surrogates can refuse life-prolonging treatment regardless of the prognosis. Only when doctors judge that treatment is futile and oppose requests for treatment does the issue of futility become relevant. A doctor's refusal to accede to requests for treatment on the basis of the presence of the three risk factors from our formula, against the family's wishes, represents an overvaluation of the certitude provided by the formula.

Table 1 of our article contained some errors. We have provided a corrected version, and we apologize for any confusion that may have resulted from the errors.

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Mortality among Patients According to Age, Burn Size, and Presence or Absence of Inhalation Injury.

 


Colleen M. Ryan, M.D.
David A. Schoenfeld, Ph.D.
Edwin H. Cassem, M.D.
Ronald G. Tompkins, M.D.
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA 02114

References

  1. Smith DL, Cairns BA, Ramadan F, et al. Effect of inhalation injury, burn size, and age on mortality: a study of 1447 consecutive burn patients. J Trauma 1994;37:655-659.
  2. Tompkins RG, Burke JF, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Prompt eschar excision: a treatment system contributing to reduced burn mortality: a statistical evaluation of burn care at the Massachusetts General Hospital (1974-1984). Ann Surg 1986;204:272-281. [Medline]

 


 

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-Related Article
 by Ryan, C. M.
-Related Article
 by Ryan, C. M.


HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.