Neuroendocrine Stress Response after Burn Trauma

University dissertation from Uppsala : Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis

Abstract: Some aspects of the stress response during acute intensive care for severe burns are described and quantified by measuring hormonal and neuroendocrine patterns and relating these to organ function in the short term. This includes an assessment of whether there are markers for the severity of stress that are better than conventional descriptors of the severity of a burn in predicting failing organ function.P-CgA after a major burn injury is an independent and better predictor of organ dysfunction assessed as SOFA score than the traditionally used TBSA% burned. The results also suggest that the extent of neuroendocrine activation is related to organ dysfunction, and this motivates a more extensive effort to evaluate P-CgA as a prognostic marker with respect to mortality and long-term outcome.P-NT-proBNP exhibited a complex pattern with considerable inter-individual and day-to-day variations. Values of P-NT-proBNP were related to size of burn, water accumulation and systemic inflammatory response. A considerable covariation with trauma response and SOFA scores was observed in day by day analyses, but with weight change only on day 2.Maximum P-NT-proBNP showed a stronger correlation with SOFA score on day 14, with mortality, and with LOS, than did age and TBSA% burned. High values were also independent predictors of all subsequent SOFA scores up to two weeks after injury.P-NT-proBNP and NT-proANP reflect and predict organ function after burn injury similarly, notwithstanding a significantly larger intra-individual variability for P-NT-proBNP. P-NT-proBNP, but not NT-proANP, reflects the systemic inflammatory trauma response.Free cortisol concentration was related to the size of burns, as was the circadian cortisol rhythm. This effect of burn size was, at least in part, related to its effect on organ function.This thesis points to the fact that the stress response is richly interwoven, and cannot be adequately assessed by one biomarker only. All biomarkers studied here can be viewed as representing efferent limbs of the stress reaction, and they would need to be supplemented by biomarkers representing individual physiologic responses that follow the stress signaling.