Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
CellsCells
  • Review
  • Open Access

17 January 2023

The Complexity of the Post-Burn Immune Response: An Overview of the Associated Local and Systemic Complications

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences (AMS) Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity (AII) Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3
Burn Center and Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Red Cross Hospital, 1942 LE Beverwijk, The Netherlands
4
Association of Dutch Burn Centres (ADBC), 1941 AJ Beverwijk, The Netherlands
This article belongs to the Special Issue The Cell Biology and Immunology of Wound Healing

Abstract

Burn injury induces a complex inflammatory response, both locally and systemically, and is not yet completely unravelled and understood. In order to enable the development of accurate treatment options, it is of paramount importance to fully understand post-burn immunology. Research in the last decades describes insights into the prolonged and excessive inflammatory response that could exist after both severe and milder burn trauma and that this response differs from that of none-burn acute trauma. Persistent activity of complement, acute phase proteins and pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators, changes in lymphocyte activity, activation of the stress response and infiltration of immune cells have all been related to post-burn local and systemic pathology. This “narrative” review explores the current state of knowledge, focusing on both the local and systemic immunology post-burn, and further questions how it is linked to the clinical outcome. Moreover, it illustrates the complexity of post-burn immunology and the existing gaps in knowledge on underlying mechanisms of burn pathology.

1. Introduction

Burn wounds are a significant problem worldwide, being the fourth most common type of trauma and ranking in the top 15 leading causes of the burden of disease globally [1]. Depending on the severity of the injury, burns can lead to sepsis, single or multiple organ failure and even death, and in the long-term, it can lead to problematic scarring with physical, psychological and social consequences [2,3]. Severe burns often induce a massive and long-term immune response both locally in the burn wound and systemically, that not only can negatively affect the wound healing but may also result in a systemic long-term impact on multiple organ systems [4].
In general, burn wound healing includes overlapping phases: the inflammatory phase, proliferation phase, and remodelling phase (Figure 1A–C). Interference with the natural course of these phases can result in adverse clinical outcomes [5].
Figure 1. An illustrative overview of the post-burn inflammatory phase (A), proliferation phase (B), remodelling phase (C), and a hypertrophic scar (D) [6,7,8,9,10]. (A) Necrotic tissue and infiltrating pathogens post-burn initiate an inflammatory response that is mediated by local increases in DAMPs and PAMPs. Depending on burn depth, haemostasis is maintained via blister formation, thermal coagulation of dermal blood vessels, or activation of the coagulation cascade. During inflammation, neutrophils, the complement system and macrophages are main contributors to pathogen elimination and necrotic tissue clearance, mainly via phagocytosis and oxidative stress. Persistent inflammation could further damage the wound bed. DAMPs: damage-associated molecular patterns; PAMPs: pathogen-associated molecular patterns; ROS: reactive oxygen species; NETs: neutrophil extracellular traps; NO: nitric oxide. (B) The anti-inflammatory macrophage is a dominant immune cell in this phase. Proliferation is characterised by formation of granulation tissue, reepithelisation, angiogenesis and wound contraction, mediated by a variety of cytokines and growth factors. TGF-β: transforming growth factor β; bFGF: basis fibroblast growth factor; VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor. (C) Remodelling increases scar tissue strength, and important proteins in this phase are MMPs and TIMPs. The outcome of the local wound healing phases post-burn often is a pathological scar. MMPs: matrix metalloproteinases; TIMPs: tissue inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases. (D) A hypertrophic scar is red, rigid and raised. A typical aspect is excessive ECM deposition. The main risk factors of HTS formation and potentially involved causal aspects are summarised on the right.
For instance, several studies demonstrated dysregulated inflammation post-burn coincides with hypertrophic scar (HTS) formation [11,12] (Figure 1D), as well as systemic complications, e.g., hypermetabolism and organ dysfunction [13]. Although major improvements in acute burn care have decreased mortality rates, long-term consequences of burn trauma, such as locally delayed wound healing, pathologic scarring, secondary deepening, systemic thrombosis, sepsis, and endocrine and metabolic effects, are still difficult to treat. In order to predict the clinical outcome, develop more effective therapies, and reduce the burden of burn-related consequences, it is of utmost importance to unravel the pathophysiology of burns. In the last decades, it has been shown that severe burn trauma causes massive inflammation, which influences the local and systemic physiology, and persists for months up to years after injury [14,15,16,17]. Despite the detailed data about, e.g., cellular and molecular processes, little progress has been made in understanding and treating this exaggerated and prolonged inflammation after burns.
The main objective of this “narrative” review is to give an overview of the current state of knowledge of the immune response after burn injury and related clinical complications.

2. The Post-Burn Immune Response

2.1. The Innate Immune Response after Burn

2.1.1. Acute Phase Response (APR) after Burn

Wound healing in the skin starts with the haemostasis and inflammation phase to restore haemostasis, eliminate invading pathogens, and remove necrotic tissue (Figure 1A). The initial cascade of events in the inflammatory phase starts when damaged skin cells become necrotic and release a range of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), which become free after injury. Together with signals from pathogens that invade through the injured skin barrier, known as pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), they contribute to the activation of the acute phase response (APR) of wound healing, which is characterised by a rapid increase in inflammatory mediators and activation of innate immune cells [6].
Activation of mast cells by immunoglobulin E, toxins or activated complement, results in rapid release of their granules containing cytokines, growth factors, histamine, bradykinin, cathepsins and proteases. Mast cell degranulation in the burn wound leads to locally increased vascular permeability, which is mainly mediated by histamines and bradykinin, enabling the invasion of systemic immune cells to the wound. However, increased vascular permeability also contributes to the dehydration of the patient [18].
In response to these signals, skin-resident cells, e.g., mast cells and Langerhans cells, become activated and release inflammatory cytokines, which in turn activate other immune cells that are needed for the elimination of pathogens and removal of necrotic tissue. Furthermore, keratinocytes, fibroblasts and endothelial cells at the site of injury release cytokines and growth factors that attract and activate immune cells as well [7,8,9]. Interleukin 6 (IL-6) and interleukin 8 (IL-8), also known as CXCL8, are significantly increased after days 1–4. Major systemic functions of IL-6 are stimulation of acute phase protein (APP) synthesis in the liver, induction of naïve T cell differentiation and promotion of angiogenesis [19]. IL-8 is important for neutrophil recruitment to the site of burn injury and has a function in the tissue remodelling phase as well. IL-6, in particular, is a very important mediator of the overall acute change in systemic concentration of cytokines, growth factors and APPs, i.e., the APR, which develops within hours post-burn [10]. The liver is the main organ that produces APPs, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), serum amyloid A, haptoglobin, fibrinogen, protein S and complement [20,21]. The fastest- responding APP is CRP, which is an important initiator of inflammation and one of the inducers of the complement cascade.
Neutrophils are the first line of immune cells that migrate into the wound (Figure 2). For this, IL-8 is of utmost importance. IL-8 is released by several cell types, e.g., epithelial cells, endothelial cells and macrophages. Neutrophils contribute to pathogen elimination via key mechanisms such as phagocytosis of opsonised pathogens, the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and neutrophil extracellular trap (NETs) formation [22,23,24]. Furthermore, neutrophils release inflammatory cytokines, e.g., IL-1 and tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α), which in turn recruit monocytes from the blood [25].
Figure 2. Schematic summary of the local activity of some important inflammatory mediators and immune cell types post-burn [10,25,26]. Burn induces an immediate increase in local concentration of DAMPs and PAMPs via necrotic tissue and infiltrating pathogens. Skin-resident (immune) cells become active and release inflammatory mediators and could change, for example, their expression of certain receptors. Neutrophils (purple) massively migrate into the wound bed during the inflammatory phase and follow a similar pattern as complement factor C3 (blue). C3 levels might continuously increase in later phases (dashed line). Macrophages (red) peak in the later proliferation phase. The influx of immune cells is paralleled by an increase in inflammatory cytokines and growth factors, such as IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α. Local persistence of inflammation might continue up to weeks post-burn. DAMPs: damage-associated molecular patterns; PAMPs: pathogen-associated molecular patterns; IL: interleukin; TNF: tumour necrosis factor.

2.1.2. A Prolonged and Over-Active Systemic APR after Burn Injury: A Pivotal Role for Complement

Upon burn trauma, the release of large amounts of inflammatory mediators from the wound site can activate systemic immune cells that subsequently produce inflammatory mediators as well. Various studies on the post-burn immune response show alterations in blood concentrations of various cytokines, growth factors, and proteins post-burn (Figure 3), correlating with the extent of injury [27,28].
Figure 3. Blood concentrations of cytokines and growth factors after severe burn injury [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Inflammatory cytokines IL-6 (red) and CXCL8 (yellow) are significantly increased up to a month or even years (dashed lines) post-burn. IL-10 (blue) peaks on day one post-burn and declines hereafter. Peak concentrations of IL-6 and IL-10 depend on burn wound size and depth and presence of sepsis, respectively. Plasma concentrations over time of other inflammatory mediators vary among burn patient follow-up studies (grey lines).
As such, pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-8 are significantly increased after day 1–4 up to months or even years post-burn in the blood of burn patients, correlating with the % TBSA burned [16,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. CRP levels in the blood increase immediately after the burn and remain elevated for months [37]. Next, factors of the complement system are a main part of the APR post-burn [17]. In several studies, complement factor C3 in blood started to increase a few days post-burn and remained elevated for the entire study period, which could be for weeks [38] or months [23,33]. Another important complement factor, C4, was also elevated in the blood of a pig burn wound model, but for a shorter period and with a later concentration peak than C3. Importantly, after normalisation of both complements C3 and C4 levels locally in the burn wound, persistently elevated complement blood levels were found. This suggests that an extended systemic inflammatory response exists post-burn, in which complement plays an important role [23]. For some APPs, an acute decrease in blood concentration after burn trauma has been observed prior to the long-term increase [17]. For instance, complement factor C3 in blood initially decreases after burn injury, prior to an increase in C3 blood concentration [33]. Explanations for acute decreases in APP concentrations, in general, are increased permeability of local blood vessels, increased APP turn-over rate, and a decrease in APP production [16].
Anti-inflammatory IL-10 peaks at day one post-burn and declines thereafter, whereby peak concentrations correlate with the % TBSA burned and depended on the presence of sepsis. However, the net balance is in favour of the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-8 [29,30,32,33,34,35,36].
TNF-α, a growth factor of major importance in the early systemic response post-burn, is mainly produced by macrophages, neutrophils and mast cells. This pro-inflammatory mediator has a wide range of partly conflicting effector immune functions. It has been associated with the cytotoxicity of damaged cells, with changes in lipid metabolism, but also with stimulation of immune cells and cell-mediated immunity [39]. Since cell-mediated immunity is important for the elimination of pathogens, the latter function could explain why higher TNF-α levels have been related to sepsis post-burn [40,41,42].
IL-1β is another pro-inflammatory mediator involved in acute inflammation at the burn wound site that is systemically elevated as well [16,31]. Again, variations in concentrations might be due to differences in detection limits, but there are also indications that enhanced IL-1β levels mainly exist in the tissue of the lungs and central nervous system [30,36].
IFN-γ is an important factor in the innate immune response, which has been shown to be elevated in the blood of burn patients [16,31,43]. However, cells of the adaptive immune system are a major source of IFN-γ as well, specifically the Th1 cells. The main cell types of the innate immune system that produce IFN-γ are NK cells, macrophages, and antigen-presenting cells. This cytokine has various functions, among others, the induction of macrophage activity [44].

2.2. The Adaptive Immune Response after Burn

Next to the innate immune system, the adaptive immune system is part of the systemic inflammatory response post-burn. Several T cell lineages and subsets, as well as B cells, play a role in local burn wound inflammation and the regulation of the proliferation phase. The acute phase is dominated by a local Th1 cytokine environment and shifts towards a mixed Th2/Th17 environment in the days following burn injury [45]. The systemic post-burn activity of T and B cells shows similarities with the local response to burn. The activity of T cells is integrated with other post-burn immunological alterations, such as the enhanced activity of certain innate immune and endocrine factors. Nitric oxide, for instance, can impair splenic T cell proliferation and reduce the production of the Th1 cytokines IFN-γ and IL-2, resulting in a shift towards a Th2 cytokine environment, which has been found in burn-injured mice [45,46,47,48]. In a similar way, stress hormones (e.g., norepinephrine and cortisol), which are often present in increased concentrations in burn victims, promote a Th2 cytokine environment by inhibition of Th1 cells and stimulation of Th2 cells [49]. Further, activated mast cells release Th2-stimulating cytokines as well [50]. Moreover, this dominance of Th2 cells is consistent with the previously reviewed studies on plasma cytokine levels, of which the majority found significant increases in plasma levels of IL-10 in burn patients. Thus, the dominance of the Th2 phenotype is associated with an anti-inflammatory cytokine milieu, with a relative abundance of, amongst others, IL-10. This could contribute to an immunosuppressive condition post-burn since IL-10 is known for its stimulation of regulatory T cells, which downregulate the activity of effector T cells [46].
Another subset of αβ T cells that might contribute to altered systemic immunity is Th17 cells. Elevated levels of the Th17 cytokine IL-17 were found in burn wounds in the early phase post-injury. Similarly, some studies have observed systemic increases in IL-17 for a sustained period of time in patient blood [16]. Since Th17 cells are involved in the immunity of mucosal and epithelial linings, changes in their activity post-burn might result in systemic infections [46]. However, further research is needed to investigate the systemic effects of Th17 cells and the time course of Th17 activity after burn injury.
Next to the αβ T cell types, γδ T cells types seem to play a role in the post-burn systemic alterations as well. The γδ T cells are important in burn wound healing since they influence the local balance of the pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines at the wound site. Their activity could alter systemic cytokine levels as well, thereby influencing the behaviour of other immune cells, e.g., recruitment of neutrophils to organs beyond the injured skin, such as the lungs, where they could induce tissue damage [51].
Relatively little research has been reported on the role of B lymphocytes in the systemic immune response to burn. Several studies have followed antibody levels over time in the blood of burn patients and found decreased levels of IgM, IgA and IgG compared to healthy controls, which correlated with the degree of burn depth, but not with the burn wound size [52,53,54]. The acute decline in antibody levels might be attributed to a combination of extravasation of antibodies to local burn wound fluid, lowered antibody production, and higher catabolism [54].
The activity of factors that are normally involved in the adaptive immune response is remarkable since they are normally linked to delayed response or skin memory, while in burns, most of the studies have shown that the acute inflammation response is disordered. However, the activity of these factors can still be linked to innate immunity function, e.g., activated Th17 cells can directly recruit human neutrophils, which is one of the acute inflammatory cells, via endogenous IL-8 [55]. Unfortunately, so far, there are no studies on burns that can provide a definitive answer.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, burn wounds clearly differ from other types of skin trauma or wounds in their extensiveness in width and depth, in their substantial risk of deepening to a more necrotic wound, and in the high incidence of pathological scar formation. The main conclusion of this review is that burn wound healing largely depends on the inflammatory environment. However, burn wounds cause complex local and systemic pathology, both in the early phase and in the long-term. For a long time, the focus of burn research was on the acute phase. To date, early burn wound excision, infection prevention and appropriate fluid resuscitation can often prevent or limit a (septic) shock after a severe burn injury. However, it becomes increasingly apparent that burn injury adversely affects systemic physiology in the long-term, such as metabolism and heart functionality, and that also milder burn injury could be detrimental beyond the site of the initial injury. The local and systemic post-burn disease occurs mainly due to an excessive and prolonged inflammatory response, which makes burn trauma distinct from other forms of trauma, but on the other hand, it has many similarities with, among others, severe sepsis [97]. Although many in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies have broadened the knowledge on post-burn immunology, this review identifies the gap in knowledge where the area of burn research requires a better understanding of how different immune factors and pathways are involved in the persistence of inflammation and how they link with local and systemic pathology. A challenging task for further burn research is to integrate the variety of data on involved immunological factors and to develop research models that accurately represent human physiology. This could be advanced in vitro models, such as skin-on-chip models [146,147] that represent all skin layers and adnexal structures, or in silico models [148]. An in silico systems biology approach to burn immunology could be of great value since computer models seem better able to organise and integrate complex information than the human mind. A systems biology approach to human burn physiology, in combination with advanced human in vitro models and clinical studies, could ultimately lead to new scientific immunological insights and could help to improve the care of burn patients [149,150].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.I.K., S.G. and P.P.M.v.Z.; methodology, H.I.K., S.G. and P.P.M.v.Z.; formal analysis, H.I.K., G.F., M.W., S.G. and P.P.M.v.Z.; investigation, H.I.K. and G.F.; resources, A.P., S.G.P., E.d.J. and T.R.; data curation, H.I.K. and G.F.; writing—original draft preparation, H.I.K.; writing—review and editing, H.I.K., G.F., M.W., A.P., S.G.P., E.d.J., T.R., S.G. and P.P.M.v.Z.; visualization, H.I.K. and G.F.; supervision, S.G. and P.P.M.v.Z.; project administration, H.I.K.; funding acquisition, H.I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Dutch Burns Foundation (DBF), Beverwijk, project 19.105.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. (WHO), W.H.O. Burns. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/burns (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  2. Evers, L.H.; Bhavsar, D.; Mailänder, P. The biology of burn injury. Exp. Derm. 2010, 19, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Finnerty, C.C.; Jeschke, M.G.; Branski, L.K.; Barret, J.P.; Dziewulski, P.; Herndon, D.N. Hypertrophic scarring: The greatest unmet challenge after burn injury. Lancet 2016, 388, 1427–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gallinaro, R.; Cheadle, W.G.; Applegate, K.; Polk, H.C., Jr. The role of the complement system in trauma and infection. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1992, 174, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Jeschke, M.G.; van Baar, M.E.; Choudhry, M.A.; Chung, K.K.; Gibran, N.S.; Logsetty, S. Burn injury. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2020, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Baumann, H.; Gauldie, J. The acute phase response. Immunol. Today 1994, 15, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Krysko, D.V.; Agostinis, P.; Krysko, O.; Garg, A.D.; Bachert, C.; Lambrecht, B.N.; Vandenabeele, P. Emerging role of damage-associated molecular patterns derived from mitochondria in inflammation. Trends Immunol. 2011, 32, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rani, M.; Nicholson, S.E.; Zhang, Q.; Schwacha, M.G. Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) released after burn are associated with inflammation and monocyte activation. Burns 2017, 43, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, Q.; Raoof, M.; Chen, Y.; Sumi, Y.; Sursal, T.; Junger, W.; Brohi, K.; Itagaki, K.; Hauser, C.J. Circulating mitochondrial DAMPs cause inflammatory responses to injury. Nature 2010, 464, 104–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Delavary, B.M.; van der Veer, W.M.; van Egmond, M.; Niessen, F.B.; Beelen, R.H.J. Macrophages in skin injury and repair. Immunobiology 2011, 216, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cubison, T.C.; Pape, S.A.; Parkhouse, N. Evidence for the link between healing time and the development of hypertrophic scars (HTS) in paediatric burns due to scald injury. Burns 2006, 32, 992–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Deitch, E.A.; Wheelahan, T.M.; Rose, M.P.; Clothier, J.; Cotter, J. Hypertrophic burn scars: Analysis of variables. J. Trauma 1983, 23, 895–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Stanojcic, M.; Abdullahi, A.; Rehou, S.; Parousis, A.; Jeschke, M.G. Pathophysiological Response to Burn Injury in Adults. Ann. Surg. 2018, 267, 576–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Begieneman, M.P.; Kubat, B.; Ulrich, M.M.; Hahn, N.E.; Stumpf-Stolker, Y.; Tempelaars, M.; Middelkoop, E.; Zeerleder, S.; Wouters, D.; van Ham, M.S.; et al. Prolonged C1 inhibitor administration improves local healing of burn wounds and reduces myocardial inflammation in a rat burn wound model. J. Burn Care Res. 2012, 33, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Herndon, D.N.; Tompkins, R.G. Support of the metabolic response to burn injury. Lancet 2004, 363, 1895–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jeschke, M.G.; Gauglitz, G.G.; Kulp, G.A.; Finnerty, C.C.; Williams, F.N.; Kraft, R.; Suman, O.E.; Mlcak, R.P.; Herndon, D.N. Long-term persistance of the pathophysiologic response to severe burn injury. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e21245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Korkmaz, H.I.; Krijnen, P.A.J.; Ulrich, M.M.W.; de Jong, E.; van Zuijlen, P.P.M.; Niessen, H.W.M. The role of complement in the acute phase response after burns. Burns 2017, 43, 1390–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Douaiher, J.; Succar, J.; Lancerotto, L.; Gurish, M.F.; Orgill, D.P.; Hamilton, M.J.; Krilis, S.A.; Stevens, R.L. Development of mast cells and importance of their tryptase and chymase serine proteases in inflammation and wound healing. Adv. Immunol. 2014, 122, 211–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tanaka, T.; Narazaki, M.; Kishimoto, T. IL-6 in inflammation, immunity, and disease. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2014, 6, a016295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Levine, B.; Kroemer, G. Autophagy in the pathogenesis of disease. Cell 2008, 132, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shirakami, E.; Yamakawa, S.; Hayashida, K. Strategies to prevent hypertrophic scar formation: A review of therapeutic interventions based on molecular evidence. Burn. Trauma 2020, 8, tkz003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brinkmann, V.; Reichard, U.; Goosmann, C.; Fauler, B.; Uhlemann, Y.; Weiss, D.S.; Weinrauch, Y.; Zychlinsky, A. Neutrophil extracellular traps kill bacteria. Science 2004, 303, 1532–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Korkmaz, H.I.; Ulrich, M.M.W.; van Wieringen, W.N.; Vlig, M.; Emmens, R.W.; Meyer, K.W.; Sinnige, P.; Krijnen, P.A.J.; van Zuijlen, P.P.M.; Niessen, H.W.M. The Local and Systemic Inflammatory Response in a Pig Burn Wound Model With a Pivotal Role for Complement. J. Burn Care Res. 2017, 38, e796–e806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Weiss, S.J. Tissue destruction by neutrophils. N. Engl. J. Med. 1989, 320, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. MacLeod, A.S.; Mansbridge, J.N. The Innate Immune System in Acute and Chronic Wounds. Adv. Wound Care 2016, 5, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hebda, P.A.; Collins, M.A.; Tharp, M.D. Mast cell and myofibroblast in wound healing. Dermatol. Clin. 1993, 11, 685–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mace, J.E.; Park, M.S.; Mora, A.G.; Chung, K.K.; Martini, W.; White, C.E.; Holcomb, J.B.; Merrill, G.A.; Dubick, M.A.; Wolf, S.E.; et al. Differential expression of the immunoinflammatory response in trauma patients: Burn vs. non-burn. Burns 2012, 38, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schwacha, M.G.; Nickel, E.; Daniel, T. Burn injury-induced alterations in wound inflammation and healing are associated with suppressed hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha expression. Mol. Med. 2008, 14, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bergquist, M.; Hästbacka, J.; Glaumann, C.; Freden, F.; Huss, F.; Lipcsey, M. The time-course of the inflammatory response to major burn injury and its relation to organ failure and outcome. Burns 2019, 45, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Csontos, C.; Foldi, V.; Pálinkas, L.; Bogar, L.; Röth, E.; Weber, G.; Lantos, J. Time course of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine levels in patients with burns--prognostic value of interleukin-10. Burns 2010, 36, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Finnerty, C.C.; Herndon, D.N.; Przkora, R.; Pereira, C.T.; Oliveira, H.M.; Queiroz, D.M.M.; Rocha, A.M.C.; Jeschke, M.G. Cytokine expression profile over time in severely burned pediatric patients. Shock 2006, 26, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hur, J.; Yang, H.T.; Chun, W.; Kim, J.-H.; Shin, S.-H.; Kang, H.J.; Kim, H.S. Inflammatory cytokines and their prognostic ability in cases of major burn injury. Ann. Lab. Med. 2015, 35, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jeschke, M.G.; Chinkes, D.L.; Finnerty, C.C.; Kulp, G.; Suman, O.E.; Norbury, W.B.; Branski, L.K.; Gauglitz, G.G.; Mlcak, R.P.; Herndon, D.N. Pathophysiologic response to severe burn injury. Ann. Surg. 2008, 248, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kim, H.S.; Kim, J.-H.; Yim, H.; Kim, D. Changes in the levels of interleukins 6, 8, and 10, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in Korean burn patients: Relation to burn size and postburn time. Ann. Lab. Med. 2012, 32, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lantos, J.; Földi, V.; Roth, E.; Wéber, G.; Bogár, L.; Csontos, C. Burn trauma induces early HMGB1 release in patients: Its correlation with cytokines. Shock 2010, 33, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Matsuura, H.; Matsumoto, H.; Osuka, A.; Ogura, H.; Shimizu, K.; Kang, S.; Tanaka, T.; Ueyama, M.; Shimazu, T. Clinical Importance of a Cytokine Network in Major Burns. Shock 2019, 51, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Jeschke, M.G.; Micak, R.P.; Finnerty, C.C.; Herndon, D.N. Changes in Liver Function and Size after a Severe Thermal Injury. Shock 2007, 28, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kang, H.J.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, E.H.; Lee, Y.K.; Hur, M.; Lee, K.M. Change of complement system predicts the outcome of patients with severe thermal injury. J. Burn Care Rehabil. 2003, 24, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gaur, U.; Aggarwal, B.B. Regulation of proliferation, survival and apoptosis by members of the TNF superfamily. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2003, 66, 1403–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Bandt, J.P.; Chollet-Martin, S.; Hernvann, A.; Lioret, N.; du Roure, L.D.; Lim, S.K.; Vaubourdolle, M.; Guechot, J.; Saizy, R.; Giboudeau, J.; et al. Cytokine response to burn injury: Relationship with protein metabolism. J. Trauma 1994, 36, 624–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mikhal’chik, E.V.; Piterskaya, J.A.; Budkevich, L.Y.; Pen’kov, L.Y.; Facchiano, A.; De Luca, C.; Ibragimova, G.A.; Korkina, L.G. Comparative study of cytokine content in the plasma and wound exudate from children with severe burns. Bull. Exp. Biol. Med. 2009, 148, 771–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schwacha, M.G. Macrophages and post-burn immune dysfunction. Burns 2003, 29, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Vindenes, H.A.; Ulvestad, E.; Bjerknes, R. Concentrations of cytokines in plasma of patients with large burns: Their relation to time after injury, burn size, inflammatory variables, infection, and outcome. Eur. J. Surg. 1998, 164, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Schroder, K.; Hertzog, P.J.; Ravasi, T.; Hume, D.A. Interferon-gamma: An overview of signals, mechanisms and functions. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2004, 75, 163–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Daniel, T.; Alexander, M.; Hubbard, W.J.; Chaudry, I.H.; Choudhry, M.A.; Schwacha, M.G. Nitric oxide contributes to the development of a post-injury Th2 T-cell phenotype and immune dysfunction. J. Cell Physiol. 2006, 208, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, A.; Lang, T.; Xue, M.; Wijewardana, A.; Jackson, C.; Vandervord, J. The Role of Th-17 Cells and γδ T-Cells in Modulating the Systemic Inflammatory Response to Severe Burn Injury. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. O’Sullivan, S.T.; Lederer, J.A.; Horgan, A.F.; Chin, D.H.; Mannick, J.A.; Rodrick, M.L. Major injury leads to predominance of the T helper-2 lymphocyte phenotype and diminished interleukin-12 production associated with decreased resistance to infection. Ann. Surg. 1995, 222, 482–490, Discussion 490–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Suzuki, F.; Pollard, R.B. Alterations of interferon production in a mouse model of thermal injury. J. Immunol. 1982, 129, 1806–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Elenkov, I.J.; Chrousos, G.P. Stress Hormones, Th1/Th2 patterns, Pro/Anti-inflammatory Cytokines and Susceptibility to Disease. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 1999, 10, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Barrett, L.W.; Fear, V.S.; Waithman, J.C.; Wood, F.M.; Fear, M.W. Understanding acute burn injury as a chronic disease. Burn. Trauma 2019, 7, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Toth, B.; Alexander, M.; Daniel, T.; Chaudry, I.H.; Hubbard, W.J.; Schwacha, M.G. The role of gammadelta T cells in the regulation of neutrophil-mediated tissue damage after thermal injury. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2004, 76, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Munster, A.M.; Hoagland, H.C.; Pruitt, B.A., Jr. The effect of thermal injury on serum immunoglobulins. Ann. Surg. 1970, 172, 965–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Sengupta, S.; Sukhtankar, A.; Dhole, T.; Dubey, K. Humoral immunity in burns. Burns 1982, 8, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Sobouti, B.; Fallah, S.; Ghavami, Y.; Moradi, M. Serum immunoglobulin levels in pediatric burn patients. Burns 2013, 39, 473–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Brockmann, L.; Giannou, A.D.; Gagliani, N.; Huber, S. Regulation of T(H)17 Cells and Associated Cytokines in Wound Healing, Tissue Regeneration, and Carcinogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Singh, V.; Devgan, L.; Bhat, S.; Milner, S.M. The pathogenesis of burn wound conversion. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2007, 59, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jackson, D.M. The diagnosis of the depth of burning. Br. J. Surg. 1953, 40, 588–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Salibian, A.A.; Rosario, A.T.D.; Severo, L.A.M.; Nguyen, L.; Banyard, D.A.; Toranto, J.D.; Evans, G.R.D.; Widgerow, A.D. Current concepts on burn wound conversion-A review of recent advances in understanding the secondary progressions of burns. Burns 2016, 42, 1025–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Korkmaz, H.I.; Ulrich, M.M.W.; Vogels, S.; de Wit, T.; van Zuijlen, P.P.M.; Krijnen, P.A.J.; Niessen, H.W.M. Neutrophil extracellular traps coincide with a pro-coagulant status of microcirculatory endothelium in burn wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2017, 25, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bohr, S.; Patel, S.J.; Sarin, D.; Irimia, D.; Yarmush, M.L.; Berthiaume, F. Resolvin D2 prevents secondary thrombosis and necrosis in a mouse burn wound model. Wound Repair Regen. 2013, 21, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gravante, G.; Palmieri, M.B.; Esposito, G.; Delogu, D.; Santeusanio, G.; Filingeri, V.; Montone, A. Apoptotic Death in Deep Partial Thickness Burns vs. Normal Skin of Burned Patients. J. Surg. Res. 2007, 141, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gangemi, E.N.; Gregori, D.; Berchialla, P.; Zingarelli, E.; Cairo, M.; Bollero, D.; Ganem, J.; Capocelli, R.; Cuccuru, F.; Cassano, P.; et al. Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Pathologic Scarring After Burn Wounds. Arch. Facial Plast. Surg. 2008, 10, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Delavary, B.M.; van der Veer, W.M.; Ferreira, J.A.; Niessen, F.B. Formation of hypertrophic scars: Evolution and susceptibility. J. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2012, 46, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hall, C.; Hardin, C.; Corkins, C.J.; Jiwani, A.Z.; Fletcher, J.; Carlsson, A.; Chan, R. Pathophysiologic Mechanisms and Current Treatments for Cutaneous Sequelae of Burn Wounds. Compr. Physiol. 2017, 8, 371–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. van der Veer, W.M.; Bloemen, M.C.T.; Ulrich, M.M.W.; Molema, G.; van Zuijlen, P.P.; Middelkoop, E.; Niessen, F.B. Potential cellular and molecular causes of hypertrophic scar formation. Burns 2009, 35, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Karppinen, S.M.; Heljasvaara, R.; Gullberg, D.; Tasanen, K.; Pihlajaniemi, T. Toward understanding scarless skin wound healing and pathological scarring. F1000Research 2019, 8, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Niessen, F.B.; Spauwen, P.H.; Schalkwijk, J.; Kon, M. On the nature of hypertrophic scars and keloids: A review. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1999, 104, 1435–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Stunova, A.; Vistejnova, L. Dermal fibroblasts-A heterogeneous population with regulatory function in wound healing. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2018, 39, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, H.Y.; Phan, S.H. Inhibition of myofibroblast apoptosis by transforming growth factor beta(1). Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 1999, 21, 658–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nguyen, J.K.; Austin, E.; Huang, A.; Mamalis, A.; Jagdeo, J. The IL-4/IL-13 axis in skin fibrosis and scarring: Mechanistic concepts and therapeutic targets. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2020, 312, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lateef, Z.; Stuart, G.; Jones, N.; Mercer, A.; Fleming, S.; Wise, L. The Cutaneous Inflammatory Response to Thermal Burn Injury in a Murine Model. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wulff, B.C.; Wilgus, T.A. Mast cell activity in the healing wound: More than meets the eye? Exp. Derm. 2013, 22, 507–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Xue, M.; Jackson, C.J. Extracellular Matrix Reorganization During Wound Healing and Its Impact on Abnormal Scarring. Adv. Wound Care 2015, 4, 119–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Hayakawa, T.; Hashimoto, Y.; Myokei, Y.; Aoyama, H.; Izawa, Y. Changes in type of collagen during the development of human post-burn hypertrophic scars. Clin. Chim. Acta Int. J. Clin. Chem. 1979, 93, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Butzelaar, L.; Schooneman, D.P.M.; Soykan, E.A.; Talhout, W.; Ulrich, M.M.W.; van den Broek, L.J.; Gibbs, S.; Beelen, R.H.J.; Mink van der Molen, A.B.; Niessen, F.B. Inhibited early immunologic response is associated with hypertrophic scarring. Exp. Derm. 2016, 25, 797–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zhu, Z.; Ding, J.; Tredget, E.E. The molecular basis of hypertrophic scars. Burn. Trauma 2016, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ding, J.; Hori, K.; Zhang, R.; Marcoux, Y.; Honardoust, D.; Shankowsky, H.A.; Tredget, E.E. Stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1) and its receptor CXCR4 in the formation of postburn hypertrophic scar (HTS). Wound Repair Regen. 2011, 19, 568–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Feng, Y.; Sun, Z.-L.; Liu, S.-Y.; Wu, J.-J.; Zhao, B.-H.; Lv, G.-Z.; Du, Y.; Yu, S.; Yang, M.-L.; Yuan, F.-L.; et al. Direct and Indirect Roles of Macrophages in Hypertrophic Scar Formation. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zhu, Z.; Ding, J.; Ma, Z.; Iwashina, T.; Tredget, E.E. Systemic depletion of macrophages in the subacute phase of wound healing reduces hypertrophic scar formation. Wound Repair Regen. 2016, 24, 644–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wynn, T.A. Fibrotic disease and the T(H)1/T(H)2 paradigm. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2004, 4, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Moulin, V.; Larochelle, S.; Langlois, C.; Thibault, I.; Lopez-Vallé, C.A.; Roy, M. Normal skin wound and hypertrophic scar myofibroblasts have differential responses to apoptotic inductors. J. Cell Physiol. 2004, 198, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, J.; Dodd, C.; Shankowsky, H.A.; Scott, P.G.; Tredget, E.E. Deep dermal fibroblasts contribute to hypertrophic scarring. Lab. Investig. A J. Tech. Methods Pathol. 2008, 88, 1278–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Zhu, Z.; Ding, J.; Shankowsky, H.A.; Tredget, E.E. The molecular mechanism of hypertrophic scar. J. Cell Commun. Signal. 2013, 7, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Foley, T.T.; Ehrlich, H.P. Through gap junction communications, co-cultured mast cells and fibroblasts generate fibroblast activities allied with hypertrophic scarring. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2013, 131, 1036–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ghahary, A.; Ghaffari, A. Role of keratinocyte-fibroblast cross-talk in development of hypertrophic scar. Wound Repair Regen. 2007, 15 (Suppl. 1), S46–S53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Niessen, F.B.; Andriessen, M.P.; Schalkwijk, J.; Visser, L.; Timens, W. Keratinocyte-derived growth factors play a role in the formation of hypertrophic scars. J. Pathol. 2001, 194, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chiang, R.S.; Borovikova, A.A.; King, K.; Banyard, D.A.; Lalezari, S.; Toranto, J.D.; Paydar, K.Z.; Wirth, G.A.; Evans, G.R.D.; Widgerow, A.D. Current concepts related to hypertrophic scarring in burn injuries. Wound Repair Regen. 2016, 24, 466–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wang, J.; Jiao, H.; Stewart, T.L.; Shankowsky, H.A.; Scott, P.G.; Tredget, E.E. Increased TGF-β–producing CD4+ T lymphocytes in postburn patients and their potential interaction with dermal fibroblasts in hypertrophic scarring. Wound Repair Regen. 2007, 15, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ali-Bahar, M.; Bauer, B.; Tredget, E.E.; Ghahary, A. Dermal fibroblasts from different layers of human skin are heterogeneous in expression of collagenase and types I and III procollagen mRNA. Wound Repair Regen. 2004, 12, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Wang, R.; Ghahary, A.; Shen, Q.; Scott, P.G.; Roy, K.; Tredget, E.E. Hypertrophic scar tissues and fibroblasts produce more transforming growth factor-beta1 mRNA and protein than normal skin and cells. Wound Repair Regen. 2000, 8, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Dahiya, P. Burns as a model of SIRS. Front. Biosci. (Landmark Ed.) 2009, 14, 4962–4967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gille, J.; Dietz, A.; Taha, H.; Sablotzki, A. A sirs-based automated alarm system for the diagnosis of sepsis after burn injury. Ann. Burn. Fire Disasters 2017, 30, 177–184. [Google Scholar]
  93. Toliver-Kinsky, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Suzuki, F.; Sherwood, E.R. 19—The Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome. In Total Burn Care, 4th ed.; Herndon, D.N., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 205–220.e204. [Google Scholar]
  94. Jeschke, M.G. Postburn Hypermetabolism: Past, Present, and Future. J. Burn Care Res. 2016, 37, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Sarginson, J.H.; Hollén, L.; Emond, A.; Mackie, I.; Young, A.E. Multicentre observational study describing the systemic response to small-area burns in children. Burns 2021, 47, 560–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Malbrain, M.; Van Regenmortel, N.; Saugel, B.; De Tavernier, B.; Van Gaal, P.J.; Joannes-Boyau, O.; Teboul, J.L.; Rice, T.W.; Mythen, M.; Monnet, X. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: It is time to consider the four D’s and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann. Intensive Care 2018, 8, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Mira, J.C.; Brakenridge, S.C.; Moldawer, L.L.; Moore, F.A. Persistent Inflammation, Immunosuppression and Catabolism Syndrome. Crit. Care Clin. 2017, 33, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Williams, F.N.; Herndon, D.N. Metabolic and Endocrine Considerations After Burn Injury. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2017, 44, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Williams, F.N.; Herndon, D.N.; Jeschke, M.G. The hypermetabolic response to burn injury and interventions to modify this response. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2009, 36, 583–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bergquist, M.; Huss, F.; Hedenstierna, F.F.G.; Hästbacka, J.; Rockwood, A.L.; Kushnir, M.M.; Bergquist, J. Altered adrenal and gonadal steroids biosynthesis in patients with burn injury. Clin. Mass Spectrom. 2016, 1, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nielson, C.B.; Duethman, N.C.; Howard, J.M.; Moncure, M.; Wood, J.G. Burns: Pathophysiology of Systemic Complications and Current Management. J. Burn Care Res. 2017, 38, e469–e481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wolfe, R.R. Review: Acute versus chronic response to burn injury. Circ. Shock 1981, 8, 105–115. [Google Scholar]
  103. Brusselaers, N.; Monstrey, S.; Vogelaers, D.; Hoste, E.; Blot, S. Severe burn injury in europe: A systematic review of the incidence, etiology, morbidity, and mortality. Crit. Care 2010, 14, R188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Dokter, J.; Felix, M.; Krijnen, P.; Vloemans, J.F.P.M.; Baar, M.E.V.; Tuinebreijer, W.E.; Breederveld, R.S. Mortality and causes of death of Dutch burn patients during the period 2006–2011. Burns 2015, 41, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Klein, M.B.; Hayden, D.; Elson, C.; Nathens, A.B.; Gamelli, R.L.; Gibran, N.S.; Herndon, D.N.; Arnoldo, B.; Silver, G.; Schoenfeld, D.; et al. The association between fluid administration and outcome following major burn: A multicenter study. Ann. Surg. 2007, 245, 622–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Manning, J. Sepsis in the Burn Patient. Crit. Care Nurs. Clin. N. Am. 2018, 30, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Cao, C.; Yu, M.; Chai, Y. Pathological alteration and therapeutic implications of sepsis-induced immune cell apoptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2019, 10, 782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Hotchkiss, R.S.; Monneret, G.; Payen, D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: From cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nature reviews. Immunology 2013, 13, 862–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Mann-Salinas, E.A.; Baun, M.M.; Meininger, J.C.; Murray, C.K.; Aden, J.K.; Wolf, S.E.; Wade, C.E. Novel predictors of sepsis outperform the American Burn Association sepsis criteria in the burn intensive care unit patient. J. Burn Care Res. 2013, 34, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Stanojcic, M.; Vinaik, R.; Jeschke, M.G. Status and Challenges of Predicting and Diagnosing Sepsis in Burn Patients. Surg. Infect. 2018, 19, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Yan, J.; Hill, W.F.; Rehou, S.; Pinto, R.; Shahrokhi, S.; Jeschke, M.G. Sepsis criteria versus clinical diagnosis of sepsis in burn patients: A validation of current sepsis scores. Surgery 2018, 164, 1241–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chen, X.-L.; Xia, Z.-F.; Wei, D.; Han, S.; Ben, D.-F.; Wang, G.-Q. Role of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase in Kupffer cell secretion of the proinflammatory cytokines after burn trauma. Burns 2003, 29, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kraft, R.; Herndon, D.N.; Finnerty, C.C.; Cox, R.A.; Song, J.; Jeschke, M.G. Predictive Value of IL-8 for Sepsis and Severe Infections After Burn Injury: A Clinical Study. Shock 2015, 43, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Widgerow, A.D.; King, K.; Tocco-Tussardi, I.; Banyard, D.A.; Chiang, R.; Awad, A.; Afzel, H.; Bhatnager, S.; Melkumyan, S.; Wirth, G.; et al. The burn wound exudate-an under-utilized resource. Burns 2015, 41, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Schuetz, P.; Beishuizen, A.; Broyles, M.; Ferrer, R.; Gavazzi, G.; Gluck, E.H.; Del Castillo, J.G.; Jensen, J.U.; Kanizsai, P.L.; Kwa, A.L.H.; et al. Procalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic stewardship: An international experts consensus on optimized clinical use. Clin. Chem Lab. Med. 2019, 57, 1308–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Becker, K.L.; Snider, R.; Nylen, E.S. Procalcitonin assay in systemic inflammation, infection, and sepsis: Clinical utility and limitations. Crit. Care Med. 2008, 36, 941–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Li, A.T.; Moussa, A.; Gus, E.; Paul, E.; Yii, E.; Romero, L.; Lin, Z.C.; Padiglione, A.; Lo, C.H.; Cleland, H.; et al. Biomarkers for the Early Diagnosis of Sepsis in Burns: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann. Surg. 2022, 275, 654–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Jouffroy, R.; Vivien, B. Positive cultures and clinical outcomes in septic patients: Be aware of the influence from patient selection and the in-hospital confounders. Crit. Care 2019, 23, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Nannan Panday, R.S.; Lammers, E.M.J.; Alam, N.; Nanayakkara, P.W.B. An overview of positive cultures and clinical outcomes in septic patients: A sub-analysis of the Prehospital Antibiotics Against Sepsis (PHANTASi) trial. Crit. Care 2019, 23, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kallinen, O.; Maisniemi, K.; Böhling, T.; Tukiainen, E.; Koljonen, V. Multiple organ failure as a cause of death in patients with severe burns. J. Burn Care Res. 2012, 33, 206–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Nguyen, L.N.; Nguyen, T.G. Characteristics and outcomes of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome among severe-burn patients. Burns 2009, 35, 937–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Cumming, J.; Purdue, G.F.; Hunt, J.L.; O’Keefe, G.E. Objective estimates of the incidence and consequences of multiple organ dysfunction and sepsis after burn trauma. J. Trauma 2001, 50, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. King, D.R.; Namias, N.; Andrews, D.M. Coagulation abnormalities following thermal injury. Blood Coagul. Fibrinolysis Int. J. Haemost. Thromb. 2010, 21, 666–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Kowal-Vern, A.; Gamelli, R.L.; Walenga, J.M.; Hoppensteadt, D.; Sharp-Pucci, M.; Schumacher, H.R. The effect of burn wound size on hemostasis: A correlation of the hemostatic changes to the clinical state. J. Trauma 1992, 33, 50–56, Discussion 56–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Clark, A.; Neyra, J.A.; Madni, T.; Imran, J.; Phelan, H.; Arnoldo, B.; Wolf, S.E. Acute kidney injury after burn. Burns 2017, 43, 898–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Cartotto, R. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the Burn Patient. In Burns, Infections and Wound Management; Shiffman, M.A., Low, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 111–122. [Google Scholar]
  127. Sine, C.R.; Belenkiy, S.M.; Buel, A.R.; Waters, J.A.; Lundy, J.B.; Henderson, J.L.; Stewart, I.J.; Aden, J.K.; Liu, N.T.; Batchinsky, A.; et al. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Burn Patients: A Comparison of the Berlin and American-European Definitions. J. Burn Care Res. 2016, 37, e461–e469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Clemens, M.S.; Stewart, I.J.; Sosnov, J.A.; Howard, J.T.; Belenkiy, S.M.; Sine, C.R.; Henderson, J.L.; Buel, A.R.; Batchinsky, A.I.; Cancio, L.C.; et al. Reciprocal Risk of Acute Kidney Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critically Ill Burn Patients. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, e915–e922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Marck, R.E.; Montagne, H.L.; Tuinebreijer, W.E.; Breederveld, R.S. Time course of thrombocytes in burn patients and its predictive value for outcome. Burns 2013, 39, 714–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Warner, P.; Fields, A.L.; Braun, L.C.; James, L.E.; Bailey, J.K.; Yakuboff, K.P.; Kagan, R.J. Thrombocytopenia in the pediatric burn patient. J. Burn Care Res. 2011, 32, 410–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Kirkpatrick, A.W.; Ball, C.G.; Nickerson, D.; D’Amours, S.K. Intraabdominal Hypertension and the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Burn Patients. World J. Surg. 2009, 33, 1142–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Williams, F.N.; Herndon, D.N.; Suman, O.E.; Lee, J.O.; Norbury, W.B.; Branski, L.K.; Mlcak, R.P.; Jeschke, M.G. Changes in cardiac physiology after severe burn injury. J. Burn Care Res. 2011, 32, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Duke, J.M.; Randall, S.M.; Wood, F.M.; Boyd, J.H.; Fear, M.W. Burns and long-term infectious disease morbidity: A population-based study. Burns 2017, 43, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Duke, J.M.; Randall, S.M.; Fear, M.W.; Boyd, J.H.; Rea, S.; Wood, F.M. Understanding the long-term impacts of burn on the cardiovascular system. Burns 2016, 42, 366–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Duke, J.M.; Randall, S.M.; Fear, M.W.; O’Halloran, E.; Boyd, J.H.; Rea, S.; Wood, F.M. Long term cardiovascular impacts after burn and non-burn trauma: A comparative population-based study. Burns 2017, 43, 1662–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. O’Halloran, E.; Shah, A.; Dembo, L.; Hool, L.; Viola, H.; Grey, C.; Boyd, J.; O’Neill, T.; Wood, F.; Duke, J.; et al. The impact of non-severe burn injury on cardiac function and long-term cardiovascular pathology. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Garner, L.B.; Willis, M.S.; Carlson, D.L.; DiMaio, J.M.; White, M.D.; White, D.J.; Adams, G.A.T.; Horton, J.W.; Giroir, B.P. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor is a cardiac-derived myocardial depressant factor. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2003, 285, H2500–H2509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Maass, D.L.; White, J.; Horton, J.W. IL-1beta and IL-6 act synergistically with TNF-alpha to alter cardiac contractile function after burn trauma. Shock 2002, 18, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Holavanahalli, R.K.; Helm, P.A.; Kowalske, K.J. Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Surviving Large Burns: The Musculoskeletal System. J. Burn Care Res. 2016, 37, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Klein, G.L. Disruption of bone and skeletal muscle in severe burns. Bone Res. 2015, 3, 15002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Finnerty, C.C.; Jeschke, M.G.; Qian, W.J.; Kaushal, A.; Xiao, W.; Liu, T.; Gritsenko, M.A.; Moore, R.J.; Camp, D.G., 2nd; Moldawer, L.L.; et al. Determination of burn patient outcome by large-scale quantitative discovery proteomics. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 41, 1421–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hästbacka, J.; Fredén, F.; Hult, M.; Bergquist, M.; Wilkman, E.; Vuola, J.; Sorsa, T.; Tervahartiala, T.; Huss, F. Matrix metalloproteinases -8 and -9 and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 in burn patients. A prospective observational study. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0125918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Muñoz, B.; Suárez-Sánchez, R.; Hernández-Hernández, O.; Franco-Cendejas, R.; Cortés, H.; Magaña, J.J. From traditional biochemical signals to molecular markers for detection of sepsis after burn injuries. Burns 2019, 45, 16–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Yang, R.; Wang, Z.; Li, J.; Pi, X.; Wang, X.; Xu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Zhou, S. Identification and Verification of Five Potential Biomarkers Related to Skin and Thermal Injury Using Weighted Gene Co-Expression Network Analysis. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 781589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Foessl, I.; Haudum, C.W.; Vidakovic, I.; Prassl, R.; Franz, J.; Mautner, S.I.; Kainz, S.; Hofmann, E.; Obermayer-Pietsch, B.; Birngruber, T.; et al. miRNAs as Regulators of the Early Local Response to Burn Injuries. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Koning, J.J.; Rodrigues Neves, C.T.; Schimek, K.; Thon, M.; Spiekstra, S.W.; Waaijman, T.; de Gruijl, T.D.; Gibbs, S. A Multi-Organ-on-Chip Approach to Investigate How Oral Exposure to Metals Can Cause Systemic Toxicity Leading to Langerhans Cell Activation in Skin. Front. Toxicol. 2021, 3, 824825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Vahav, I.; Thon, M.; van den Broek, L.J.; Spiekstra, S.W.; Atac, B.; Lindner, G.; Schimek, K.; Marx, U.; Gibbs, S. Proof-of-Concept Organ-on-Chip Study: Topical Cinnamaldehyde Exposure of Reconstructed Human Skin with Integrated Neopapillae Cultured under Dynamic Flow. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Presbitero, A.; Mancini, E.; Brands, R.; Krzhizhanovskaya, V.V.; Sloot, P.M.A. Supplemented Alkaline Phosphatase Supports the Immune Response in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: Clinical and Computational Evidence. Front. Immunol 2018, 9, 2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Korkmaz, H.I.; Niessen, F.B.; Pijpe, A.; Sheraton, V.M.; Vermolen, F.J.; Krijnen, P.A.; Niessen, H.W.; Sloot, P.M.; Middelkoop, E.; Gibbs, S.; et al. Scar formation from the perspective of complexity science: A new look at the biological system as a whole. J. Wound Care 2022, 31, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. van Zuijlen, P.P.M.; Korkmaz, H.I.; Sheraton, V.M.; Haanstra, T.M.; Pijpe, A.; de Vries, A.; van der Vlies, C.H.; Bosma, E.; de Jong, E.; Middelkoop, E.; et al. The future of burn care from a complexity science perspective. J. Burn Care Res. 2022, 43, 1312–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.