A 13-year retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of using air-fluidised beds for toxic epidermal necrolysis XXXX .

@entity1 @entity137 @entity66 @entity281 @entity158
OBJECTIVES: @entity137 ( @entity137 ) is a potentially life-threatening @entity66 involving large areas of skin loss with systemic symptoms. This study evaluated the efficacy of air-fluidised bed therapy for @entity137 @entity1 . METHODS: Of 27 @entity1 with @entity137 , 11 used air-fluidised beds (the air-fluidised group) and 16 used standard beds (the control group). Days to complete re-epithelialisation, re-epithelialisation rate, incidence of complications, mortality, @entity158 measured by visual analogue score and the incidence of cutaneous @entity281 were compared in these groups. RESULTS: The mean body surface area of involvement was 77.0        11.8% and baseline mean severity-of-illness score for @entity137 (SCORTEN) was 2.81        1.08. The re-epithelialisation rate in the air-fluidised group was 100% but was only 56.3% in the control group (P   <   0.05). There was a significant difference in the time taken to complete re-epithelialisation between the air-fluidised group (13 days [95%   CI: 9.0-17.0]) and the control group (21 days [16.5-25.5], P   <   0.05). Furthermore, the incidence of complications was 18% in the air-fluidised group versus 75% in the control group, including fewer @entity281 (P   <   0.05). There was a significant reduction in @entity158 among the air-fluidised group compared with the control group (P   <   0.05). There were no deaths in the air-fluidised group while 19% of the control group died. CONCLUSION: Air-fluidised beds can reduce the time to complete re-epithelialisation, relieve @entity158 and increase the re-epithelialisation rate of @entity137 @entity1 , but there was no significant difference between them in mortality rate in our study.
