Chapter 5. Mustard

This chapter describes the assumptions for the mustard scenario, including:

• The severity categories.
• The arrival pattern of casualties at the hospital(s).
• The length of stay by hospital unit (i.e., ED, ICU, and the floor).
• The path probability within the hospital(s) and the length of stay.
• The overall outcome probabilities (i.e., probability of discharge and probability of death).
• The assumed level of resource consumption per patient per day per hospital unit.

Footnotes in the text of a particular section refer to references at the end of the section. In the absence of specific references, parameter estimates were obtained from general references listed in the Hospital Module section.

5.1. Severity Categories

For the mustard scenario, patients arrive at the hospital(s) in one of two conditions:

1. Irritated: hoarseness or burning in throat and lungs, irritation in eyes.
2. Severe: temporary blindness, permanent eye damage, bronchopneumonia, and skin damage.

Users have the option of specifying either the number and type or simply the number of casualties who present at their hospital(s).

If the user specifies only the number of casualties, the model assumes the casualties arriving at the hospital(s) are randomly selected from among all casualties from the attack. The distribution of casualty types in this case is as follows:

Casualty Condition	Percent
Irritated: hoarseness or burning in throat and lungs, irritation in eyes	42.5%
Severe: temporary blindness, permanent eye damage, broncopneumonia, and skin damage	57.5%

This breakdown by casualty condition is based on work performed during development of the original Surge Model in 2005. In brief, plume modeling was used to determine different exposure levels dependent upon the radius from the attack. Then available dose-response data were used to group exposed individuals into those who died, experienced severe symptoms, or experienced irritation from the gas. The percents shown here represent the percentage in each category of those who survived the immediate effects of the attack.

5.2. Casualty Arrival Pattern

For the mustard scenario, all casualties are assumed to present at the hospital(s) on day 1.

5.3. Length of Stay By Hospital Unit

The assumed average length of stay (in days) of patients the ED, ICU, and the floor (based on references no. 2,3,7,9, and 15 listed at the end of this section) are:

Average LOS by Hospital Unit	Irritated	Severe
ED	1	1
Floor, not via ICU	7	42
Floor, via ICU	4	21
ICU	3	21

5.4 Combined Path Probabilities and Lengths of Stay

The table below shows the assumed probabilities of different "paths" through the hospital(s).

Path	Irritated	Incapacitated
ED → Discharge	0%	0%
ED → Death	0%	0%
ED → Floor → Discharge	50%	0%
ED → Floor → Death	0%	0%
ED → Floor → ICU → Death	0%	0%
ED → Floor → ICU → Floor → Discharge	0%	0%
ED → Floor → ICU → Floor → Death	0%	0%
ED → ICU → Death	0%	0%
ED → ICU → Floor → Discharge	50%	100%
ED → ICU → Floor → Death	0%	0%

The breakdown of length of stay by patient type summed over all paths is:

Average LOS by Patient Outcome	Irritated	Severe
Survivors	8.00	43.00
Fatalities	0.00	0.00
Average Combined	8.00	43.00

5.5. Overall Outcome Probabilities

Based on these inputs, the overall discharge and death probabilities are:

Outcome	Irritated	Incapacitated
Discharge	100%	100%
Death	0%	0%

5.6 Resources Consumed Per Patient Per Day

The assumed level of resource consumption per patient per day is shown in the table below:

Resource	Units	Category	Subcategory	Lambda2	Irritated			Severe
					ED	ICU	Floor	ED	ICU	Floor
Med/Surg Bed	Unit of Use	Capacity	Floor	1	0.083	0	0	0.167	0	0
ICU Bed	Unit of Use	Capacity	ICU	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Burn Bed	Unit of Use	Capacity	Burn	1	0	0	0	0	1	0
Intensivists (CCM)	FTE	Staff	CCM	0.7	0.042	0.042	0	0.083	0.083	0
Critical care nurses (CCN)	FTE	Staff	CCN	1	0.083	0.33	0	0.167	0.33	0
Surgeons	FTE	Staff	Surgeon	0.3	0	0	0	0	0.083	0
Non-intensivists (MD)	FTE	Staff	MD	0.9	0.083	0	0.021	0.083	0	0.021
Non-critical care nurses (RN/LPN)	FTE	Staff	RN	1	0	0	0.33	0	0	0.333
Respiratory Therapists (RT)	FTE	Staff	RT	0.7	0.021	0.021	0.021	0.083	0.083	0.042
Radiology machines	Machine Time	Lab/Radiology	Radiology	0.3	0.021	0.021	0	0.021	0.021	0
Radiologic Technicians	FTE	Staff	Rad Tech	0.3	0.021	0.021	0	0.021	0.021	0
Pharmacists (PharmD/RPh)	FTE	Staff	Pharmacist	0.7	0.021	0.042	0.021	0.021	0.042	0.042
Mechanical ventilator	Machine Time	Capacity	Ventilator	0.9	0	0	0	1	1	0
Ventilator equipment	Unit of Use	Equipment	Vent Tubing	0.9	0	0	0	1	1	0
Oxygen (O2)	Unit of Use	Supplies	Oxygen	0.9	1	1	1	2	2	0
Oxygenation monitoring equipment	Machine Time	Equipment	O2 Monitoring	0.9	0.083	1	0	0.083	1	0.5
Surgical supplies	Unit of Use	Supplies	Surgical	0.3	0	0	0	0	0.25	0
Radiology supplies	Unit of Use	Supplies	Radiological	0.3	1	1	0	1	1	0
Antibiotcs for Secondary Pneumonia	Assorted	Pharmacy	Antibiotics	1	0	0	0	0	1	0
Surgical Infection Prophylaxis/Treatment	Assorted	Pharmacy	Antibiotics	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hemodynamic medications	Unit of Use	Pharmacy	Hemodynamic	0.7	0	0	0	1	1	0
Intravenous fluids	Unit of Use	Pharmacy	IVF	0.7	0	0	0	1	1	1
Intravenous infusions set	Unit of Use	Supplies	IV Set	0.7	0	0	0	1	1	1
Laboratory machines	Machine Time	Lab/Radiology	Laboratory	0.7	0.021	0.021	0.021	0.021	0.021	0.021
Laboratory supplies	Unit of Use	Supplies	Laboratory	0.7	1	1	0.5	1	1	0.5
Temperature monitoring equipment	Machine Time	Equipment	Temperature	1	0.083	1	1	0.083	1	1
Thromboembolism prophylaxis	Unit of Use	Pharmacy	DVT Prophylaxis	1	0	1	0	0	1	1
Urine output monitoring equipment	Unit of Use	Equipment	U/O	1	0	1	0	0	1	0
Universal Precautions PPE	Unit of Use	PPE	Universal	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Chemical PPE	Unit of Use	PPE	Chemical	0.3	1	0	0	1	0	0
Radiological PPE	Unit of Use	PPE	Radiological	0.3	0	0	0	0	0	0
Waste Disposal	Unit of Use	Waste Mgmt	Decon Waste	0.3	1	0	0	1	0	0
Mortuary Decontamination Materials	Unit of Use	Mortuary	Decon	0.3	0	0	0	0	0	0
Atropine sulfate	2mg	Pharmacy	Atropine	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pralidoxime	2g	Pharmacy	Pralidoxime	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Diazepam	10mg	Pharmacy	Diazepam	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Growth Factors	Unit of Use	Pharmacy	Growth factors	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
IV Steroids	Unit of Use	Pharmacy	Steroids	0.7	0	0	0	0	0	0
Enteral feedings (3/day/patient)	Unit of Use	Nutrition	Enteral	1	0	0	0	0	0.5	0
Oral food (3 meals per day per patient)	Unit of Use	Nutrition	Oral	1	0	0.5	1	0	0.5	1
Sheet change	Unit of Use	Housekeeping	Laundry	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Patient infection control	FTE	Epidemiology	Infection Control	0.5	0.021	0.021	0.021	0.042	0.042	0.042
Engineering	FTE	Engineering	Facility	0.7	0.042	0.083	0.042	0.042	0.083	0.042
Janitorial/Housekeeping	FTE	Housekeeping	Janitorial	1	0.083	0.125	0.083	0.125	0.125	0.083
Nutrition	FTE	Nutrition	Counseling	0.5	0	0.083	0.083	0	0.083	0.083
Psychological support	FTE	Ancillary	Psychologist	0.5	0.021	0.042	0.042	0	0	0.042
Mortuary	FTE	Mortuary	Morgue	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0

2.  Lambda captures the resource requirement decay rate for a resource. Lambda = 1 implies no decay; the patient requires a constant amount of the resource while s/he is hospitalized. Lambda <1 implies that less of the resource is required each day the patient is hospitalized. Go to section 2.2 for details.

5.7 References

1. Anderson DR, Holmes WW, Lee RB, et al. Sulfur mustard-induced neutropenia: treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Mil Med 2006;171(5):448-53.

2. Balali-Mood M, Hefazi M. The pharmacology, toxicology, and medical treatment of sulphur mustard poisoning. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2005;19(3):297-315.

3. Balali-Mood M, Hefazi M, Mahmoudi M, et al. Long-term complications of sulphur mustard poisoning in severely intoxicated Iranian veterans. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2005;19(6):713-21.

4. Borak J, Sidell FR. Agents of chemical warfare: sulfur mustard. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21(3):303-8.

5. Dachir S, Fishbeine E, Meshulam Y, et al. Amelioration of sulfur mustard skin injury following a topical treatment with a mixture of a steroid and a NSAID . J Appl Toxicol 2004;24(2):107-13.

6. Davis KG, Aspera G. Exposure to liquid sulfur mustard. Ann Emerg Med 2001;37(6):653-6.

7. Etezad-Razavi M, Mahmoudi M, Hefazi M, et al. Delayed ocular complications of mustard gas poisoning and the relationship with respiratory and cutaneous complications. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2006;34(4):342-6.

8. Hefazi M, Attaran D, Mahmoudi M, et al. Late respiratory complications of mustard gas poisoning in Iranian veterans. Inhal Toxicol 2005;17(11):587-92.

9. Kehe K, Szinicz L. Medical aspects of sulphur mustard poisoning. Toxicology 2005;214(3):198-209.

10. Le HQ, Knudsen SJ. Exposure to a First World War blistering agent. Emerg Med J 2006;23(4):296-9.

11. Mahmoudi M, Hefazi M, Rastin M, et al. Long-term hematological and immunological complications of sulfur mustard poisoning in Iranian veterans.Int Immunopharmacol 2005;5(9):1479-85.

12. McManus J, Huebner K. Vesicants. Crit Care Clin 2005;21(4):707-18, vi.

13. Mellor SG, Rice P, Cooper GJ. Vesicant burns. Br J Plast Surg 1991;44(6):434-7.

14. 14. Mi L, Gong W, Nelson P, et al. Hypothermia reduces sulphur mustard toxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2003;193(1):73-83.

15. Munro NB, Watson AP, Ambrose KR, et al. Treating exposure to chemical warfare agents: implications for health care providers and community emergency planning. Environ Health Perspect 1990;89:205-15.

16. Rice P. Sulphur mustard injuries of the skin. Pathophysiology and management. Toxicol Rev 2003;22(2):111-8.

17. Ruhl CM, Park SJ, Danisa O, et al. A serious skin sulfur mustard burn from an artillery shell. J Emerg Med 1994;12(2):159-66.

18. Safarinejad MR, Moosavi SA, Montazeri B. Ocular injuries caused by mustard gas: diagnosis, treatment, and medical defense. Mil Med 2001;166(1):67-70.

19. Saladi RN, Smith E, Persaud AN. Mustard: a potential agent of chemical warfare and terrorism. Clin Exp Dermatol 2006;31(1):1-5.

20. Smith KJ. The prevention and treatment of cutaneous injury secondary to chemical warfare agents. Application of these finding to other dermatologic conditions and wound healing. Dermatol Clin 1999;17(1):41-60, viii.

21. Smith KJ, Skelton H. Chemical warfare agents: their past and continuing threat and evolving therapies. Part I of II. Skinmed 2003;2(4):215-21.

22. Smith KJ, Skelton H. Chemical warfare agents: their past and continuing threat and evolving therapies. Part II of II. Skinmed 2003;2(5):297-303.

23. Solberg Y, Alcalay M, Belkin M. Ocular injury by mustard gas. Surv Ophthalmol. 1997;41(6):461-6.

24. Vidan A, Luria S, Eisenkraft A, et al. Ocular injuries following sulfur mustard exposure: clinical characteristics and treatment. Isr Med Assoc J 2002;4(7):577-8.

25. Treatment of chemical agent casualties and conventional military chemical injuries, Field Manual No. 8-285/NAVMED P-5041/Air Force Joint Manual No. 44-149/Fleet Marine Force Manual No. 11-11. Headquarters, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and Commandant, Marine Corps. Washington, DC; 1995.

Return to Contents
Proceed to Next Section