Association of Multimodal Pain Control with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Children Undergoing Surgery

IntroductionOur aim was to describe practices in multimodal pain management at US children's hospitals and evaluate the association between non-opioid pain management strategies and pediatric patient-reported outcomes (PROs).MethodsData were collected as part of the 18-hospital ENhanced Recovery In CHildren Undergoing Surgery (ENRICH-US) clinical trial. Non-opioid pain management strategies included use of preoperative and postoperative non-opioid analgesics, regional anesthetic blocks, and a biobehavioral intervention. PROs included perioperative nervousness, pain-related functional disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Associations were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression models.ResultsAmong 186 patients, 62 (33%) received preoperative analgesics, 186 (100%) postoperative analgesics, 81 (44%) regional anesthetic block, and 135 (73%) used a biobehavioral intervention. Patients were less likely to report worsened as compared to stable nervousness following regional anesthetic block (relative risk ratio [RRR]:0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.11–0.85), use of a biobehavioral technique (RRR:0.26, 95% CI:0.10–0.70), and both in combination (RRR:0.08, 95% CI:0.02–0.34). There were no associations of non-opioid pain control modalities with pain-related functional disability or HRQoL.ConclusionUse of postoperative non-opioid analgesics have been largely adopted, while preoperative non-opioid analgesics and regional anesthetic blocks are used less frequently. Regional anesthetic blocks and biobehavioral interventions may mitigate postoperative nervousness in children.Level of evidenceIII.     

Ivermectin administration is associated with lower gastrointestinal complications and greater ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19: A propensity score analysis

IntroductionCOVID-19 patients have been reported to have digestive symptoms with poor outcome. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been used in COVID-19 patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether ivermectin has effects on gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19.MethodsCOVID-19 patients who were mechanically ventilated in the ICU were included in this study. The ventilated patients who received ivermectin within 3 days after admission were assigned to the Ivermectin group, and the others were assigned to the Control group. Patients in the Ivermectin group received ivermectin 200 μg/kg via nasal tube. The incidence of gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days within 4 weeks from admission were evaluated as clinical outcomes using a propensity score with the inverse probability weighting method.ResultsWe included 88 patients in this study, of whom 39 patients were classified into the Ivermectin group, and 49 patients were classified into the Control group. The hazard ratio for gastrointestinal complications in the Ivermectin group as compared with the Control group was 0.221 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.057 to 0.855; p = 0.029) in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model. The odds ratio for ventilator-free days as compared with the Control group was 1.920 (95% CI, 1.076 to 3.425; p = 0.027) in a proportional odds logistic regression model.ConclusionsIvermectin improved gastrointestinal complications and the number of ventilator-free days in severe COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Prevention of gastrointestinal symptoms by SARS-Cov-2 might be associated with COVID-19 outcome.     

品管圈对缩短结直肠癌患者术后胃肠功能恢复时间的效果观察

目的探讨品管圈对结直肠癌患者术后胃肠功能恢复时间的临床效果。方法选取2019年4月至5月间上海市健康医学院附属嘉定区中心医院收治的52例结直肠癌术后患者为改进前组,2019年6月至7月52例患者为改进后组。检查改进前组患者平均排气时间、排便时间及腹胀发生率,采用品管圈对改进后组患者进行干预,比较两组患者胃肠道功能和相关无形成果。结果改进后组患者排气时间、排便时间和腹胀发生率均低于改进前组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。通过品管圈活动,圈员们责任心、自我价值、团队精神、科研能力、沟通能力和解决问题能力均提升。结论品管圈可缩短结直肠癌患者术后排气时间和排便时间,降低腹胀发生率,提高圈员综合素质,值得推广。     

Association between R1 resection and oncological outcome in resectable gastrointestinal stromal tumors without tumor rupture: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe influence of positive microscopic margin (R1) resection on the prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is controversial. Tumor rupture is significantly associated with the occurrence of R1 resection and may be a confounder of R1 resection in GISTs. The present meta-analysis evaluated the real influence of R1 resection on the prognosis of GISTs by excluding the confounding effect of tumor rupture.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched. Studies that compared R1 with negative microscopic margin (R0) resection in GIST patients and reported the time-to-event data of recurrence-free survival (RFS) or disease-free survival (DFS) were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale.ResultsOf the 4896 records screened, 23 retrospective studies with 6248 participants were selected. In the overall analysis, R1 resection resulted in a significantly shorter RFS/DFS than R0 resection for GISTs (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.54–2.10, P < 0.001, I² = 14%). However, the inferior RFS/DFS vanished when tumor rupture cases were excluded (HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.98–1.83, P = 0.07, I² = 33%). Sensitivity analysis by high-quality studies brought about a more robust HR of 1.15 (95% CI = 0.88–1.50, P = 0.29), with low heterogeneity (I² = 0%). The qualities of evidence for the outcomes were high.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that R1 resection did not influence the survival outcome of GISTs. Reresection may not be necessary when positive microscopic margins exist. This analysis could provide high-quality evidence for the development of guidelines.     

Esophageal Surveillance Practices in Esophageal Atresia Patients: A Survey by the Eastern Pediatric Surgery Network

IntroductionEndoscopic surveillance guidelines for patients with repaired esophageal atresia (EA) rely primarily on expert opinion. Prior to embarking on a prospective EA surveillance registry, we sought to understand EA surveillance practices within the Eastern Pediatric Surgery Network (EPSN).MethodsAn anonymous, 23-question Qualtrics survey was emailed to 181 physicians (surgeons and gastroenterologists) at 19 member institutions. Likert scale questions gauged agreement with international EA surveillance guideline-derived statements. Multiple-choice questions assessed individual and institutional practices.ResultsThe response rate was 77%. Most respondents (80%) strongly agree or agree that EA surveillance endoscopy should follow a set schedule, while only 36% claimed to perform routine upper GI endoscopy regardless of symptoms. Many institutions (77%) have an aerodigestive clinic, even if some lack a multi-disciplinary EA team. Most physicians (72%) expressed strong interest in helping develop evidence-based guidelines.ConclusionsOur survey reveals physician agreement with current guidelines but weak adherence. Surveillance methods vary greatly, underscoring the lack of evidence-based data to guide EA care. Aerodigestive clinics may help implement surveillance schedules. Respondents support evidence-based protocols, which bodes well for care standardization. Results will inform the first multi-institutional EA databases in the United States (US), which will be essential for evidence-based care.Level of EvidenceThis is a prognosis study with level 4 evidence.