The prevalence of abnormal spirometry in children with CHD.

BACKGROUND: The burden of pulmonary disease in children with CHD remains under-recognised. Studies have examined children with single ventricle and two ventricle heart disease and documented a decreased forced vital capacity. Our study sought to further explore the pulmonary function of children with CHD. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of spirometry in CHD patients over a 3-year period. Spirometry data were corrected for size, age, and gender and analysed using z-scores. RESULTS: The spirometry of 260 patients was analysed. About 31% had single ventricle (n = 80, 13.6 years (interquartile range 11.5-16.8)) and 69% had two ventricle circulation (n = 180, 14.4 years (interquartile range 12.0-17.3)). Single ventricle patients were found to have a lower median forced vital capacity z-score compared to two ventricle patients (p = 0.0133). The prevalence of an abnormal forced vital capacity was 41% in single ventricle patients and 29% in two ventricle patients. Two ventricle patients with tetralogy of Fallot and truncus arteriosus had similar low forced vital capacity comparable to single ventricle patients. The number of cardiac surgeries predicted an abnormal forced vital capacity in two ventricle patients except tetralogy of Fallot patients. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary morbidity in patients with CHD is common with a decreased forced vital capacity noted in single ventricle and two ventricle patients. Forced vital capacity is lower in patients with single ventricle circulation; however, two ventricle patients with tetralogy of Fallot or truncus arteriosus have similar lung function in comparison to the single ventricle group. The number of surgical interventions was predictive of forced vital capacity z-score in some but not all two ventricle patients and not predictive in single ventricle patients suggesting a multifactorial to pulmonary disease in children with CHD.

Utility of illness symptoms for predicting COVID-19 infections in children.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that symptomatic children remain home and get tested to identify potential coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. As the pandemic moves into a new phase, approaches to differentiate symptoms of COVID-19 versus other childhood infections can inform exclusion policies and potentially prevent future unnecessary missed school days. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of standardized symptom and exposure screens in symptomatic children 0-18 years tested for SARS-CoV-2 at three outpatient sites April to November 2020. Likelihood ratios (LR), number needed to screen to identify one COVID-19 case, and estimated missed school days were calculated. RESULTS: Of children studied (N = 2,167), 88.9% tested negative. Self-reported exposure to COVID-19 was the only factor that statistically significantly increased the likelihood of a positive test for all ages (Positive LR, 5-18 year olds: 5.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.37-6.33; 0-4 year olds: 5.87, 95% CI: 4.67-7.38). Across ages 0-18, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, sore throat, abdominal pain, and nausea/vomiting/diarrhea were commonly reported, and were either not associated or had decreased association with testing positive for COVID-19. The number of school days missed to identify one case of COVID-19 ranged from 19 to 48 across those common symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: We present an approach for identifying symptoms that are non-specific to COVID-19, for which exclusion would likely lead to limited impact on school safety but contribute to school-days missed. As variants and symptoms evolve, students and schools could benefit from reconsideration of exclusion and testing policies for non-specific symptoms, while maintaining testing for those who were exposed.

Parent Perceptions of a Validated Asthma Questionnaire in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: While a number asthma questionnaires have been validated, most have not been used in an emergency department (ED) setting, nor evaluated patient feedback or clinical benefit. We sought to evaluate parent feedback on an asthma questionnaire used in an ED setting. METHODS: We recruited parents of children 2-17 years old presenting to a tertiary pediatric ED for asthma care. Parents first completed then rated the Pediatric Asthma Control and Communication Instrument (PACCI-ED). RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four parents (84%) completed surveys. Approximately two-thirds were Latinx, and 82% completed high school. Ninety-three percent of children had uncontrolled asthma. Parents endorsed the PACCI-ED: as easy to answer (94%); useful in understanding their child's asthma (83%); used the right words to describe their child's condition (95%); and would help the ED physician (93%) and primary care provider (PCP) (89%) better understand their child's asthma. Eleven percent reported that the PACCI-ED interfered with ED care. Parents with lower health literacy were more likely to agree the PACCI-ED asked more complete questions about their child's asthma than the ED physician (64% vs 45%, P = .02). Parents of children with uncontrolled asthma were more likely to agree that the PACCI-ED should become part of regular ED care (88% vs 62%, P = .02). Parents were more likely to agree that the PACCI-ED would help their PCP understand their child's asthma if they had a lower income (92% vs 50%, P < .001), less education (100% vs 88%, P = .004), were Latinx (94% vs 83%, P = .006), or were not using controller medication (93% vs 83%, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Parents endorse an asthma questionnaire as valuable during an ED encounter. Because it is endorsed to be valuable to parents, this questionnaire could be used to facilitate patient-centered asthma care.