Tracheostomy, respiratory support, and developmental outcomes in neonates with severe lung diseases: Retrospective study in one center.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric tracheostomy has evolved significantly in the past few decades and the optimal timing to perform it in children with respiratory assistance is still debated. The objective of this study was to describe the indications, timing, complications, and outcomes of infants on respiratory support who had a tracheostomy in a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). METHODS: All children younger than 18 months of corrected age requiring respiratory support for at least 1 week and who had a tracheostomy between January 2005 and December 2015 were included. Their demographic and clinical data and their outcomes at 24 months of corrected age were collected and analyzed after approval from the CHU Sainte-Justine ethics committee. RESULTS: During the study period, 18 children (14 preterm infants, 4 polymalformative syndromes, and 2 diaphragmatic hernias) were included. The median corrected age at tracheostomy was 97 days (0-289 days) and 94.4% were elective. The indications for tracheostomy were ventilation for more than 7 days with (61.1%) or without (38.9%) orolaryngotracheal anomaly. The median number of consultants involved per patient was 16 consultants (10-23 consultants). The median hospital length of stay was 122 days (8-365 days) before tracheostomy and 235 days (22-891 days) after tracheostomy. The median invasive ventilation time was 68 days (8-168 days) before tracheostomy and 64 days (5-982 days) after tracheostomy. In terms of complications, there were nine cases of tracheitis and five cases of tracheal granulomas. At 24 months of corrected age, 17 of 18 children survived, one of/17 was still hospitalized, three of 17 were decannulated, three of 17 received respiratory support via their tracheostomy, 11 of 17 were fed with a gastrostomy, and all had neurodevelopmental delay. CONCLUSION: Tracheostomy in infants requiring at least 1 week of ventilation is performed for complex cases and is favored for orolaryngotracheal anomalies. Clinicians should anticipate the need for developmental care in this population.

[Non-invasive ventilation in children: Do we need more evidence?] / Intérêt de la ventilation non invasive en réanimation pédiatrique : doit-on espérer un autre niveau de preuve ?

Respiratory failure is the leading cause of hospital admissions in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Mechanical ventilation, preferentially delivered by a non-invasive route (NIV), is currently the first-line treatment for respiratory failure since it is associated with a reduction in the intubation rate. This ventilatory support is increasingly used in the PICU, but its wider use contrasts with the paucity of studies in this field. This review aims to describe the main indications of NIV in acute settings: (i) bronchiolitis; (ii) postextubation respiratory failure; (iii) acute respiratory distress syndrome; (iv) pneumonia; (v) status asthmaticus; (vi) acute chest syndrome; (vii) left heart failure; (viii) exacerbation of chronic respiratory failure; (ix) upper airway obstruction and (x) end-of-life care. Most of these data are based on descriptive studies and expert opinions, and few are from randomized trials. While the benefit of NIV is significant in some indications, such as bronchiolitis, it is more questionable in others. Monitoring these patients for the occurrence of NIV failure markers is crucial.

[Neonatal splenic injury: a difficult diagnosis]. / La rupture splénique en période néonatale: un diagnostic difficile.

Neonatal splenic injury is a rare but serious condition, due to the risk of haemorrhagic shock. We report on the case of a newborn infant with a neonatal respiratory distress that first evoked materno-fetal infection. Clinical deterioration, with anemia and abdominal distension, led then to the proper diagnosis. Dystocia seems to be the most likely cause of the splenic rupture in this report. Medical treatment is advocated as first line, while surgical treatment may be necessary in some cases. In the case surgery is inevitable, a conservative approach is preferable.