Fostering research in pediatric interventional radiology: needs assessment and suggestions for support.

BACKGROUND: Due to the rarity of pediatric diseases, collaborative research is the key to maximizing the impact of research studies. A research needs assessment survey was created to support initiatives to foster pediatric interventional radiology research. OBJECTIVE: To assess the status of pediatric interventional radiology research, identify perceived barriers, obtain community input on areas of research/education/support, and create metrics for evaluating changes/responses to programmatic initiatives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey link was sent to approximately 275 members of the Society for Pediatric Interventional Radiology (SPIR) between May and October 2020. Data was collected using a web-based interface. Data collected included practice setting, clinical role, research experience, research barriers, and suggestions for future initiatives. RESULTS: Fifty-nine surveys were analyzed with a staff physician survey response rate of 28% (56/198). A wide range of practice sizes from 15 countries were represented. Respondents were predominantly staff physicians (95%; 56/59) with an average of 11 years (range: 1-25 years) of clinical experience working at academic or freestanding children's hospitals. A total of 100% (59/59) had research experience, and 70% (41/58) had published research with a mean of 30 peer-reviewed publications (range: 1-200). For job security, 56% (33/59) of respondents were expected or required to publish, but only 19% (11/58) had research support staff, and 42% (25/59) had protected research time, but of those, 36% (9/25) got the time "sometimes or never." Lack of support staff, established collaborative processes, and education were identified as top barriers to performing research. CONCLUSIONS: The needs assessment survey demonstrated active research output despite several identified barriers. There is a widespread interest within the pediatric interventional radiology community for collaborative research.

COST ANALYSIS OF PERIPHERALLY INSERTED CENTRAL CATHETER IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS.

PURPOSE: A peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is a useful option in providing secure venous access, which enables patients to be discharged earlier with the provision of home care. The objective was to identify the costs associated with having a PICC from a societal perspective, and to identify factors that are associated with total PICC costs. METHODS: Data were obtained from a retrospective cohort of 469 hospitalized pediatric patients with PICCs inserted. Both direct and indirect costs were estimated from a societal perspective. Insertion costs, complication costs, nurse and physician assessment costs, inpatient ward costs, catheter removal costs, home care costs, travel costs, and the cost associated with productivity losses incurred by parents were included in this study. RESULTS: Based on catheter dwell time, the median total cost associated with a PICC per patient per day (including inpatient hospital costs) was $3,133.5 ($2,210.7-$9,627.0) in 2017 Canadian dollars ($1.00USD = $1.25CAD in 2017). The adjusted mean cost per patient per day was $2,648.2 ($2,402.4-$2,920.4). Excluding inpatient ward costs, the median total and adjusted costs per patient per day were $198.8 ($91.8-$2,475.8) and $362.7($341.0-$386.0), respectively. Younger age, occurrence of complications, more catheter dwell days, wards with more intensive care, and the absence of home care were significant factors associated with higher total PICC costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated the costs associated with PICCs. This information may be helpful for healthcare providers to understand PICC related cost in children and resource implications.

Intrapleural Dornase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator in pediatric empyema (DTPA): a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial of adults with empyema recently demonstrated decreased length of stay in hospital in patients treated with intrapleurally administered dornase alfa and fibrinolytics compared to fibrinolytics alone. Whether this treatment strategy is safe and effective in children remains unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: This study protocol is for a superiority, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, multicenter randomized controlled trial. The participants are previously well children admitted to a children's hospital with a diagnosis of empyema requiring chest tube insertion and fibrinolytics administered intrapleurally. Children will be randomized after the treating physician has decided that pleural drainage is required but prior to chest tube insertion. After chest tube insertion, participants in the treatment group will receive intrapleurally administered tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) 4 mg followed by dornase alfa 5 mg. Participants in the placebo group will receive tPA 4 mg followed by normal saline. Study treatments will be administered once daily for 3 days. All participants, parents or caregivers, clinicians, and research personnel will remain blinded. The primary outcome is length of stay from chest tube insertion to discharge from hospital. Secondary outcomes include time to meeting discharge criteria, chest tube duration, fever duration, need for additional procedures, adverse events, hospital readmission, cost of hospitalization, and mortality. DISCUSSION: This multicenter randomized controlled trial will assess the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of combined treatment with dornase alfa and fibrinolytics compared to fibrinolytics alone for the treatment of empyema in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01717742 . Registered on 8 October 2012.

Long-term burden of care and radiation exposure in survivors of esophageal atresia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with esophageal atresia with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF) historically have had a high risk of neonatal mortality but the majority of patients are now expected to live into adulthood. However, the long-term burden of care among recent EA/TEF survivors has not been documented. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of newborns with EA/TEF treated from 2001-2005 was conducted, including initial and total hospitalization length of stay, and number of clinic visits and procedures requiring general anesthesia in the first three years of life. Exposure to and number of radiological studies involving ionizing radiation (IR) were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-one of 78 (91%) patients survived to discharge and 69 were included for analysis. Mean length of initial hospital stay was 51.3 (range 9-390) days. By age 3 years, patients required 4.5 (mean, range 1-23) procedures performed under general anesthesia, attended 13.5 (mean, range 3-40) outpatient visits and were exposed to 17.4 mSv (mean, range 3.0-59.9) of IR from 40 (mean, range 5-165) radiological studies. CONCLUSION: Patients with EA/TEF need complex and frequent hospital-based care from infancy to early childhood. Opportunities to critically review clinical services and imaging needs should be explored to improve the experience of patients and their families.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implantable venous access device insertion using interventional radiologic versus conventional operating room methods in pediatric patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Percutaneous image-guided techniques are associated with less tissue trauma and morbidity than open surgical techniques. Interventional radiology has received significant health care investment. The purpose was to determine the cost effectiveness of inserting implantable venous access devices (IVADs) by interventional radiologic means versus conventional operating room surgery in pediatric patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis, patients presenting with a new tumor diagnosis and receiving a first-time IVAD in January to June 2000 (operative group; n = 30) and January to June 2004 (interventional group; n = 30) were included. A societal costing perspective was adopted. Costs included labor, materials, equipment, inpatient wards, parent travel, and parental productivity losses for 30 days after insertion. Severe complications related to IVAD insertion were microcosted. Costs related to cancer therapy were not included. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Interventional patients were older (7.3 years vs 4.1 years; P = .01). There were no significant differences between groups in sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, or length of hospital stay. Interventional radiologic procedures were shorter (84.9 minutes vs 112.8 minutes; P = 0.01). Interventional radiologic insertion was slightly less costly than operative insertion (Can$622,860 and Can$627,005 per 30-patient group, respectively) and more effective in reducing the complication rate (two vs eight complications per group, respectively; P = .039). The results were sensitive to the cost of operating the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional radiology was slightly less costly than operative IVAD insertion and resulted in fewer serious complications. It should be considered for IVAD insertions in pediatric patients with cancer.