RESUMEN
Introduction: Chloral hydrate (CH) has long been utilized as a pediatric procedural sedation agent. However, very little is published describing CH use in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) setting. The aim of this retrospective observational cohort study was to investigate and describe the use of CH in mechanically-ventilated, critically ill children at a large pediatric tertiary referral hospital. Methods: Data were extracted from the hospital electronic medical record and a locally maintained registry of all children admitted to the PICU between 2012 and 2017. Patients admitted to the cardiovascular ICU were not included in this review. The clinical and pharmacy data for 3806 consecutive PICU admissions of mechanically-ventilated, critically ill children were examined. Results: 283 admissions received CH during their first ICU stay. CH-exposed children were younger (16 months vs. 35 months, p < 0.001), the median total dose of CH (indexed to duration of ventilation) was 11 mg/kg/day, the median time to first CH dose was 3 days and more CH doses were administered at night (1112 vs. 958, p < 0.001). We constructed a propensity score to adjust for the differences in patients with and without CH exposure using logistic regression including variables of age, sex, diagnosis, and PRISM3 score. After adjustment, the median length of mechanical ventilation was 5 days longer in the CH-exposed group (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 4-6) compared to unexposed CH patients. Similarly, the median length of ICU duration was 9.4 days longer (95% CI 7.1-11.6) and median length of hospital admission duration was 13.2 days longer (95% CI 7.8-18.6) in CH-exposed patients compared to CH-non-exposed. After adjustment, CH-exposed patients had a 9% higher median exposure to HFOV (95% CI 3.9-14.6), but did not have higher median exposures to new tracheostomy (95% CI -0.4-2.2) or ECMO (95% CI -0.2-5.0). Discussion: As part of an extended sedation regimen in mechanically-ventilated and critically ill children, CH is associated with somewhat higher complexity of illness and longer ICU durations.
RESUMEN
Genetic testing is important for comprehensive cancer care. Commercial analysis of the BRCA1/2 genes has been available since 1996, and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is well established. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines identify individuals for whom BRCA1/2 analysis is appropriate and define management recommendations for mutation carriers. Despite recommendations, not all who meet NCCN criteria undergo genetic testing. We assess the frequency that individuals meeting NCCN criteria decline BRCA1/2 analysis, as well as factors that affect the decision-making process. A retrospective chart review was performed from September 2013 through August 2014 of individuals who received genetic counseling at the Levine Cancer Institute. A total of 1082 individuals identified through the retrospective chart review met NCCN criteria for BRCA1/2 analysis. Of these, 267 (24.7%) did not pursue genetic testing. Of the Nontested cohort, 59 (22.1%) were disinterested in testing and 108 (40.4%) were advised to gather additional genetic or medical information about their relatives before testing. The remaining 100 (37.5%) individuals were insured and desired to undergo genetic testing but were prohibited by the expense. Eighty five of these 100 patients were responsible for the total cost of the test, whereas the remaining 15 faced a prohibitive copay expense. Financial concerns are a major deterrent to the pursuit of BRCA1/2 analysis among those who meet NCNN criteria, especially in patients diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer. These findings highlight the need to address financial concerns for genetic testing in this high-risk population.