Nationwide Outcomes After Thoracoscopic Versus Open Resection of Congenital Pulmonary Airway Malformations in Newborns.

Purpose: Elective resection of congenital pulmonary airway malformations (CPAM) has been debated for decades and varies significantly between individual surgeons. However, few studies have compared outcomes and costs associated with thoracoscopic and open thoracotomy approaches on a national level. This study sought to compare nationwide outcomes and resource utilization in infants undergoing elective lung resection for CPAM. Materials and Methods: The Nationwide Readmission Database was queried from 2010 to 2014 for newborns who underwent elective surgical resection of CPAM. Patients were stratified by operative approach (thoracoscopic versus open). Demographics, hospital characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical tests. Results: A total of 1716 newborns with CPAM were identified. Elective readmission for pulmonary resection was performed in 12% (n = 198), with 63% of resections completed at a different hospital than the newborn stay. Most resections were thoracoscopic (75%), compared to only 25% via thoracotomy. Infants treated with thoracoscopic resection were more often male (78% versus 62% open, P = .040) and were older at the time of resection. Patients who had an open thoracotomy experienced a higher rate of serious complications (40% versus 10% thoracoscopic, P < .001), including postoperative hemorrhage, tension pneumothorax, and pulmonary collapse. Readmission costs were higher for infants treated via thoracotomy (P < .001). Conclusion: Thoracoscopic lung resection for CPAM is associated with lower cost and fewer postoperative complications than thoracotomy. Most resections are performed at different hospitals than the place of birth, which may affect long-term outcomes from single institutional studies. These findings may be used to address costs and improve future evaluations of elective CPAM resections.

Nationwide management of perforated pediatric appendicitis: Interval versus same-admission appendectomy.

PURPOSE: Although conservative management followed by readmission for interval appendectomy is commonly used to manage perforated appendicitis, many studies are limited to individual or noncompeting pediatric hospitals. This study sought to compare national outcomes following interval or same-admission appendectomy in children with perforated appendicitis. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmission Database was queried (2010-2014) for patients <18 years old with perforated appendicitis who underwent appendectomy using ICD9-CM Diagnosis codes. A propensity score-matched analysis (PSMA) utilizing 33 covariates between those with (Interval Appendectomy) and without a prior admission (Same-Admission Appendectomy) was performed to examine postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: There were 63,627 pediatric patients with perforated appendicitis. 1014 (1%) had a prior admission for perforated appendicitis within one calendar year undergoing interval appendectomy compared to 62,613 (99%) Same-Admission appendectomy patients. The Interval Appendectomy group was more likely to receive a laparoscopic (87% vs. 78% same-admission) than open (13% vs. 22% same-admission; p < 0.001) operation. Patients receiving interval appendectomy were more likely to have their laparoscopic procedure converted to open (5% vs. 3%) and receive more concomitant procedures. PSMA demonstrated a higher rate of small bowel obstruction in those receiving Same-Admission appendectomy while all other complications were similar. Although those receiving Interval Appendectomy had a shorter index length of stay (LOS) and lower admission costs, they incurred an additional $8044 [$5341-$13,190] from their prior admission. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with interval appendectomy experienced more concomitant procedures and incurred higher combined hospitalization costs while still having a similar postoperative complication profile compared to those receiving same-admission appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective Comparative Study.

Difference between SARS-CoV-2, seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus infection in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been raging since the end of 2019 and has shown worse outcomes in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The clinical differences as well as outcomes between respiratory viruses have not been well defined in this population. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult SOT recipients with nasopharyngeal swab or bronchoalveolar lavage PCR positive for either SARS-CoV-2, seasonal coronavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) or influenza virus from January 2017 to October 2020. The follow up period was 3 months. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 377 recipients including 157 SARS-CoV-2, 70 seasonal coronavirus, 50 RSV and 100 influenza infections were identified. The most common transplanted organ was kidney 224/377 (59.4%). Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) was found in 210/377 (55.7%) and the risk factors identified with multivariable analysis were SARS-CoV-2 infection, steroid use, and older age. Co- and secondary infections were seen in 77/377 (20.4%) recipients with bacterial pathogens as dominant. Hospital admission was seen in 266/377 (67.7%) recipients without significant statistical difference among viruses, however, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality were higher with SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the multivariable model, the risk factors for mortality were SARS-CoV-2 infection and older age. CONCLUSIONS: We found higher incidence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and mortality among SARS-CoV-2 infected recipients. Older age was found to be the risk factor for lower respiratory tract infection and mortality for SARS-CoV-2, coronaviruses, RSV and influenza virus groups.

Outcomes of Gastrostomy Tubes in Newborns With Congenital Heart Disease and Comparison of Techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrostomy tube (GT) placement for enteral access is one of the most common procedures for infants with numerous conditions such as congenital heart disease (CHD). Discrepancies in the literature exist regarding outcomes of newborns with CHD undergoing GT placement. This study sought to characterize postoperative outcomes and readmission complications in this patient population. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmission Database was queried from 2010 to 2014 for all newborns who underwent GT placement during their index hospitalization. Newborns with or without CHD other than an isolated atrial or ventricular septal defect were compared using standard statistical tests. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed among newborns with or without CHD using > 100 covariates. RESULTS: Seven thousand seven hundred thirty six patients underwent GT placement. Newborns with CHD (27%) more frequently underwent open GT (59% versus 55%) and less frequently underwent laparoscopic (17% versus 19%) or percutaneous (24% versus 26%) GT placement compared to those without CHD, P = 0.043. GT-related complications on index admission were similar between groups (7% versus 7%, P = 0.770). Newborns with CHD had higher overall readmission rates (39% versus 31%), more GT-related readmission complications (7% versus 3%), and higher readmission costs ($35,787 versus $20,073) compared to newborns without CHD, all P < 0.001. Laparoscopic GT was associated with the lowest rate of GT-related complications (0%) and overall readmission rates (27%) compared to open or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to newborns without CHD, newborns with CHD had higher rates of overall readmissions, readmission costs, and GT-related complications on readmission. The laparoscopic GT approach was underused despite fewer complications and readmissions.