Retrospective analysis of neurological findings in esophageal atresia: Allostatic load of disease complexity, cumulative sedation, and anesthesia exposure.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge regarding the impact of perioperative critical care on frequency of neurological imaging findings following esophageal atresia (EA) repair. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of infants (n = 70) following EA repair at a single institution (2009-2020). Sex, gestational age at birth, type of surgical repair, underlying disease severity, and frequency of neurologic imaging findings were obtained. We quantified the length of postoperative pain/sedation treatment and anesthesia exposure in the first year of life. Data were presented as numerical sums and percentages, while associations were measured using Spearman's Rho. RESULTS: Vertebral/spinal cord imaging was performed in all infants revealing abnormalities in 44% (31/70). Cranial/brain imaging findings were identified in 67% (22/33) of infants in the context of clinically indicated imaging (47%; 33/70). Long-gap EA patients (n = 16) received 10 times longer postoperative pain/sedation treatment and twice the anesthesia exposure compared with short-gap EA patients (n = 54). The frequency of neurologic imaging findings did not correlate with underlying disease severity scores, length of pain/sedation treatment, or cumulative anesthesia exposure. Lack of associations between clinical measures and imaging findings should be interpreted with caution given possible underestimation of cranial/brain findings. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that all infants with EA undergo brain imaging in addition to routine spinal imaging given the high burden of abnormal brain/cranial findings in our cohort. Quantification of pain/sedation and anesthesia exposure in long-gap EA patients could be used as indirect markers in future studies assessing the risk of neurological sequelae as evidenced by early abnormalities on brain imaging.

From the Ground Up: Esophageal Atresia Types, Disease Severity Stratification and Survival Rates at a Single Institution.

Esophageal atresia (EA), although a rare congenital anomaly, represents one of the most common gastrointestinal birth defects. There is a gap in our knowledge regarding the impact of perioperative critical care in infants born with EA. This study addresses EA types, disease severity stratification, and mortality in a retrospective cohort at a single institution. Institutional Review Board approved our retrospective cross-sectional study of term-born (n = 53) and premature infants (28-37 weeks of gestation; n = 31) that underwent primary surgical repair of EA at a single institution from 2009-2020. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from the electronic medical record, Powerchart (Cerner, London, UK). Patients were categorized by (i) sex, (ii) gestational age at birth, (iii) types of EA (in relation to respiratory tract anomalies), (iv) co-occurring congenital anomalies, (v) severity of disease (viz. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and Pediatric Risk Assessment (PRAm) scores), (vi) type of surgical repair for EA (primary anastomosis vs. Foker process), and (vii) survival rate classification using Spitz and Waterston scores. Data were presented as numerical sums and percentages. The frequency of anatomical types of EA in our cohort parallels that of the literature: 9.5% (8/84) type A, 9.5% (8/84) type B, 80% (67/84) type C, and 1% (1/84) type D. Long-gap EA accounts for 88% (7/8) type A, 75% (6/8) type B, and 13% (9/67) type C in the cohort studied. Our novel results show a nearly equal distribution of sex per each EA type, and gestational age (term-born vs. premature) by anatomical EA type. PRAm scoring showed a wider range of disease severity (3-9) than ASA scores (III and IV). The survival rate in our EA cohort dramatically increased in comparison to the literature in previous decades. This retrospective analysis at a single institution shows incidence of EA per sex and gestational status for anatomical types (EA type A-D) and by surgical approach (primary anastomosis vs. Foker process for short-gap vs. long-gap EA, respectively). Despite its wider range, PRAm score was not more useful in predicting disease severity in comparison to ASA score. Increased survival rates over the last decade suggest a potential need to assess unique operative and perioperative risks in this unique population of patients. Presented findings also represent a foundation for future clinical studies of outcomes in infants born with EA.