Resuscitation registers: How many active registers are there and how many collect data on paediatric cardiac arrests?

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest, particularly in children, often has a poor outcome and international guidelines highlight significant gaps in the evidence base for effective resuscitation. Whilst randomised controlled trials for some interventions can be justified, they are not appropriate for many aspects of resuscitation. Therefore, guidelines must use other sources of data such as epidemiological evidence from cardiac arrest registries, to improve the efficacy of resuscitation. The aim of our study was to identify existing national cardiac arrest registries and document key information about the registries, including whether they contain data on paediatric arrests. METHODS: Key bibliographic databases were searched for papers about or using data from cardiac arrest registries. Two reviewers independently screened the search results for relevant papers. A list of registers named in the papers was compiled and information obtained from the papers and the websites of registers where possible. RESULTS: Twenty three active national or large regional cardiac arrest registries were identified. These included five international collaborations and 10 registries that cover a population of at least 10 million people. Twelve registries are based in Europe, five in North America, four in Asia and two in Australasia. The registries vary in their organisation, but the majority (20) defer to the Utstein reporting guidelines for cardiac arrest. Registries covered populations between 0.4 and 174.5 million and contained between 100 and 605,505 records. Sixteen collected data on out-of-hospital arrests only; three in-hospital arrests only; and four included both. For ten registers the number of paediatric arrests was available and ranged from 56 to 3900. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this report contains the most complete list of active national and large regional cardiac arrest registries. Register data support current guidelines on effective resuscitation however, even the largest registries include relatively small numbers, particularly of paediatric events. A less fragmented approach has the potential to improve the utility of registration data for the benefit of patients.

Standard versus rapid food reintroduction after exclusive enteral nutritional therapy in paediatric Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: In paediatric Crohn's disease (PCD), 6-8 weeks of exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is effective in 60-80% cases. EEN is followed by gradual food reintroduction over variable (1-5 weeks) periods. Currently, there is no recommended duration or method for food reintroduction. The rationale for slow reintroduction is unclear and may be because of concerns about food intolerance or to maintain longer remission. AIMS: The aims of this study were as follows: to compare relapse rates following standard and rapid reintroduction of food after EEN in PCD and to determine the duration of maintained remission in two groups of PCD patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups with PCD were compared: group A received standard food reintroduction over 5 weeks and group B received rapid reintroduction over 3 days. Data were collected over two consecutive time periods: group A (2005-2009) and group B (2009-2011). Only patients with a new diagnosis of PCD were included. Those with strictures and those on steroids or biologicals during EEN were excluded. The minimum duration of follow-up was 1 year. RESULTS: Group A included 20 patients and group B included 19 patients. In these groups, EEN led to clinical remission in 80% of the patients in group A and in 76% of the patients in group B. At 6 months, one-third of the patients from each group had developed relapse and a year after EEN, 50% of the patients in group A and 47% of the patients in group B developed relapse. Time to first relapse was 188 days (group A) and 136 days (group B). None of these results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In PCD, rapid food reintroduction following 6-week EEN is safe and equally effective as longer food reintroduction. We propose that a rapid food reintroduction schedule be recommended as the most tolerable approach for food reintroduction. Relapse rate and duration of remission are uninfluenced by the type of food reintroduction.