ObjectiveTo describe a series of children who were hospitalized for a tube-weaning program in the general pediatric ward of a pediatric tertiary university hospital: describe our method, to determine the success rate of our inpatient pediatric tube weaning program, and search for relevant factors linked to its success or failure.MethodWe analyzed the medical files of consecutive children who were hospitalized for gastric-tube weaning over an 8-year period. We analyzed outcomes in terms of feeding and growth with at least 2 years of data. Success (weaning within 3 months) and failure were compared by characteristics of children.ResultsWe included 37 children (29 females) with mean (SD) age 31.4 (21) months. Most had a severe medical history (30% prematurity; 50% intrauterine growth restriction, 50% neurological and genetic anomalies). The weaning program was successful for half of the children. Factors linked to success of the program were female sex (p = 0.0188), normal neurodevelopment (p = 0.0016), nasogastric tube (p = 0.0098), and with <24 months on EF before the stay (p = 0.0309).DiscussionComparing the efficiency of various methods and results among teams was difficult, which indicates the need to establish consensus about the outcome criteria. We confirm the need for these types of stays and programs.

Background: Behavioral problems are an important issue for people with CHARGE syndrome. The similarity of their behavioral traits with those of people with autism raises questions. In a large national cross-sectional study, we used specific standardized tools for diagnosing autism (Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, DSM-5) and evaluating behavioral disorders (Developmental Behavior Checklist-Parents, DBC-P) to investigate a series of individuals with CHARGE syndrome, defined by Verloes's criteria. We evaluated their adaptive functioning level and sensory particularities and extracted several data items from medical files to assess as potential risk factors for autism and/or behavioral disorders. Results: We investigated 64 individuals with CHARGE syndrome (35 females; mean age 10.7 years, SD 7.1 years). Among 46 participants with complete results for the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), 13 (28%) had a diagnosis of autism according to the ADI-R, and 25 (54%) had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) according to the DSM-5 criteria. The frequency of autistic traits in the entire group was a continuum. We did not identify any risk factor for ASD but found a negative correlation between the ADI-R score and adaptive functioning level. Among 48 participants with data for the DBC-P, 26 (55%) had behavioral disorders, which were more frequent in patients with radiological brain anomalies, impaired adaptive functioning, later independent walking, and more sensory particularities. Conclusions: ASD should be considered to be an independent risk requiring early screening and management in children born with CHARGE syndrome.