Background For critically ill congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) patients on high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and/or inhaled nitric oxide (iNO), operative repair in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) has been proposed to avoid complications during transport to an operating room (OR). This study compared neonates with CDH who received herniorrhaphy in the NICU or OR, with a subgroup analysis considering only patients supported with ECMO. Methods Patients admitted to the NICU in the first 2 weeks of life at a free-standing children’s hospital between July 2004 and September 2021 were examined. Patients were categorized according to location of CDH repair, and impact on operative complications and survival was compared. Results 185 patients were admitted to the NICU with posterolateral CDH and received operative repair. 48 cases were operated on at the bedside in the NICU and 137 in the OR. Patients repaired in the NICU had higher use of HFOV, pulmonary vasodilators, and ECMO (all P < .001). Children repaired in the NICU experienced significantly higher in-hospital death and overall mortality ( P < .001). However, in multivariate analysis, repair location was not a significant predictor of survival to discharge in patients receiving ECMO. No significant difference in surgical site infection was detected for operative location ( P = .773). Discussion Congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair in the NICU occurred more frequently among higher risk patients who experienced worse survival. The rate of surgical site infection appeared similar overall and across subgroups suggesting adequate sterility and technique for bedside procedures, when necessary, despite restricted access to advanced operative equipment.
Introduction Victims of violence (VoV) are at disproportionate risk for future violence, making consideration of patient safety by Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians and Trauma Surgeons (TS) essential when discharge planning (DP) for VoV. Practice patterns and ethical perspectives in DP for VoV, and their respective scenario- and specialty-specific variations, are unknown. Methods We surveyed 118 EM and 37 TS physicians at a level 1 trauma center. Three clinical scenarios were presented (intimate partner violence, elder abuse, gun violence), each followed by four questions assessing practices and ethical dilemmas in DP. Responses were compared using Chi-Square testing. Results Response rate was 51.6%. EM physicians more frequently supported patient autonomy to proceed with a potentially unsafe discharge plan after an episode of Intimate Partner Violence ( P = .013) and believed that admission could facilitate change in the victim’s social situation after an episode of Elder Abuse ( P = .026). TS physicians were more likely to offer social admission, providing additional time to navigate safe discharge planning ( P = .003), less likely to see social admission as an inappropriate use of limited resources ( P = .030) and less likely to support patient autonomy to proceed with a potentially unsafe discharge ( P = .003) after gun-related violence. Conclusion There appears to exist scenario- and specialty-specific variability in the practice patterns and ethical perspectives of EM and TS physicians when discharge planning for victims of violence. These findings highlight the need for further evaluation of specific factors underlying variability by situation and specialty, and their implications for patient-centered outcomes.
Background Hemorrhaging trauma patients may be disproportionately affected by choice of induction agent during rapid sequence intubation (RSI). Etomidate, ketamine, and propofol are safe in the trauma population-at-large but have not been assessed in patients with ongoing hemorrhage. We hypothesize that in hemorrhaging patients with penetrating injury, propofol deleteriously affects peri-induction hypotension compared to etomidate and ketamine. Methods Retrospective cohort study. Primary outcome was the effect of induction agent on peri-induction systolic blood pressure. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of peri-induction vasopressor use and quantity of peri-induction blood transfusion requirements. Linear multivariate regression modeling assessed the effect of induction agent on the variables of interest. Results 169 patients were included, 146 received propofol and 23 received etomidate or ketamine. Univariate analysis revealed no difference in peri-induction systolic blood pressure (P = .53), peri-induction vasopressor administration (P = .62), or transfusion requirements within the first hour after induction (PRBC P = .24, FFP P = .19, PLT P = .29). Choice of RSI agent did not independently predict peri-induction systolic blood pressure or blood product administration. Rather, only presenting shock index independently predicted peri-induction hypotension. Conclusions This is the first study to directly assess the peri-induction effects of anesthetic induction agent choice in penetrating trauma patients undergoing emergent hemorrhage control surgery. Propofol does not appear to worsen peri-induction hypotension regardless of dose. Patient physiology is most predictive of peri-induction hypotension.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.