The "Things We Do for No Reason" (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent "black and white" conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion. informed the parents that the infant would be observed in the hospital for 48 hours while monitoring the bacterial cultures. Is it necessary for the hospitalization of this child to last a full 48 hours?
Background
Bamlanivimab and etesevimab had been granted emergency use authorization in children under 12 years who are at risk of progression from mild/moderate coronavirus disease 2019 to severe disease and hospitalization.
Case report
We report on a 5-year-old white male with preexisting conditions, predisposing him to severe disease, who developed hypoxia and flushing 3 minutes into his infusion, thus meeting the criteria for anaphylaxis.
Conclusions
We believe this patient developed either an immunoglobulin E-mediated anaphylactic or a non-immunoglobulin E-mediated anaphylactoid reaction to bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which is an important possibility to consider on administration.
Objective: Our aim is to (1) ascertain the proportion of pediatric patients at a tertiary hospital in Western Massachusetts over a 10-year period with hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) of particular characteristics and (2) determine whether ACCP or Cincinnati Children’s guidelines would have recommended VTE prophylaxis in these patients. Setting: Urban teaching hospital in the United States. Participants: Data from 98 477 pediatric hospital admissions (roughly 10 000 admission per year) from 2008 to 2017 were reviewed. There were a total of 177 VTE cases identified. Outcome measures: Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism). Result: 177 charts were extracted that carried the diagnosis of VTE based on ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes over a 10-year-period. Among these patients, 34 (19%) met the inclusion criteria for HA-VTE; 5 (16%) would qualify for prophylaxis according to ACCP and 7 (21%) according to Cincinnati Children’s guideline. The most common age group to have a VTE was infants under 1 year of age (41%), and the most common characteristic was the presence of a central line (82%). Age outside of the recommended range was the sole reason that excluded patients from prophylaxis qualification per Cincinnati Children’s. Conclusion: HA-VTE carries increased morbidity and mortality. Although recognition and prevention of HA-VTE in adult populations are routine, prophylaxis for pediatric HA-VTE is not commonly practiced. This may be due to paucity of strong evidence supporting prophylaxis and the challenge of identifying risk factors for HA-VTE. Our results suggest that published guidelines recommend prophylaxis in only a minority of pediatric patients who would have subsequently developed HA-VTE. Further modification and validation of current guidelines are needed to effectively prevent pediatric HA-VTE.
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.