Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to determine whether perforated appendicitis rates in children were influenced by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surge. BACKGROUND:Disruption of care pathways during a public health crisis may prevent children from obtaining prompt assessment for surgical conditions. Progression of appendicitis to perforation is influenced by timeliness of presentation. In the context of state-mandated controls and public wariness of hospitals, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on perforated appendicitis in children. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:We conducted an analysis of all children presenting to 3 hospital sites with acute appendicitis between March 1 and May 7, 2020, corresponding with the peak COVID-19 outbreak in the New York City region. Control variables were collected from the same institutions for the preceding 5 years. The primary outcome measure was appendiceal perforation. RESULTS:Fifty-five children presented with acute appendicitis over 10 weeks. Compared to a 5-year control cohort of 1291 patients, we observed a higher perforation rate (45% vs 27%, odds ratio 2.23, 95% confidence interval 1.29-3.85, P = 0.005) and longer mean duration of symptoms in children with perforations (71 ± 39 vs 47 ± 27 h, P = 0.001) during the COVID-19 period. There were no differences in perforation rates (55% vs 59%, P = 0.99) or median length of stay (1.0 vs 3.0 days, P = 0.58) among children screening positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS:Children in the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak demonstrated higher rates of perforated appendicitis compared to historical controls. Preoperative detection of SARS-CoV-2 was not associated with inferior outcomes. Although children likely avoid much of the morbidity directly linked to COVID-19, disruption to local healthcare delivery systems may negatively impact other aspects of pediatric surgical disease.

BACKGROUND:Outcomes in neonates receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) and/or persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) are favorable. Infants with preserved perfusion are often offered venovenous (VV) support to spare morbidities of venoarterial (VA) ECMO. Worsening perfusion or circuit complications can prompt conversion from VV-to-VA support. We examined whether outcomes in infants requiring VA ECMO for MAS/PPHN differed if they underwent VA support initially versus converting to VA after a VV trial, and what factors predicted conversion. METHODS:We reviewed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry from 2007 to 2017 for neonates with primary diagnoses of MAS/PPHN. Propensity score analysis matched VA single-runs (controls) 4:1 against VV-to-VA conversions based on age, pre-ECMO pH, and precannulation arrests. Primary outcomes were complications and survival. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact testing. Multivariate regression identified independent predictors of conversion for VV patients. RESULTS:3831 neonates underwent ECMO for MAS/PPHN, including 2129 (55%) initially requiring VA support. Of 1702 patients placed on VV ECMO, 98 (5.8%) required VV-to-VA conversion. Compared with 364 propensity-matched isolated VA controls, conversion runs were longer (190 vs. 127 h, P < 0.001), were associated with more complications, and decreased survival to discharge (70% vs. 83%, P = 0.01). On multivariate regression, conversion was more likely if neonates on VV ECMO did not receive surfactant (OR = 1.7;95%CI = 1.1-2.7;P = 0.03) or required high-frequency ventilation (OR = 1.9;95%CI = 1.2-3.3;P = 0.01) before ECMO. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Conversion from VV-to-VA ECMO in infants with MAS/PPHN conveys increased morbidity and mortality compared to similar patients placed initially onto VA ECMO. VV patients not receiving surfactant or requiring high-frequency ventilation before cannulation may have increased risk of conversion. While conversions remain rare, decisions to offer VV ECMO for MAS/PPHN must be informed by inferior outcomes observed should conversion be required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level of evidence 3 Retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND:There is little consensus regarding the use of postoperative antibiotics in the management of perforated appendicitis in children. Patients are commonly discharged with oral antibiotics after a course of intravenous antibiotics; however, recent literature suggests that patients can be safely discharged without any oral antibiotics. To further evaluate this protocol, we conducted a multicenter retrospective preimplementation/postimplementation study comparing rates of abscess formation and rehospitalization between patients discharged with and without oral antibiotics. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We reviewed the records of all pediatric patients who underwent appendectomies for perforated appendicitis at NYU Tisch Hospital, Bellevue Hospital, and Hackensack University Medical Center from January 2014 to June 2019. Data pertaining to patient demographics, hospital course, intraoperative appearance of the appendix, antibiotic treatment, abscess formation, and rehospitalization were collected. RESULTS:A total of 253 patients were included: 162 received oral antibiotics and 91 did not. The median length of antibiotic treatment (oral and intravenous) was 11 (10-14) d for patients on oral antibiotics and 5 (3-6) d for patients without oral antibiotics (P < 0.01). The median leukocyte count at discharge was 9.5 (7.4-10.9) and 8.1 (6.8-10.4) for these groups, respectively (P = 0.02). Postoperative abscesses occurred in 22% of patients receiving oral antibiotics and 15% of patients on no antibiotics (P = 0.25). Rates of rehospitalization for these groups were 10% and 11%, respectively (P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS:Children who have undergone appendectomy for perforated appendicitis can be safely discharged without oral antibiotics on meeting clinical discharge criteria and white blood cell count normalization.

BACKGROUND:Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) occurs in 1 out of 2500-3000 live births. Right-sided CDHs (R-CDHs) comprise 25% of all CDH cases, and data are conflicting on outcomes of these patients. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes in patients with right versus left CDH (L-CDH). METHODS:We analyzed a multicenter prospectively enrolled database to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes of neonates enrolled from January 2005 to January 2019 with R-CDH vs. L-CDH. RESULTS:A total of 588, 495 L-CDH, and 93 R-CDH patients with CDH were analyzed. L-CDHs were more frequently diagnosed prenatally (p=0.011). Lung-to-head ratio was similar in both cohorts. R-CDHs had a lower frequency of primary repair (p=0.022) and a higher frequency of need for oxygen at discharge (p=0.013). However, in a multivariate analysis, need for oxygen at discharge was no longer significantly different. There were no differences in long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes assessed at two year follow up. There was no difference in mortality, need for ECMO, pulmonary hypertension, or hernia recurrence. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this large series comparing R to L-CDH patients, we found no significant difference in mortality, use of ECMO, or pulmonary complications. Our study supports prior studies that R-CDHs are relatively larger and more often require a patch or muscle flap for repair. TYPE OF STUDY/METHODS:Prognosis study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.