Tracheostomy placement in infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia: Safety and outcomes
Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. . Pediatric Pulmonology
(Impact Factor: 2.7).
03/2013; 48(3). DOI: 10.1002/ppul.22572
Optimizing the timing and safety for the placement of a tracheostomy in infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) has not been determined. The purpose of the present study was to describe the data from a single institution about the efficacy and safety of tracheostomy placement in infants with BPD needing long-term respiratory support. We established a service line for the comprehensive care of infants with BPD and we collected retrospective clinical data from this service line. We identified patients that had a trachostomy placed using the local Vermont-Oxford database, and obtained clinical data from chart reviews. We identified infants who had a tracheostomy placed for the indication of severe BPD only. Safety and respiratory efficacy was assessed by overall survival to discharge and the change in respiratory supportive care from just before placement to 1-month post-placement. Twenty-two patients (750 ± 236 g, 25.4 ± 2.1 weeks gestation) had a tracheostomy placed on day of life 177 ± 74 which coincided with a post-conceptual age of 51 ± 10 weeks. At placement these infants were on high settings to support their lung disease. The mean airway pressure (MAP) was 14.3 ± 3.3 cmH2O, the peak inspiratory pressure was 43.7 ± 8.0 cmH2O, and the FiO2 was 0.51 ± 0.13. The mean respiratory severity score (MAP × FiO2) 1 month after tracheostomy was significantly (P = 0.03) lower than prior to tracheostomy. Survival to hospital discharge was 77%. All patients with tracheostomies that survived were discharged home on mist collar supplemental oxygen. In conclusion, the high survival rate in these patients with severe BPD and the decreased respiratory support after placement of a tracheostomy suggests that high ventilatory pressures should not be a deterrent for placement of a tracheostomy. Future research should be aimed at determining optimal patient selection and timing for tracheostomy placement in infants with severe BPD. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2013; 48:245–249.
Available from: Alan Fujii
01/2013; s13(01). DOI:10.4172/2161-105X.S13-e001
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
To examine the functional outcomes of children who underwent a tracheostomy in the initial hospitalization after birth and to determine their correlates.
We administered the validated 43-item Functional Status-II (FS-II) questionnaire by Stein and Jessop over the telephone to caregivers of surviving children. The FS-II items generated a total score, age-specific: (1) total; (2) general health (GH); and (3) responsiveness, activity, or interpersonal functioning (IPF) scores in specific age group categories.
FS-II was administered to 51/62 (82.2%) survivors at a median (range) age of 5 (1-10) years; 27% children were on the ventilator and 43% required devices. About 40% of children had a median of 1 (1-4) hospitalization in the previous 6 months. Scores were >2 SD below means in 55%, 24%, and 55% cases for age-specific T, GH, and R/A/IPF scores respectively. The T and R/A/IPF scales were significantly higher in those with private, rather than public, maternal insurance, as were T and R/A/IPF scores for children ≥ 4 years, compared with younger children. On regression analysis, FS-II T, GH, and R/A/IPF scores were independently associated with maternal private insurance (P = .02). R/A/IPF scores were also significantly associated with corrected age at FS-II administration.
One-third of surviving children who underwent tracheostomy during their initial hospitalization remained technology-dependent. The parental FS-II questionnaires revealed low R/A/IPF scores, especially at younger ages and in those with maternal public insurance. Further research on family-level interventions to improve functional outcomes in this population is warranted.
The Journal of pediatrics 05/2013; 163(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.03.075 · 3.79 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: To compare short-term outcomes of infants who underwent early versus late tracheostomy during their initial hospitalization after birth and determine the association, if any, between tracheostomy timing and outcomes. Study Design: Retrospective chart review of infants who underwent a tracheostomy during their initial hospitalization at a single site. Results: The median (range) gestational age of our cohort (n=127) was 28 (23-42) weeks and birth weight was 988 (390-4030) grams. Tracheostomy indications included airway lesions (47%), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (25%), both (22%) and others (6%). Median postmenstrual age (PMA) at tracheostomy was 45 (35-75) weeks. Death occurred in 27 (21%) infants and 65 (51%) infants were mechanically ventilated. G-tube was present at discharge in 42 (33%) infants. Infants who underwent early tracheostomy (< 45 weeks PMA) (n=66) had significantly lower gestational ages, weights and respiratory support than the late (≥ 45 weeks PMA) (n=61) group. Death (29.5% vs.14%), home ventilation (41% vs. 21%) and G tube (44% vs. 14%) were significantly more frequent in the late tracheostomy group. On bivariate regression, outcomes were not independently associated with tracheostomy timing, after adjustment for gestational age and respiratory support. Conclusions: Of infants who underwent tracheostomy during the initial hospitalization after birth, 21% died. On adjusted analysis, tracheostomy timing was not independently associated with outcomes.
The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine: the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians 11/2013; 27(12). DOI:10.3109/14767058.2013.860438 · 1.37 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.