Publications (2)3.95 Total impact
-
Article: Impact of personalized feeding program in 100 NICU infants: pathophysiology-based approach for better outcomes.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In neonatal intensive care unit infants referred for home-tube feeding methods, we evaluated the effect of an innovative diagnostic and management approach on feeding outcomes at discharge and 1 year, by comparing data from historical controls; we hypothesized that clinical and aerodigestive motility characteristics at evaluation were predictive of feeding outcomes at discharge; we assessed the economic impact of feeding outcomes. Patients (N = 100) who were referred for development of long-term feeding management strategy at 46.4 ± 13.1 weeks' postmenstrual age were compared with 50 historical controls that received routine care. The focused approach included swallow-integrated pharyngoesophageal manometry, individualized feeding strategy, and prospective follow-up. Feeding success was defined as ability to achieve oral feedings at discharge and 1 year. Motility characteristics were evaluated in relation to feeding success or failure at discharge. Higher feeding success was achieved in the innovative feeding program (vs historical controls) at discharge (51% vs 10%, P < 0.0001) and at 1 year (84.3% vs 42.9%, P < 0.0001), at a reduced economic burden (P < 0.05). Contributing factors to the innovative program's feeding success (vs feeding failure) were earlier evaluation and discharge (both P < 0.05), greater peristaltic reflex-frequency to provocation (P < 0.05), normal pharyngeal manometry (P < 0.05), oral feeding challenge success (P < 0.05), and suck-swallow-breath-esophageal swallow sequence (P < 0.05). Probability of feeding success demonstrated a prediction rate of 79.6%. Short-term and long-term feeding outcomes in complex neonates can be significantly improved with innovative feeding strategies at a reduced cost. Clinical and aerodigestive motility characteristics were predictive of outcomes.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition 06/2011; 54(1):62-70. · 2.18 Impact Factor -
Article: Pediatric sub-specialist controversies in the treatment of congenital heart disease in trisomy 13 or 18.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Trisomy 13 and 18 are associated with congenital heart disease. Cardiac palliation has been reported in the literature, but is not usually done in this population. Thus, a multi-disciplinary team may experience controversy in formulating a care plan that includes cardiac intervention. Our objective was to determine differences in recommendations for cardiac intervention in this population between physicians specializing in pediatric cardiac critical care, neonatology, and genetics. A web-based survey was performed between April 2007 and August 2008. This survey evaluated surgical and transcatheter cardiac palliations that had been performed for individuals with trisomy 13 or 18 at the respondent's institution, the respondent's recommendations for cardiac intervention in hypothetical symptomatic patients with trisomy 13 or trisomy 18 and the influence of parental preference on these recommendations. Eight hundred fifty-nine responses were obtained from a primarily academic practice setting (59%). Cardiologists were most likely to recommend intervention; low risk interventions were recommended by 32% of cardiologists, 7% of neonatologists and 20% of geneticists. Parental request to intervene resulted in a 3 fold increased in the likelihood of all specialist recommending intervention. Counseling of families frequently occurred by multiple sub specialists (50%) and there was frequently (71%) a difference in opinion. Individuals with trisomy 13 or 18 are receiving cardiac intervention at many institutions. Cardiologists were more likely than geneticists or neonatologists to recommend intervention on all heart lesions other than single ventricle palliation which no specialists recommended. Parental wishes that "everything be done" significantly influenced all specialists' recommendations.Journal of Genetic Counseling 05/2011; 20(5):495-509. · 1.77 Impact Factor
