Safe parenteral nutrition and the role of standardised feeds

Workload pressure on pharmacies through increased demands for parenteral nutrition (PN) is leading to a growing trend in the use of commercially manufactured PN (‘standard feeds’) and away from individually ‘tailored’ prescriptions. This is sometimes justified on grounds of safety, although many areas of risk remain inherent in the process of PN provision. In fact there is little to suggest that widespread introduction of standard feeds would do much to further reduce the already low frequency of serious adverse events. The relative clinical benefits of providing standard feeds or tailored feeds have not been adequately studied, making it impossible to give a clear endorsement of one system over the other. It seems probable that for a proportion of stable patients a range of standard feeds could provide adequate nutritional support, while in unstable patients with complex needs and those needing long term PN, tailored feeds appear the more logical choice. Pharmacy compounding units, therefore, need to remain flexible in their approach to PN provision. Since even small variations in nutrient intake in early life may have long lasting implications for extremely premature infants the processes of formulating and providing PN deserve further study

Research priorities in pediatric parenteral nutrition: a consensus and perspective from ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN

We acknowledge all the authors of the ESPGHAN/ESPR/ESPEN/CSPEN pediatric parenteral nutrition guidelines for their contributions and vote (Christian Braegger, University Children’s Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland; Jiri Bronsky, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic; Cristina Campoy, Department of Paediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain; Magnus Domellof, Department of Clinical Sciences, Pediatrics, Umeå University, Sweden; Nicholas Embleton, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Mary Fewtrell, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK; Natasa Fidler, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Axel Franz, University Children’s Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany; Oliver Goulet, University Sordonne-Paris-Cite; Paris-Descartes Medical School, Paris, France; Corina Hartmann, Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, Petach Tikva, Israel and Carmel Medical Center, Israel; Susan Hill, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK; Iva Hojsak, Children’s Hospital Zagreb, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, University of J. J. Strossmayer School of Medicine Osijek, Croatia; Sylvia Iacobelli, CHU La Reunion, Saint Pierre, France; Frank Jochum, Ev. Waldkrankenhaus Spandau, Berlin, Germany; Koen Joosten, Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery, Intensive Care, Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Sanja Kolacek, Children’s Hospital, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia; Alexandre Lapillone, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France; Szimonetta Lohner, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pecs, Pecs, Hungary; Dieter Mesotten, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Walter Mihatsch, Ulm University, Ulm, and Helios Hospital, Pforzheim, Germany; Francis Mimouni, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, The Wilf Children’s Hospital, the Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, and the Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Christian Molgaard, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, and Paediatric Nutrition Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Sissel Moltu, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Antonia Nomayo, Ev. Waldkrankenhaus Spandau, Berlin, Germany; John Puntis, The General Infirmary at Leeds, Leeds, UK; Arieh Riskin, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel; Miguel Saenz de Pipaon, Department of Neonatology, La Paz University Hospital, Red de Salud Materno Infantil y Desarrollo e SAMID, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Raanan Shamir, Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, Petach Tikva, Israel; Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Peter Szitanyi, General University Hospital, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic; Merit Tabbers, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Chris van den Akker, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Hans van Goudoever, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Sacha Verbruggen, Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery, Intensive Care, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Cai Wei, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; Weihui Yan, Department of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China) and the members of the ESPR Section on Nutrition, Gastroenterology and Metabolism (Fredrik Ahlsson, Uppsala University Children’s Hospital and Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Sertac Arslanoglu, Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey; Wolfgang Bernhard, Department of Neonatology, Children’s Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Eberhard-Karls- University, Tübingen, Germany; Janet Berrington, Newcastle Neonatal Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Signe Bruun, Hans Christian Andersen Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Christoph Fusch, Department of Pediatrics, Paracelsus Medical School, General Hospital of Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany; Shalabh Garg, South Tees Hospitals, Middlesborough, UK; Maria Gianni, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Ann Hellstrom, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Claus Klingenberg, Department of Pediatrics and Adolescence Medicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway; Helen Mactier, Neonatal Unit, Princess Royal Maternity Hospital, Glasgow, UK; Neena Modi, Section of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Chelsea and Westminster Campus, Imperial College London, London, UK; Niels Rochow, Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Paola Rogerro, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Umberto Simeoni, Division of Pediatrics, CHUV & University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Atul Singhal, Paediatric Nutrition, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.; Ulrich Thome, Department of Neonatology, Universitatsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Anne Twomey, Department of Neonatology, The National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; Mireille Vanpee, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Gitte Zachariassen, Hans Christian Andersen Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark) for their vote.Parenteral nutrition is used to treat children that cannot be fully fed by the enteral route. While the revised ESPGHAN/ ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN pediatric parenteral nutrition guidelines provide clear guidance on the use of parenteral nutrition in neonates, infants, and children based on current available evidence, they have helped to crystallize areas where research is lacking or more studies are needed in order to refine recommendations. This paper collates and discusses the research gaps identified by the authors of each section of the guidelines and considers each nutrient or group of nutrients in turn, together with aspects around delivery and organization. The 99 research priorities identified were then ranked in order of importance by clinicians and researchers working in the field using a survey methodology. The highest ranked priority was the need to understand the relationship between total energy intake, rapid catch-up growth, later metabolic function, and neurocognitive outcomes. Research into the optimal intakes of macronutrients needed in order to achieve optimal outcomes also featured prominently. Identifying research priorities in PN should enable research to be focussed on addressing key issues. Multicentre trials, better definition of exposure and outcome variables, and long-term metabolic and developmental follow-up will be key to achieving this

A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers

Background. Treatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers. Methods. The CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-hour focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method. Results. The focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities and record keeping. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment. Conclusions. The CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Improved Medical Treatment and Surgical Surveillance of Children and Adolescents with Ulcerative Colitis in the United Kingdom

This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases following peer review. The version of record, Auth, M. K.-K., et al. (2018). "Improved Medical Treatment and Surgical Surveillance of Children and Adolescents with Ulcerative Colitis in the United Kingdom." Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: izy042-izy042. is available online at:https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izy042Background: Pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) presents at an earlier age and increasing prevalence. Our aim was to examine morbidity, steroid sparing strategies, and surgical outcome in children with active UC. Methods: A national prospective audit was conducted for the inpatient period of all children with UC for medical or surgical treatment in the United Kingdom (UK) over 1 year. Thirty-two participating centers recruited 224 children in 298 admissions, comparisons over 6 years were made with previous audits. Results: Over 6 years, recording of Paediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) score (median 65)(23% to 55%, P < 0.001), guidelines for acute severe colitis (43% to 77%, P < 0.04), and ileal pouch surgery registration (4% to 56%, P < 0.001) have increased. Corticosteroids were given in 183/298 episodes (61%) with 61/183 (33%) not responding and requiring second line therapy or surgery. Of those treated with anti-TNFalpha (16/61, 26%), 3/16 (18.8%) failed to respond and required colectomy. Prescription of rescue therapy (26% to 49%, P = 0.04) and proportion of anti-TNFalpha (20% to 53%, P = 0.03) had increased, colectomy rate (23.7% to 15%) was not significantly reduced (P = 0.5). Subtotal colectomy was the most common surgery performed (n = 40), and surgical complications from all procedures occurred in 33%. In 215/224 (96%) iron deficiency anemia was detected and in 51% treated, orally (50.2%) or intravenously (49.8%). Conclusions: A third of children were not responsive to steroids, and a quarter of these were treated with anti-TNFalpha. Colectomy was required in 41/298 (13.7%) of all admissions. Our national audit program indicates effectiveness of actions taken to reduce steroid dependency, surgery, and iron deficiency. 10.1093/ibd/izy042_video1izy042.video15769503407001.Dr Richard K Russell is supported by an NHS Scotland Research Senior fellowship. Linda J Williams has been supported by the Royal College of Physicians

The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

Superior vena cava thrombosis causing respiratory obstruction successfully resolved by stenting in a small bowel transplant candidate

A 4 year old child was referred for small bowel transplantation. He had superior vena cava obstruction secondary to numerous central venous line placements; alternative routes for long term central venous access were compromised by extensive venous occlusive disease. Patency for the superior vena cava was re-established with stenting, which allowed for radiological placement of another central venous line.
 Long term survival in infants and young children with intestinal failure is dependent on adequate central venous access for the administration of parenteral nutrition. Line sepsis and physical damage to the catheter often necessitates multiple central venous catheter placements during their early life and these children are at risk of catheter related veno-occlusive disease. Recurrent sepsis and the loss of satisfactory venous access for the administration of parenteral nutrition is life threatening and is an indication for intestinal transplantation in up to 41% of patients reported by the small bowel registry.