What Happens When you Ask for Feedback? Anticipating and Addressing Challenges Can Be Effective for Eliciting Parents' Views About Their Critically Ill Child's Retrieval to Paediatric Intensive Care.

User feedback is an important element of health-service evaluation and can be used to improve services but can be difficult to obtain, particularly in acute care situations. As part of a national study, we explored stakeholders' perspectives on paediatric critical care retrieval processes through questionnaires and interviews. Obtaining feedback in a highly charged, stressful and busy paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) environment is fraught with difficulties so we aimed to optimise each stage of data collection by being both proactive and reactive. Patient and public involvement occurred throughout and engagement with sites and supporting local research staff to approach and recruit families were prioritised. High-quality study materials were developed to reduce local staff burden and promote and maintain study awareness. We describe strategies used and what worked/did not work. We suggest approaches for optimising elicitation of parents' experiences in difficult circumstances, highlighting the importance of engagement and commitment of PICU staff

Cohort profile of the Biomarkers of Acute Serious Illness in Children (BASIC) study: a prospective multicentre cohort study in critically ill children

PURPOSE: Despite significant progress, challenges remain in the management of critically ill children, including early identification of infection and organ failure and robust early risk stratification to predict poor outcome. The Biomarkers of Acute Serious Illness in Children study aims to identify genetic and biological pathways underlying the development of critical illness in infections and organ failure and those leading to poor outcome (death or severe disability) in children requiring emergency intensive care. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited a prospective cohort of critically ill children undergoing emergency transport to four paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in Southeast England between April 2014 and December 2016. FINDINGS TO DATE: During the study period, 1017 patients were recruited by the regional PICU transport team, and blood and urine samples were obtained at/around first contact with the patient by the transport team. Consent for participation in the study was deferred until after PICU admission and 674 parents/carers were consented. Further samples (blood, urine, stool and throat swabs) were collected after consent. Samples were processed and stored for genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic analyses. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data at first contact, during PICU stay and at discharge, were collected, as were detailed data regarding infectious or non-infectious aetiology. In addition, 115 families have completed 12-month validated follow-up questionnaires to assess quality of life and child behaviour.The first phase of sample analyses (transcriptomic profiling) is currently in progress. FUTURE PLANS: Stored samples will be analysed using genomic, proteomic and metabolic profiling. Advanced bioinformatics techniques will be used to identify biomarkers for early diagnosis of infection, identification of organ failure and risk stratification to predict poor outcome (death/severe disability). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03238040

Daily intake of antioxidants in relation to survival among adult patients diagnosed with malignant glioma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Malignant glioma is a rare cancer with poor survival. The influence of diet and antioxidant intake on glioma survival is not well understood. The current study examines the association between antioxidant intake and survival after glioma diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adult patients diagnosed with malignant glioma during 1991-1994 and 1997-2001 were enrolled in a population-based study. Diagnosis was confirmed by review of pathology specimens. A modified food-frequency questionnaire interview was completed by each glioma patient or a designated proxy. Intake of each food item was converted to grams consumed/day. From this nutrient database, 16 antioxidants, calcium, a total antioxidant index and 3 macronutrients were available for survival analysis. Cox regression estimated mortality hazard ratios associated with each nutrient and the antioxidant index adjusting for potential confounders. Nutrient values were categorized into tertiles. Models were stratified by histology (Grades II, III, and IV) and conducted for all (including proxy) subjects and for a subset of self-reported subjects.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Geometric mean values for 11 fat-soluble and 6 water-soluble individual antioxidants, antioxidant index and 3 macronutrients were virtually the same when comparing all cases (n = 748) to self-reported cases only (n = 450). For patients diagnosed with Grade II and Grade III histology, moderate (915.8-2118.3 mcg) intake of fat-soluble lycopene was associated with poorer survival when compared to low intake (0.0-914.8 mcg), for self-reported cases only. High intake of vitamin E and moderate/high intake of secoisolariciresinol among Grade III patients indicated greater survival for all cases. In Grade IV patients, moderate/high intake of cryptoxanthin and high intake of secoisolariciresinol were associated with poorer survival among all cases. Among Grade II patients, moderate intake of water-soluble folate was associated with greater survival for all cases; high intake of vitamin C and genistein and the highest level of the antioxidant index were associated with poorer survival for all cases.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The associations observed in our study suggest that the influence of some antioxidants on survival following a diagnosis of malignant glioma are inconsistent and vary by histology group. Further research in a large sample of glioma patients is needed to confirm/refute our results.</p

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Endocrinologic, neurologic, and visual morbidity after treatment for craniopharyngioma

Craniopharyngiomas are locally aggressive tumors which typically are focused in the sellar and suprasellar region near a number of critical neural and vascular structures mediating endocrinologic, behavioral, and visual functions. The present study aims to summarize and compare the published literature regarding morbidity resulting from treatment of craniopharyngioma. We performed a comprehensive search of the published English language literature to identify studies publishing outcome data of patients undergoing surgery for craniopharyngioma. Comparisons of the rates of endocrine, vascular, neurological, and visual complications were performed using Pearson’s chi-squared test, and covariates of interest were fitted into a multivariate logistic regression model. In our data set, 540 patients underwent surgical resection of their tumor. 138 patients received biopsy alone followed by some form of radiotherapy. Mean overall follow-up for all patients in these studies was 54 ± 1.8 months. The overall rate of new endocrinopathy for all patients undergoing surgical resection of their mass was 37% (95% CI = 33–41). Patients receiving GTR had over 2.5 times the rate of developing at least one endocrinopathy compared to patients receiving STR alone or STR + XRT (52 vs. 19 vs. 20%, χ2P < 0.00001). On multivariate analysis, GTR conferred a significant increase in the risk of endocrinopathy compared to STR + XRT (OR = 3.45, 95% CI = 2.05–5.81, P < 0.00001), after controlling for study size and the presence of significant hypothalamic involvement. There was a statistical trend towards worse visual outcomes in patients receiving XRT after STR compared to GTR or STR alone (GTR = 3.5% vs. STR 2.1% vs. STR + XRT 6.4%, P = 0.11). Given the difficulty in obtaining class 1 data regarding the treatment of this tumor, this study can serve as an estimate of expected outcomes for these patients, and guide decision making until these data are available

Differences in access to Emergency Paediatric Intensive Care and care during Transport (DEPICT): study protocol for a mixed methods study

Introduction Following centralisation of UK paediatric intensive care, specialist retrieval teams were established who travel to general hospitals to stabilise and transport sick children to regional paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). There is national variation among these PICU retrieval teams (PICRTs) in terms of how quickly they reach the patient’s bedside and in the care provided during transport. The impact of these variations on clinical outcomes and the experience of stakeholders (patients, families and healthcare staff) is however unknown. The primary objective of this study is to address this evidence gap. Methods and analysis This mixed-methods project involves the following: (1) retrospective analysis of linked data from routine clinical audits (2014–2016) to assess the impact of service variations on 30-day mortality and other secondary clinical outcomes; (2) a prospective questionnaire study conducted at 24 PICUs and 9 associated PICRTs in England and Wales over a 12-month period in 2018 to collect experience data from parents of transported children as well as qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of patients, parents and staff to assess the impact of service variations on patient/family experience; (3) health economic evaluation analysing transport service costs (and other associated costs) against lives saved and longer term measurements of quality of life at 12 months in transported children and (4) mathematical modelling evaluating the costs and potential impact of different service configurations. A final work stream involves a series of stakeholder workshops to synthesise study findings and generate recommendations. Ethics and dissemination The study has been reviewed and approved by the Health Research Authority, ref: 2 18 569. Study results will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, social media, print and broadcast media, the internet and stakeholder workshops

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health