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

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

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

The need for nutrition support teams in pediatric units:a commentary by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition

The reported prevalence of malnutrition in pediatric hospitals ranges from 15% to 30% of patients, with an impact on growth, morbidity and mortality. Major deficits in nutrition care have been highlighted in European hospitals, and the implementation of nutrition support teams (NSTs) has been suggested as a means to improve malnutrition diagnosis and nutrition care for hospitalized patients. This comment by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition reviews disease related-mechanisms causing malnutrition and consequences of malnutrition and suggests a framework for implementation of NSTs in pediatric units. The recommendations by the Committee on Nutrition include: 1) Implementation of NSTs in hospitals is recommended to improve nutritional management of sick children; 2) The main tasks of the NST should include screening for nutritional risk, identification of patients who require nutritional support, provision of adequate nutritional management, education and training of hospital staff and audit of practice; 3) The NST should be multidisciplinary, with expertise in all aspects of clinical nutrition care; 4) The funds needed to support NSTs should be raised from the health care system; and 5) Further research is needed to evaluate the effects of NSTs in prevention and management of pediatric nutritional disorders, including cost effectiveness in different settings

Prebiotic oligosaccharides in dietetic products for infants: A commentary by the ESPGHAN committee on nutrition

This article by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition summarizes available information on the effects of adding prebiotic oligosaccharides to infant and follow-on formulae. Currently there are only limited studies evaluating prebiotic substances in dietetic products for infants. Although administration of prebiotic oligosaccharides has the potential to increase the total number of bifidobacteria in feces and may also soften stools, there is no published evidence of clinical benefits of adding prebiotic oligosaccharides to dietetic products for infants. Data on oligosaccharide mixtures in infant formulae do not demonstrate adverse effects, but further evaluation is recommended. Combinations and dosages in addition to those so far studied need to be fully evaluated with respect to both safety and efficacy before their use in commercial infant food products. Well-designed and carefully conducted randomized controlled trials with relevant inclusion/exclusion criteria, adequate sample sizes and validated clinical outcome measures are needed both in preterm and term infants. Future trials should define optimal quantity and types of oligosaccharides with prebiotic function, optimal dosages and duration of intake, short and long term benefits and safety. At the present time, therefore, the Committee takes the view that no general recommendation on the use of oligosaccharide supplementation in infancy as a prophylactic or therapeutic measure can be made

Correction to: Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background A reliable system for grading operative difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy would standardise descrip-tion of findings and reporting of outcomes. The aim of this study was to validate a difficulty grading system (Nassar scale), testing its applicability and consistency in two large prospective datasets. Methods Patient and disease-related variables and 30-day outcomes were identified in two prospective cholecystectomy databases: the multi-centre prospective cohort of 8820 patients from the recent CholeS Study and the single-surgeon series containing 4089 patients. Operative data and patient outcomes were correlated with Nassar operative difficultly scale, using Kendall’s tau for dichotomous variables, or Jonckheere–Terpstra tests for continuous variables. A ROC curve analysis was performed, to quantify the predictive accuracy of the scale for each outcome, with continuous outcomes dichotomised, prior to analysis. Results A higher operative difficulty grade was consistently associated with worse outcomes for the patients in both the reference and CholeS cohorts. The median length of stay increased from 0 to 4 days, and the 30-day complication rate from 7.6 to 24.4% as the difficulty grade increased from 1 to 4/5 (both p < 0.001). In the CholeS cohort, a higher difficulty grade was found to be most strongly associated with conversion to open and 30-day mortality (AUROC = 0.903, 0.822, respec-tively). On multivariable analysis, the Nassar operative difficultly scale was found to be a significant independent predictor of operative duration, conversion to open surgery, 30-day complications and 30-day reintervention (all p < 0.001). Conclusion We have shown that an operative difficulty scale can standardise the description of operative findings by multiple grades of surgeons to facilitate audit, training assessment and research. It provides a tool for reporting operative findings, disease severity and technical difficulty and can be utilised in future research to reliably compare outcomes according to case mix and intra-operative difficulty