Proximal Arch in Left Thoracotomy Repair of Neonatal and Infant Coarctation-How Small Is Too Small?

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the relationship between proximal arch hypoplasia and reintervention for left thoracotomy repair of coarctation of the aorta. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 153 consecutive neonates and infants undergoing left thoracotomy and extended end-to-end repair of coarctation from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2014, at a single center with exclusion of single ventricle-palliated patients. Primary outcome was reintervention evaluated with respect to five definitions of proximal arch hypoplasia. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 7.2 years. Reintervention occurred in eight (5.2%) patients, with 50% of patients undergoing re-intervention in the first six months after their index operation. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test, with hypoplasia defined by weight, hypoplasia was not associated with increased reintervention for arch size < patient weight (in kilograms; P = .24) or for arch size < patient weight (in kilograms) +1 (P = .02, higher freedom from reintervention in hypoplasia group). For each of the five comparison groups, freedom from reintervention was similar between the groups with and without proximal arch hypoplasia: (1) z-score < -2 versus ≥-2 (P = .72), (2) z-score < -3 versus ≥-3 (P = .95), and (3) z-score < -4 versus ≥-4 (P = .17). CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients with left thoracotomy and extended end-to-end repair of coarctation, proximal arch hypoplasia, defined by various weight-based or z-score thresholds, was not associated with reintervention. While this may imply value to a more liberal use of thoracotomy, confirmation requires longer term follow-up with a more comprehensive evaluation of the patients and their arches.

Single-Stage Repair of Coarctation of the Aorta and Ventricular Septal Defect: A Comparison of Surgical Strategies and Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare clinical outcomes and resource utilization for two surgical approaches for single-stage repair of coarctation of the aorta and ventricular septal defect (VSD). METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of 21 consecutive neonates and infants undergoing single-stage repair of coarctation of the aorta and VSD. Group 1 included 13 patients with both arch repair and VSD repair completed via sternotomy. Group 2 included eight patients with off-pump arch repair via left thoracotomy followed by repositioning and VSD repair via sternotomy. Primary clinical outcome was arch reintervention. Secondary outcomes included various measures of resource utilization. RESULTS: Group 1 patients demonstrated younger age at repair (median of 10 days vs 57 days for group 2; P = .05) and lower proximal arch z scores (-4.2 vs -2.3 for group 2; P = .003). Arch reintervention occurred in 0 of 8 patients in group 2 and 1 (7.7%) of 13 patients in group 1 ( P = nonsignificant). Group 2 was associated with lower total charges (US$68,301 vs US$211,723 for group 1; P = .0007), shorter length of stay (8 days vs 23 days for group 1; P = .004), and shorter duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation (0.5 days vs 4.0 days for group 1; P = .0008). Group 2 was also associated with shorter total cardiopulmonary bypass time (86 minutes vs 201 minutes for group 1; P = .0009). CONCLUSION: Single-stage two-incision repair of coarctation and VSD in appropriately selected patients may be associated with higher value of care. Confirmation of this finding will require further study based on larger numbers of patients.

Effectiveness of a pediatric verbal lead exposure screening protocol in emergency department patients.

PURPOSE: The population demographics found in many urban emergency departments (EDs) often mirrors those of children at risk for elevated serum lead levels. We evaluated the effectiveness of a verbal lead screening program for screening high-risk children presenting to the ED. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted of children aged 9 months to 6 years, living in 2 target counties and presenting to an urban, academic, Midwestern ED. Those with a prior lead level, enrolled in a program requiring lead testing, or with an unstable medical condition were excluded. A 6-question validated verbal survey was administered to all parents of eligible children, and the results recorded in the patient's electronic medical record. Children who screened positive were referred to their local health department for blood lead testing. Health department records were reviewed for follow-up visits and blood lead levels. RESULTS: During the study period, 3513 children were eligible (mean age, 2.6 years; 53.3% male), with 815 patients screened and 209 (25.6%) screening positive. Most positively screened patients (71.8%) documented only 1 affirmative question, most often indicating they lived in a home built before 1978. Of those children who screened positive, 14.8% (31/209) had a blood lead level performed within 6 months. Of those tested, 4 children had an elevated lead level (>10 µg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an ED verbal lead exposure screening tool identified children requiring additional follow-up testing. However, health department-referred children had poor follow-up, and few children were ultimately documented with elevated lead levels.