A National Survey of Neonatologists' Perspectives on Probiotics Use in Neonatal Intensive Care Units in the U.S.A.

Introduction: Most recent clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concluded current evidence does not support routine universal administration of probiotics to preterm infants, particularly those with birth weight <1000 grams. Despite this, the use of probiotics is increasing in US neonatal intensive care units (NICU).Objectives: Collaborating with the Perinatal Neonatal Medicine of AAP, we conducted a national survey to obtain neonatologist opinion on probiotics use.Methods: Survey questionnaires were sent to 3000 neonatologists via email.Results: Of 3000 potential respondents, 249 (8.3 %) completed the survey. Seventy-five (30%) neonatologists working in 23 different NICUs reported using probiotics in their practice, while 168 (70%) neonatologists working in 54 different NICUs reported not using probiotics. Of those not currently use probiotics, 49% indicated they would consider using probiotics in the future vs. 12% indicating they would not use probiotics. The most common indication for probiotics use was average gestational age < 32 weeks and mean birth weight < 1500 grams. Probiotics were discontinued at mean gestational age of 35 weeks. Respondents who prescribe probiotics were more likely to work in a setting without fellowship or residency training (48% vs 20%). Probiotics users were more often from the West (29 % vs 7%) and less often from Northeast (5% vs 34%) compared to non-users. The proportion of those using probiotics did not significantly differ by NICU size, NICU level, or years working in a NICU. Similac Tri-Blend, Evivo, and Culturelle were the top three probiotics used in the respondent's NICU.Conclusion: Though a majority of respondents are not currently using probiotics in their NICU, a large number of nonusers are interested in using probiotics in the future. Differences continue to exist in the brand of probiotics used in US NICUs.

Surgery for gallstone ileus: a nationwide comparison of trends and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Gallstone ileus is a mechanical bowel obstruction caused by a biliary calculus originating from a bilioenteric fistula. Because of the limited number of reported cases, the optimal surgical method of treatment has been the subject of ongoing debate. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2009 was performed for gallstone ileus cases treated surgically by enterotomy with stone extraction alone (ES), enterotomy and cholecystectomy with fistula closure (EF), bowel resection alone (BR), and bowel resection with fistula closure (BF). Patient demographics, hospital factors, comorbidities, and postoperative outcomes were reported. Multivariate analysis was performed comparing mortality, morbidity, length of stay, and total cost for the different procedure types. RESULTS: Of the estimated 3,452,536 cases of mechanical bowel obstruction from 2004 to 2009, 3268 (0.095%) were due to gallstone ileus-an incidence lower than previously reported. The majority of patients were elderly women (>70%). ES was the most commonly performed procedure (62% of patients) followed by EF (19% of cases). In 19%, a bowel resection was required. The most common complication was acute renal failure (30.44% of cases). In-hospital mortality was 6.67%. On multivariate analysis, EF and BR were independently associated with higher mortality than ES [(odds ratio [OR] = 2.86; confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-7.07) and (OR = 2.96; CI: 1.26-6.96) respectively]. BR was also associated with a higher complication rate, OR = 1.98 (CI: 1.13-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: Gallstone ileus is a rare surgical disease affecting mainly the elderly female population. Mortality rates appear to be lower than previously reported in the literature. Enterotomy with stone extraction alone appears to be associated with better outcomes than more invasive techniques.

A nationwide analysis of laparoscopy in high-risk colorectal surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Due to safety concerns, the use of laparoscopy in high-risk colorectal surgery patients has been limited. Small reports have demonstrated the benefit of laparoscopy in this population; however, large comparative studies are lacking. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009 was conducted. Patients undergoing elective colorectal resections for benign and malignant pathology were included in the high-risk group if they had at least two of the following criteria: age > 70, obesity, smoking, anemia, congestive heart failure, valvular disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic pulmonary, kidney and liver disease. Using multivariate logistic regression, the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were compared to open and converted surgery. RESULTS: Of 145,600 colorectal surgery cases, 32.79% were high-risk. High-risk patients had higher mortality, hospital charges, and longer hospital stay compared to low-risk patients. The use of laparoscopy was lower in the high-risk group with higher conversion rates. In high-risk patients, compared to open surgery, laparoscopy was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.60), shorter hospital stay, lower charges, decreased respiratory failure (OR = 0.53), urinary tract infection (OR = 0.64), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.69) and wound complications (OR = 0.46). Conversion to open surgery was not associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy in high-risk colorectal patients is safe and may demonstrate advantages compared to open surgery.

Predictive factors of acute renal failure in colon and rectal surgery.

Postoperative acute renal failure (ARF) is a major factor of morbidity and mortality in colon and rectal surgery. The objectives of this study were: 1) to determine the frequency of ARF in colorectal surgery; and 2) to evaluate the impact of patient characteristics, comorbidities, resection type, pathology, surgical technique, and admission type on ARF. Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we examined the clinical data of patients who underwent colon and rectal resection from 2006 to 2008. A total of 975,825 patients underwent colorectal resection during this period. Overall, the rate of ARF was 7.41 per cent (elective surgery: 3.38% vs emergent surgery: 12.99% ; P<0.01). Using multivariate regression analysis, chronic renal failure (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 5.37), emergent operation (AOR, 2.64), total colectomy (AOR, 2.61), age 65 years or older (AOR, 2.02), liver disease (AOR, 1.82), congestive heart failure (AOR, 1.81), alcohol abuse (AOR, 1.67), peripheral vascular disease (AOR, 1.50), obesity (AOR, 1.45), malignant tumor (AOR, 1.44), open operation (AOR, 1.37), male sex (AOR, 1.37), left colectomy (AOR, 1.32), black race (AOR, 1.22), and teaching hospital (AOR, 1.05) were associated with higher risk of ARF. There was no association between hypertension, diabetes, chronic lung disease, smoking, transverse colectomy, proctectomy, diverticulitis, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn's disease and ARF. Chronic renal failure, emergent operation, total colectomy and age 65 years or older are potent independent predictors of ARF. In high-risk circumstances, specific care should be taken to prevent renal insults.

Does laparoscopic appendectomy impart an advantage over open appendectomy in elderly patients?

BACKGROUND: The use of laparoscopy in the elderly has been increasing in recent years. The data comparing laparoscopic (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) in elderly patients are minimal. We evaluated outcomes of LA versus OA in perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years). METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, clinical data of elderly patients who underwent LA and OA for suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated from 2006 to 2008. RESULTS: A total of 65,464 elderly patients underwent urgent appendectomy during this period. The rate of perforated appendicitis was twice as high in elderly patients (50 vs. 25%, p < 0.01) and rate of LA in elderly patients was lower (52 vs. 63%, p < 0.01) compared with patients younger than aged 65 years. Utilization of LA increased 24% from 46.5% in 2006 to 57.8% in 2008 (p < 0.01). In elderly patients with acute nonperforated appendicitis, LA had lower overall complication rate (15.82 vs. 23.49%, p < 0.01), in-hospital mortality (0.39 vs. 1.31%, p < 0.01), hospital charges ($30,414 vs. $34,095, p < 0.01), and mean length of stay (3.0 vs. 4.8 days, p < 0.01) compared with OA. Additionally, in perforated appendicitis in elderly patients, LA was associated with lower overall complication rate (36.27 vs. 46.92%, p < 0.01), in-hospital mortality (1.4 vs. 2.63%, p < 0.01), mean hospital charges ($43,339 vs. $57,943, p < 0.01), and shorter mean LOS (5.8 vs. 8.7 days, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed safely with significant advantages compared with open appendectomy in the elderly and should be considered the procedure of choice for perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in these patients.

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2006-2008.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) remain undefined as compared to open appendectomy (OA) in children, particularly in cases of perforated appendicitis. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes of LA versus OA in perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in children. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, we evaluated the clinical data of children (<18 years old) who underwent LA and OA from 2006 to 2008. Incidental and elective appendectomies were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 212,958 children underwent urgent appendectomy in the United States during these years. The overall rate of perforated appendicitis was 27.7, and 56.9% of all cases were performed laparoscopically. In nonperforated cases, LA was associated with comparable overall complication rate (LA: 2.56 vs. OA: 2.66%; p = 0.26), shorter length of hospital stay (LOS, LA: 1.6 vs. OA: 2.0 days; p < 0.01), comparable mortality (LA: 0.01 vs. OA: 0.02%; p = 0.25); and higher hospital charges (LA: $20,328 vs. OA: $16,830; p < 0.01) compared to OA. In perforated cases, LA had a lower overall complication rate (LA: 16.03 vs. OA: 18.07%; p < 0.01), shorter LOS (LA: 5.1 vs. OA: 5.8 days; p < 0.01), lower mortality (LA: 0.0% versus OA: 0.06%; p < 0.01), and similar hospital charges (LA: $33,361 versus OA: $33, 662; p = 0.71) compared to OA. CONCLUSIONS: LA is safe in children with acute perforated and nonperforated appendicitis, and is associated with shorter hospital stay than OA. The laparoscopic approach is associated with lower morbidity and mortality in perforated cases. However, in nonperforated cases, these benefits are modest and are associated with higher hospital charges.

Predictive factors of splenic injury in colorectal surgery: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2006-2008.

OBJECTIVES: To determine frequency of splenic injury and to evaluate predictive risk factors of splenic injury during colorectal surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. SETTING: The National Inpatient Sample database. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent a colorectal resection during the period from 2006 to 2008 in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient characteristics, patient comorbidities, type of pathology, type of resection, surgical technique used, type of admission, and teaching hospital status were evaluated for splenic injury during colorectal surgery. RESULTS: A total of 975,825 patients underwent colorectal resection during this period. Overall, the rate of splenic injury was 0.96%, of which 84.75% were treated with complete splenectomy (splenorrhaphy, 13.55%; partial splenectomy, 1.70%). The most common procedure associated with splenic injury was transverse colectomy (3.40%). Using multivariate regression analysis, we found that transverse colectomy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 5.30), left colectomy (AOR, 5.08), total colectomy (AOR, 2.85), open operation (AOR, 2.68), malignant tumor (AOR, 2.11), diverticulitis (AOR, 1.93), teaching hospital (AOR, 1.73), male sex (AOR 1.20), peripheral vascular disease (AOR, 1.14), and emergent admission (AOR, 1.06) were associated with a higher risk of splenic injury. There was no association between age, race, hypertension, diabetes, chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, renal failure, liver disease, obesity, sigmoidectomy, proctectomy, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn disease and splenic injury. CONCLUSIONS: Type of resection (transverse, total, or left colectomy), type of pathology (malignancy or diverticulitis), open operation, and teaching hospital are potent independent predictors of splenic injury. Male sex, peripheral vascular disease, and emergent admission are less effective predictors. Surgeons should be aware of these risk factors and inform patients accordingly. In higher-risk circumstances, it may be appropriate to consider prophylactic vaccination.

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2006-2008.

INTRODUCTION: Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is being performed with increased frequency, the utilization of laparoscopy in the management of acute appendicitis remains controversial, and it continues to be used selectively. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate outcomes of LA vs. open appendectomy (OA) in perforated and non-perforated appendicitis in adults. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, clinical data of adults who underwent LA and OA for suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated from 2006 to 2008. Incidental and elective appendectomies were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 573,244 adults underwent urgent appendectomy during these 3 years. Overall, 65.2% of all appendectomies were performed laparoscopically. Utilization of LA increased 23.7% from 58.2% in 2006 to 72.0% in 2008. In acute non-perforated appendicitis, LA had a lower overall complication rate (4.13% vs. 6.39%, p < 0.01), lower in-hospital mortality (0.03% vs. 0.05%, p < 0.01), and shorter mean length of hospital stay (LOS; 1.7 vs. 2.4 days, p < 0.01) compared with OA; however, hospital charges were higher in the LA group ($22,948 vs. $20,944, p < 0.01). Similarly, in perforated appendicitis, LA was associated with a lower overall complication rate (18.75% vs. 26.76%, p < 0.01), lower in-hospital mortality (0.06% vs. 0.31%, p < 0.01), lower mean hospital charges ($32,487 vs. $38,503, p < 0.01), and shorter mean LOS (4.0 vs. 6.0 days, p < 0.01) compared with OA. CONCLUSION: LA is safe and associated with lower morbidity, lower mortality, and shorter hospital stay with acute perforated and non-perforated appendicitis. Also, in perforated cases, LA had an advantage over OA in hospital charges. LA should be considered the procedure of choice for perforated and non-perforated appendicitis in adults.