Impact of Blood Sampling Methods on Blood Loss and Transfusion After Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to assess the impact of the closed-loop sampling method on blood loss and the need for blood transfusion in pediatric patients following cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: A single tertiary center. PARTICIPANTS: All pediatric patients younger than 4 years old who were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) after cardiac surgery were enrolled. The study included 100 pediatric patients in the conservative (postimplementation) group and 43 pediatric patients in the nonconservative group (preimplementation). INTERVENTIONS: Observational. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the volume of blood loss during the PICU follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were the requirement for blood transfusion in each group, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, and mortality. MAIN RESULTS: In the conservative (postimplementation) group, blood loss during the follow-up period was 0.67 (0.33-1.16) mL/kg/d, while it was 0.95 (0.50-2.30) mL/kg/d in the nonconservative (preimplementation) group, demonstrating a significant reduction in blood loss in the conservative group (p = 0.012). The groups showed no significant differences in terms of the required blood transfusion volume postoperatively during the first 24 hours, first 48 hours, or after 48 hours (p = 0.061, 0.536, 0.442, respectively). The frequency of blood transfusion was comparable between the groups during the first 24 hours, first 48 hours, or after 48 hours postoperatively (p = 0.277, 0.639, 0.075, respectively). In addition, the groups did not show significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The closed-loop sampling method can be efficient in decreasing blood loss during postoperative PICU follow-up for pediatric patients after cardiac surgeries. However, its application did not reduce the frequency or the volume of blood transfusion in these patients.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on hand hygiene adherence among pediatric physicians, in Saudi Arabia.

Introduction: The hand hygiene practice (HHP) is the most effective and simplest preventive measure to reduce the risk of infection. HHP is more relevant among pediatric physicians in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic since, children are more vulnerable to infection. Therefore, assessment of the COVID-19 impact on HHP could be useful in minimizing lethal virus transmission from pediatric physicians to patients and vice versa. Method: The present cross-sectional, electronically self-administered supplement based survey study was conducted among different professional levels of pediatric physicians involving consultants, specialists, and residents. The supplement includes information related to demography, knowledge, awareness, preventive measures, demonstration and practice of HHP. The information was collected and summarized on a Microsoft excel sheet before being imported to SPSS for statistical analysis. Results: Of the total (N = 404) pediatric physicians, 56.68% male, 43.06% belongs to 25-35 years, 42.32% were consultants, 98.01% respondents were familiar with five moments of HHP. Further, HHP immediately before touching patients (99.26%), clean/aseptic procedure (95.04%), after body fluid exposure (72.28%), after touching patients (98.01%), after touching surrounding of patients (74.75%) may prevent germ transmission to patients whereas HHP after touching patients (98.27%), before clean/aseptic procedure (67.57%), after exposure to immediate surroundings of patients (97.02%) may prevent germ transmission to pediatric physicians. Rubbing hands is preferred before palpation of abdomen (74.25%), before giving injection (56.68%), after removing gloves (61.88%), after making a patient's bed (47.80%), while washing of hands preferred after emptying bedpan (67.82%) and after visible exposure to blood (84.40%), 92.57% believed gloves can't replace HHP, posters display at point of care as reminders (95.30%), received frequent HHP education (82.92%), 50.49% do not need HHP reminder, 51.73% preferred alcohol based sanitizer, 53.46% facilitate daily morning huddle, HHP >10 times per day before COVID-19 (24.62%) while in COIVID-19 (56.44%). HPP is the most effective way to prevent the spread (98.01%) of microbes because it kills germs (90.35%), health care associated infections is the major (38.06%) cause of germ transmission, 86.88% will be remains committed to HHP even after pandemic. In comparison to residents and specialists, consultants gave more importance (p = 0.02) to HHP and were more adherent during (p = 0.007) and even after (p = 0.001) COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: Assessing knowledge of pediatric physician, awareness, and adherence to hand hygiene measures could be helpful to reduce the contact transmission of lethal viruses to patients and vice versa. Further increase in the awareness, knowledge and education of HHP are required in order to maximize its utilization.

Impressions of Early Mobilization of Critically Ill Children-Clinician, Patient, and Family Perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To understand patient, family caregiver, and clinician impressions of early mobilization, the perceived barriers and facilitators to its implementation, and the use of in-bed cycling as a method of mobilization. DESIGN: A qualitative study, conducted as part of the Early Exercise in Critically ill Youth and Children, a preliminary Evaluation (wEECYCLE) Pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: McMaster Children's Hospital PICU, Hamilton, ON, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians (i.e., physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists), family caregivers, and capable patients age greater than or equal to 8 years old who were enrolled in a clinical trial of early mobilization in critically ill children (wEECYCLE). INTERVENTION: Semistructured, face-to-face interviews using a customized interview guide for clinicians, caregivers, and patients respectively, conducted after exposure to the early mobilization intervention. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants were interviewed (19 family caregivers, four patients, and 14 clinicians). Family caregivers and clinicians described similar interrelated themes representing barriers to mobilization, namely low prioritization of mobilization by the medical team, safety concerns, the lack of physiotherapy resources, and low patient motivation. Key facilitators were family trust in the healthcare team, team engagement, an a priori belief that physical activity is important, and participation in research. Increased familiarity and specific features such as the virtual reality component and ability to execute passive and or active mobilization helped to engage critically ill children in in-bed cycling. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians, patients, and families were highly supportive of mobilization in critically ill children; however, concerns were identified with respect to how and when to execute this practice. Understanding key stakeholder perspectives enables the development of strategies to facilitate the implementation of early mobilization and in-bed cycling, not just in the context of a clinical trial but also within the culture of practice in a PICU.

Early Exercise in Critically Ill Youth and Children, a Preliminary Evaluation: The wEECYCLE Pilot Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of conducting a full trial evaluating the efficacy of early mobilization using in-bed cycling as an adjunct to physiotherapy, on functional outcomes in critically ill children. DESIGN: Single center, pilot, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Twelve-bed tertiary care, medical-surgical PICU at McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada. PATIENTS: Children 3-17 years old who were limited to bed-rest with an expected PICU stay of at least 48 hours. Patients were excluded if they were at their baseline level of function, already mobilizing out of bed or expected to do so within 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to early mobilization using in-bed cycling in addition to usual care physiotherapy (cycling arm) or to usual care physiotherapy alone (control). Usual care was according to institutional practice guidelines. The primary outcome was feasibility and safety. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled (20 to the cycling and 10 to control) over a 12-month period, at a 93.7% consent rate. The median (interquartile range) time from PICU admission to mobilization was 1.5 days (1-3) in the cycling arm and 2.5 days (2-7) in the control arm. Total duration of mobilization therapy in PICU was 210 (152-380) and 136 minutes (42-314 min) in cycling and control arms, respectively. Total number of PICU days mobilized was 5.0 (3-6) with cycling and 2.5 (2-4.8) with usual care. No adverse events occurred in either arm. The main threat to feasibility of mobilization was the availability of physiotherapists or research personnel. CONCLUSIONS: Early mobilization is safe and feasible in the PICU. In-bed cycling may facilitate greater duration and intensity of mobilization, in critically ill children. A full-scale randomized controlled trial is warranted to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention on PICU-acquired morbidities and functional outcomes in this population.