Variation in hospital costs for gastroschisis closure techniques

The role of feeding advancement strategy on length of stay and hospital costs in newborns with gastroschisis

BACKGROUND

Infants with gastroschisis require prolonged hospitalization for surgical repair and gradual advancement of feeds. The present study explores the effect of a change in a protocolized enteral feeding regimen with length of hospital stay (LOS) and total costs in newborns with gastroschisis.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed in neonates with uncomplicated gastroschisis at a free-standing pediatric institution from 2012 to 2020. The effect of two different enteral feed advancement protocols on clinical outcomes and hospital costs was analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were identified, of which 50 (68%) underwent 10 ml/kg/day feeding advancements, and 24 (32%) underwent 20 ml/kg/day feeding advancements. Compared to neonates who underwent 10 ml/kg/day enteral advancements, neonates receiving 20 ml/kg/day advancements reached goal feeds faster (14 vs 20 days, p<0.001), were younger at goal feeds (26 vs 34 days, p = 0.001), required fewer days of parenteral nutrition (22 vs 29 days, p = 0.001), and had shorter LOS (30 vs 36 days, p = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, total costs decreased by 9.77% in the 20 ml/kg/day advancement cohort (p = 0.071).

CONCLUSION

In neonates with uncomplicated gastroschisis who underwent primary repair, a nutritional protocol that incorporated 20 ml/kg/day feeding advancements was safe and resulted in faster attainment of goal feeds and shorter LOS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II/III.

Failure of primary closure predicts prolonged length of stay in gastroschisis patients

PURPOSE

Current literature regarding outcomes of gastroschisis closure methods do not highlight differences in patients who successfully undergo primary closure with those who fail and require silo placement. We hypothesize that failure of primary closure has significant effects on clinical outcomes such as length of stay and time to enteral feeding.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review between 2009 and 2018 of gastroschisis patients at a tertiary pediatric referral hospital. We compared patients successfully undergoing primary closure to patients who failed an initial primary closure attempt. Bivariate and multivariate linear regression models were used to assess the association of closure method on clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight neonates were included for analysis, with 44 patients who underwent primary closure and 24 who failed primary closure. On multivariate regression analysis, primary closure patients had shorter estimated time to starting and to full enteral feeds and decreased LOS as compared to those who failed primary closure. Two patients (4.44%) had complications related to primary closure.

CONCLUSION

Patients able to undergo primary closure for gastroschisis were more likely to have a shorter length of stay, shorter time to enteral feeds, and use much fewer medical resources. Initial primary closure is a safe method for most patients.