Febrile convulsions during recovery after anesthesia in an infant with history of MMR vaccination: A case report

Pediatric influenza vaccination in the perioperative setting: A quality improvement project

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Unmet need for seasonal influenza vaccination administration to pediatric patients exists at national and local levels. Vaccination during the perioperative period remains controversial, though opportunity exists to meet vaccination need through perioperative programs. The initial SMART Aim of this quality improvement initiative was to establish and increase seasonal influenza vaccination rate in eligible patients during in person preoperative clinic visits in a pediatric perioperative surgical home (PSH) to 10%. Informed by each prior season's experience, we increased our SMART Aim target for vaccinations in seasons two and three to 15 and 18%, respectively.

METHODS

Following the Model for Improvement methodology, the PSH team developed and implemented a perioperative pediatric influenza vaccination program. Across three influenza seasons, key interventions included updates to organizational perioperative vaccination policy, obtaining material influenza vaccination supplies, development of EHR tools, PSH staff education, and communication with patient-families. Rate of eligible patients receiving influenza vaccination at their PSH clinic appointment was tracked over time. Influenza vaccination rates were reported monthly during Season 1, then weekly during seasons two and three. The balancing measure was same day surgery case cancellations related to influenza vaccination given at PSH clinic appointment. Statistical analysis methods utilized include Shewart's control chart and statistical process control (SPC) standards. Special cause variation was determined by eight or more consecutive data points above or below the centerline.

RESULTS

The influenza vaccination rates in each of the three influenza seasons exceeded vaccination rate goals of 10, 15, and 18%, respectively. A total of 695 vaccines have been administered since program inception. No same day surgical case cancellations were observed as balancing measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Over three consecutive influenza vaccination seasons, we safely established and met vaccination rate goals of 10, 15, and 18% to eligible patients during preoperative clinic visits within a pediatric PSH system. Through iterative PDSA cycles, we continue to identify opportunities for future improvement. This suggests that the perioperative period presents opportunity for seasonal influenza vaccination with potential program expansion to include routine vaccines of childhood.

Implications of anesthesia and vaccination

The current COVID-19 pandemic has had a global impact on vaccination rates. Delays in routine healthcare and immunization have led to a rise in concerns about resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases around the world. With the release and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, plans to improve immunization rates need to be explored and implemented across disciplines. One approach would be the consideration of perioperative vaccinations; however, the effects of anesthesia and surgery on the immune response and complications associated with vaccination during the perioperative period are still poorly understood, and opinions are divided. To ascertain the value of a perioperative vaccination program, it is important to understand the basics of immunization and common vaccinations; the potential vaccine complications in the pediatric cohort; the implications of anesthesia and surgery on the immune response; and current recommendations. In addition, we believe it is important to discuss the logistics and feasibility of coordinating perioperative immunization should this become a regular opportunity.

Causality assessment of adverse events following immunization: the problem of multifactorial pathology

The analysis of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) is important in a balanced epidemiological evaluation of vaccines and in the issues related to national vaccine injury compensation programs. If manufacturing defects or vaccine storage and delivering errors are excluded, the majority of adverse reactions to vaccines occur as excessive or biased inflammatory and immune responses. These unwanted phenomena, occasionally severe, are associated with many different endogenous and exogenous factors, which often interact in complex ways. The confirmation or denial of the causal link between an AEFI and vaccination is determined pursuant to WHO guidelines, which propose a four-step analysis and algorithmic diagramming. The evaluation process from the onset considers all possible "other causes" that can explain the AEFI and thus exclude the role of the vaccine. Subsequently, even if there was biological plausibility and temporal compatibility for a causal association between the vaccine and the AEFI, the guidelines ask to look for any possible evidence that the vaccine could not have caused that event. Such an algorithmic method presents some concerns that are discussed here, in the light of the multifactorial nature of the inflammatory and immune pathologies induced by vaccines, including emerging knowledge of genetic susceptibility to adverse effects. It is proposed that the causality assessment could exclude a consistent association of the adverse event with the vaccine only when the presumed "other cause" is independent of an interaction with the vaccine. Furthermore, the scientific literature should be viewed not as an exclusion criterion but as a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence for or against the role of the vaccine in causing an adverse reaction. These issues are discussed in relation to the laws that, in some countries, regulate the mandatory vaccinations and the compensation for those who have suffered serious adverse effects.

Causality assessment of adverse events following immunization: the problem of multifactorial pathology

The analysis of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) is important in a balanced epidemiological evaluation of vaccines and in the issues related to vaccine injury compensation programs. The majority of adverse reactions to vaccines occur as excessive or biased inflammatory and immune responses. These unwanted phenomena, occasionally severe, are associated with many different endogenous and exogenous factors, which often interact in complex ways. The confirmation or denial of the causal link between an AEFI and vaccination is determined pursuant to WHO guidelines, which propose a four-step analysis and algorithmic diagramming. The evaluation process from the onset considers all possible "other causes" that might explain the AEFI and thus exclude the role of the vaccine. Subsequently, even if there was biological plausibility and temporal compatibility for a causal association between the vaccine and the AEFI, the guidelines ask to look for any possible evidence that the vaccine could not have caused that event. Such an algorithmic method presents several concerns that are discussed here, in the light of the multifactorial nature of the inflammatory and immune pathologies induced by vaccines, including emerging knowledge of genetic susceptibility to adverse effects. It is proposed that the causality assessment could exclude a consistent association of the adverse event with the vaccine only when the presumed "other cause" is independent of an interaction with the vaccine. Furthermore, the scientific literature should be viewed not as an exclusion criterion but as a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence for or against the role of the vaccine in causing an adverse reaction. Given these inadequacies in the evaluation of multifactorial diseases, the WHO guidelines need to be reevaluated and revised. These issues are discussed in relation to the laws that, in some countries, regulate the mandatory vaccinations and the compensation for those who have suffered serious adverse effects.