"The cruelest lies are often told in silence"

The Impact of the American Academy of Pediatrics Brief Resolved Unexplained Event Guidelines on Gastrointestinal Testing and Prescribing Practices

OBJECTIVES

To determine if hospitalization, testing, diagnosis, and management of suspected gastroesophageal reflux, and follow-up visits decreased since introduction of American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for brief resolved unexplained events (BRUEs).

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort study of infants with BRUE evaluated at Boston Children's Hospital in the year before and after guideline implementation to determine if practice patterns have changed. Outcomes included hospitalization rates, frequency of swallow assessments, other diagnostic testing, and reflux diagnoses, cost of care, and number of repeat visits. Groups were compared based on whether they presented before or after guideline implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 359 subjects (186 pre-, 173 post-guidelines) were identified. There were no significant differences in practice patterns or outcomes before or after guideline implementation. Subjects had mean age 2.53 ± 0.15 months, and 80% were hospitalized for 2.49 ± 0.26 days. Each subject had 2.47 diagnostic tests performed, and 89% were noncontributory. Despite only 13% having videofluoroscopic swallow study performed, 72% showed aspiration/penetration. No subject had gastroesophageal reflux testing, yet reflux was implicated as the cause for admission in 40% of subjects, resulting in increased odds of discharge on acid suppressing medications (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.68-4.92, P = .0001). In follow-up, 28% of subjects had repeat hospitalizations or emergency department visits for persistent symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Infants with BRUE continue to undergo low-yield diagnostic testing and after admission remain symptomatic and frequently re-present to medical care. Swallow testing remains infrequent despite its high-yield, reflux continues to be implicated and children are still being discharged on acid suppression despite lack of efficacy.

Prognostic implications of aspiration pneumonia in patients with community acquired pneumonia: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Aspiration pneumonia is thought to be associated with a poor outcome in patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, there has been no systematic review regarding the impact of aspiration pneumonia on the outcomes in patients with CAP. This review was conducted using the MOOSE guidelines: Patients: patients defined CAP. Exposure: aspiration pneumonia defined as pneumonia in patients who have aspiration risk. Comparison: confirmed pneumonia in patients who were not considered to be at high risk for oral aspiration. Outcomes: mortality, hospital readmission or recurrent pneumonia. Three investigators independently identified published cohort studies from PubMed, CENTRAL database, and EMBASE. Nineteen studies were included for this systematic review. Aspiration pneumonia increased in-hospital mortality (relative risk, 3.62; 95% CI, 2.65–4.96; P < 0.001, seven studies) and 30-day mortality (3.57; 2.18–5.86; P < 0.001, five studies). In contrast, aspiration pneumonia was associated with decreased ICU mortality (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26–0.60; P < 0.00001, four studies). Although there are insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis on long-term mortality, recurrent pneumonia, and hospital readmission, the few reported studies suggest that aspiration pneumonia is also associated with these poor outcomes. In conclusion, aspiration pneumonia was associated with both higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality in patients with CAP outside ICU settings.