Search

Rationale and Aim: Infants with Congenital Heart Disease (CHD) are at risk for neurodevelopmental delays, emotional, social and behavioral difficulties. Hospitalization early in life and associated stressors may contribute to these challenges. Family-centered Care (FCC) is a health care approach that is respectful of and responsive to the needs and values of a family and has shown to be effective in improving health outcomes of premature infants, as well as the mental well-being of their parents. However, there is limited empirical data available on FCC practices in pediatric cardiology and associations with parent and infant outcomes. Methods and Analysis: In this cross-sectional study, we will explore FCC practices at two pediatric cardiac intensive care units in Germany, assess parent satisfaction with FCC, and investigate associations with parental mental well-being and parenting stress, as well as infant physical and mental well-being. We will collect data of 280 infants with CHD and their families. Data will be analyzed using multivariate statistics and multilevel modeling. Implications and Dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committees of both partner sites and registered with the German registry for clinical trials (NR DRKS00023964). This study serves as a first step to investigate FCC practices in a pediatric cardiology setting, providing insight into the relationship between FCC and parent and infant outcomes in a population of infants with CHD. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals.

Objective: We compared suspect, probable, and confirmed case definitions, as well as diagnostic testing criteria, used in the COVID-19 pandemic's 25 highest burden countries to aid interpretation of global and national surveillance data. Methods: We identified the COVID-19 pandemic's 25 countries with the highest disease burden based on the number of cumulative reported cases to the World Health Organization (WHO) as of 1 October 2020. We searched official websites of these countries for suspect, probable, and confirmed case definitions. Given that confirmation of COVID-19 usually requires diagnostic testing, we also searched for diagnostic testing eligibility criteria in these countries. Extracted case definitions and testing criteria were managed in a database and analyzed in Microsoft Excel. Findings: We identified suspect, probable, and confirmed case definitions in 96%, 64%, and 100% of countries, respectively. Testing criteria were identified in 100% of countries. 56% of identified countries followed WHO recommendations for using a combination of clinical and epidemiological criteria as part of the suspect case definition. 75% of identified countries followed WHO recommendations on using clinical, epidemiological, and diagnostic criteria for probable cases. 72% of countries followed WHO recommendations on using PCR testing for confirming a case of COVID-19. Finally, 64% of countries used testing eligibility criteria at least as permissive as WHO. Conclusion: There is marked heterogeneity in who is eligible for testing in countries and how countries define a case of COVID-19. This affects the ability to compare burden, transmission, and response impact estimates derived from case surveillance data across countries.

This study compared standard of care testing (SOC) to BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel (PNplus). PNplus detects 15 bacteria with semiquantitative log bin values, 7 antibiotic resistance markers, three atypical bacteria (AB), and eight viral classes directly from bronchoalveolar lavage-like specimens (BLS) and sputum-like specimens (SLS). Fifty-two laboratories from 13 European countries and Israel tested 1234 BLS and 1242 SLS with PNplus and SOC. Detection rates and number of pathogens/samples were compared for PNplus pathogens. PNplus bin values and SOC quantities were compared. Three thousand two hundred sixty-two bacteria in PNplus were detected by PNplus and/or SOC. SOC detected 57.1% compared to 95.8% for PNplus (p ≤ 0.0001). PNplus semiquantitative bin values were less than SOC, equal to SOC, or greater than SOC in 5.1%, 25.4%, and 69.6% of results, respectively. PNplus bin values were on average ≥ 1 log than SOC values (58.5% 1–2 logs; 11.0% 3–4 logs). PNplus identified 98.2% of MRSA and SOC 55.6%. SOC detected 73/103 AB (70.9%) and 134/631 viruses (21.2%). PNplus detected 93/103 AB (90.3%) and 618/631 viruses (97.9%) (p ≤ 0.0001). PNplus and SOC mean number of pathogens/samples were 1.99 and 1.44, respectively. All gram-negative resistance markers were detected. PNplus and SOC results were fully or partially concordant for 49.1% and 26.4% of specimens, respectively. PNplus was highly sensitive and detected more potential pneumonia pathogens than SOC. Semiquantification may assist in understanding pathogen significance. As PNplus generates results in approximately 1 h, PNplus has potential to direct antimicrobial therapy in near real time and improve antimicrobial stewardship and patient outcomes.

Background: Pharmacological stress testing can help to uncover pathological hemodynamic conditions and is, therefore, used in the clinical routine to assess patients with structural heart diseases such as aortic coarctation with borderline indication for treatment. The aim of this study was to develop and test a reduced-order model predicting dobutamine stress induced pressure gradients across the coarctation. Methods: The reduced-order model was developed based on n=21 imaging data sets of patients with aortic coarctation and a meta-analysis of subjects undergoing dobutamine stress testing. Within an independent test cohort of n=21 patients with aortic coarctation, the results of the model were compared with dobutamine stress testing during catheterization. Results: In n=19 patients responding to dobutamine stress testing, pressure gradients across the coarctation during dobutamine stress increased from 15.7±5.1 to 33.6±10.3 mm Hg (paired t test, P