Background and AimPolyethylene glycol (PEG) is the gold standard for fecal disimpaction in constipation. A regimen of PEG combined with the stimulant laxative sodium picosulphate (SPS) produced fecal disimpaction in chronically constipated children in the community, but it is unknown if it is effective for more severe constipation. To determine the stool output and effect of a combined PEG and SPS regimen on fecaloma in children with severe constipation and impaction.MethodsChildren with symptoms for a duration of ≥2 years, a palpable fecaloma, and enlarged rectum on X‐ray (rectal: pelvic ratio > 0.6) were recruited from a tertiary hospital. Daily diaries recorded laxative dose, stool frequency, volume, and consistency (Bristol stool scale, BSS). Abdominal X‐rays were taken on day 1 and day 8, and stool loading was assessed using the Leech score. Laxative doses were based on the child's age. The dose of PEG with electrolytes taken was 2–8 sachets (14.7 g/sachet) on days 1–2, reducing to 2–6 sachets on day 3. The SPS dose was 15–20 drops on days 2–3.ResultsEighty‐nine children (4–18 years) produced a large volume of soft stool (median/inter‐quartile‐range: 2.2/1.6–3.1 L) over 7 days. Stool volume on X‐rays decreased significantly in the colon (P < 0.001). Fecalomas resolved in 40 of 89 children, while 49 needed a second high dose. Rectal:pelvic ratios did not change.ConclusionsA combined high dose of PEG and SPS on days 1 and 2 was effective in removing the fecaloma in half of the children. Administering high doses for a longer period should be tested to provide outpatient disimpaction for severe fecalomas. Rectums remained flaccid after emptying.

Aim To investigate differences in palivizumab prescription rates between Dutch paediatricians, and the role of parent counselling in this practice variation. Methods A retrospective chart review of premature infants <32 weeks of gestation, aged less than six months at the start of the winter season, born between January 2012 and July 2014, in three secondary hospital‐based paediatric practices in the Netherlands. Results We included 208 patients, 133 (64%) of whom received palivizumab. Prescription rates varied considerably between the three hospitals: 8% (6/64), 89% (32/36) and 99% (97/98). A noticeable difference in the way parents were counselled about palivizumab was the use of the number needed to treat (NNT). In the hospital with the lowest prescription rate (8%), an NNT of 20 to prevent one hospitalisation was explicitly discussed with parents. Bronchiolitis‐related hospital admissions occurred in 11.3% of patients receiving palivizumab compared to 20.0% in nonimmunised infants (p = 0.086). Conclusion Considerable practice variation exists among Dutch paediatricians regarding palivizumab prescription rates. The counselling method seems to play an important role. Presenting palivizumab prophylaxis as a preference‐sensitive decision, combined with the explicit use and explanation of an NNT, leads many parents to refrain from respiratory syncytial virus immunisation.

Background and objectiveHigh-flow (HF) oxygen therapy is being used increasingly in infants with bronchiolitis, despite lack of convincing evidence of its superiority over low flow (LF). We aimed to compare the effect of HF to LF in moderate to severe bronchiolitis.MethodsMulticentre randomised controlled trial during four winter seasons (2016–2020) including 107 children under 2 years of age admitted with moderate to severe bronchiolitis, oxygen saturation of <92% and severely impaired vital signs. Crossovers were not allowed. HF was administered at flow rates of 2 L/kg for the first 10 kg, plus 0.5 L/kg for every kg >10 kg, LF with a maximum flow rate of 3 L/min. Primary outcome was improvement of vital signs and dyspnoea severity within 24 hours assessed by a composite score. Secondary outcomes were comfort, duration of oxygen therapy, supplemental feedings, hospitalisation duration and intensive care admission for invasive ventilation.ResultsSignificant improvement within 24 hours occurred in 73% of 55 patients randomised to HF and in 78% of 52 patients with LF (difference 6%, 95% CI −13% to 23%). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant differences in any secondary outcome: duration of oxygen therapy, supplemental feedings, hospitalisation and need for invasive ventilation or intensive care admission, except for comfort (face, legs, activity, cry, consolability), which was one point (out of a scale of 0–10) higher in the LF group. No adverse effects occurred.ConclusionWe found no measurable clinically relevant benefit in the use of HF compared with LF in hypoxic children with moderate to severe bronchiolitis.Trial registration numberNCT02913040.

No abstract

Background: High flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) is being used increasingly for oxygen delivery in children with impending respiratory failure, however solid evidence of its effectiveness is sparse. Moreover, data on safety regarding its use outside of the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), with flowrates exceeding 1 L/kg is lacking. Methods: Retrospective chart review at the pediatric ward of Isala, a general teaching hospital in Zwolle, The Netherlands, 100 km away from the nearest PICU. All children <18 years with impending respiratory failure treated with HFNC between January 2015 and May 2016 were included. A flowrate of 2 L/kg/minute for the first 10 kg was used; with 0.5 L/kg for every kg >10 kg and a maximum of 50 L/min. A pediatric early warning score (PEWS) comprising vital functions and work of breathing (0-28 points) was used to assess severity of respiratory distress. Treatment failure was defined as referral to the PICU. Results: In the 16-month study period HFNC was used during 41 hospital admissions in 39 patients (64.1% male), median age 6.3 months (interquartile range, IQR 3–20.6). Median (IQR) PEWS at the start of HFNC was 8.5 (7–10). Patients were diagnosed with bronchiolitis (70.7%), pneumonia (24.4%) or asthma (4.9%). In 18 cases (43.9%) HFNC failed, with referral to a PICU. No clinical variables (age, comorbidity, PEWS at admission or start of HFNC) nor improvement of the PEWS after 2 hours of HFNC were associated with treatment failure. We found no association between treatment failure and the start of HFNC at an earlier stage or at lower PEWS (odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.30; p=0.80). There were no safety issues, no cases with air leak or other complications. Conclusions: This small study suggests that HFNC can be safely used and initiated in a general pediatric department. We were unable to find clinical factors that predicted HFNC success. We recommend not to restrict evaluation of the effect of HFNC in studies to short-term (2 hours), but also after longer duration, at least 24 hours.