Background: Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), yet the global incidence of NEC has not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies reporting the incidence of NEC in infants with Very Low Birth Weight (VLBW). Methods: The databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and grey literature. Eligible studies were cohort or population-based studies of newborns including registry data reporting incidence of NEC. Incidence were pooled using Random Effect Models (REM), in the presence of substantial heterogeneity. Additional, bias adjusted Quality Effect Models (QEM) were used to get sensitivity estimates. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plots as appropriate for ratio measures were used to assess publication bias. Results: A systematic and comprehensive search of databases identified 27 cohort studies reporting the incidence of NEC. The number of neonate included in these studies was 574,692. Of this 39,965 developed NEC. There were substantial heterogeneity between studies (I² = 100%). The pooled estimate of NEC based on REM was 7.0% (95% CI: 6.0–8.0%). QEM based estimate (6.0%; 95% CI: 4.0–9.0%) were also similar. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias. Although, NEC estimates are similar across various regions, some variation between high and low income countries were noted. Meta regression findings showed a statistically significant increase of NEC over time, quantified by the publication year. Conclusion: Seven out of 100 of all VLBW infants in NICU are likely to develop NEC. However, there were considerable heterogeneity between studies. High quality studies assessing incidence of NEC along with associated risk factors are warranted.

To test the effects of individual, nonfacilitated sessions with PARO (version 9), when compared against a look-alike plush toy and usual care, on the emotional and behavioral symptoms of dementia for people living in long-term care facilities. Parallel, 3-group, cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted between June 14, 2014, and May 16, 2015. Twenty-eight long-term care facilities operated by 20 care organizations located in South-East Queensland, Australia. Four hundred fifteen participants aged ≥60 years, with a documented diagnosis of dementia. Stratified by private/not-for-profit status and randomized using a computer-generated sequence, 9 facilities were randomized to the PARO group (individual, nonfacilitated, 15-minute sessions 3 times per week for 10 weeks); 10 to plush toy (same, but given PARO with robotic features disabled); and 9 to usual care. Treatment allocation was masked to assessors. Primary outcomes were changes in levels of engagement, mood states, and agitation after a 10-week intervention, assessed by coded video observations (baseline, weeks 1, 5, 10, and 15) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Short Form (baseline, weeks 10 and 15). Analyses followed intention-to-treat, using repeated measures mixed effects models. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000508673). Video data showed that participants in the PARO group were more verbally [3.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.40-0.81, P = .011] and visually engaged (13.06, 95% CI: 17.05-9.06, P < .0001) than participants in plush toy. Both PARO (-3.09, 95% CI: -0.45 to -5.72, P = .022) and plush toy (-3.58, 95% CI: -1.26 to -5.91, P = .002) had significantly greater reduced neutral affect compared with usual care, whilst PARO was more effective than usual care in improving pleasure (1.12, 95% CI: 1.94-0.29, P = .008). Videos showed that PARO was more effective than usual care in improving agitation (3.33, 95% CI: 5.79-0.86, P = .008). When measured using the CMAI-SF, there was no difference between groups. Although more effective than usual care in improving mood states and agitation, PARO was only more effective than a plush toy in encouraging engagement.

We sought to assess the effects of aortic cross-clamp time (XCL) on outcome following cardiac surgery in low- and high-risk patients. This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected departmental data of all patients who underwent cardiac surgery over 8-year period. Our cohort consisted of 3799 consecutive patients subdivided into low-risk (Euro SCORE < 6, n = 2691, 71%) and high-risk (Euro SCORE ≥ 6, n = 1108, 29%). Each class was further stratified into three groups based on their corresponding XCL time. Group 1 (XCL ≤ 60 min), group 2 (XCL > 60 but ≤ 90 min) and group 3 (XCL >90 min). Postoperative morbidity and in-hospital mortality were analysed. Univariate analysis showed the following to be significantly associated with increased XCL time in both low- and high-risk patients: low cardiac output, prolonged ventilation time, renal complications, prolonged hospital stay, blood transfusion and increased mortality (p < 0.05). By using multiple logistic regression, aortic XCL time >60 min was independent risk factor for low cardiac output, prolonged ventilation, renal complication, blood transfusion, mortality and prolonged hospital stay in both groups. By using XCL time as a continuous variable, an incremental increase of 1 min interval in XCL time was associated with a 2% increase in mortality in both groups. Prolonged cross-clamp time significantly correlates with major post-operative morbidity and mortality in both low- and high-risk patients. This effect increases with increasing XCL time. Prior knowledge on this effect can help in preventing some of these complications.

Objectives: To systematically assess the incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries in adult ICU patients and the most frequently occurring pressure injury sites.Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature.Study Selection: Observational studies reporting incidence rates, cumulative incidence, and prevalence of pressure injuries.Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses of pooled weighted estimates were calculated using random effect models with 95% CIs reported due to high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses included studies that used skin inspection to identify a pressure injury, studies at low risk of bias, studies that excluded stage 1 and each stage of pressure injury.Data Synthesis: Twenty-two studies, 10 reporting cumulative incidence of pressure injury irrespective of stage, one reporting incidence rate (198/1,000 hospital-days), and 12 reporting prevalence were included. The 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 10.0–25.9% and 16.9–23.8%. In studies that used skin inspection to identify pressure injuries, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence was 9.4–27.5%; all prevalence studies used skin inspection therefore the results were unchanged. In studies assessed as low risk of bias, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 6.6–36.8% and 12.2–24.5%. Excluding stage 1, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 0.0–23.8% and 12.4–15.5%. Five studies totalling 406 patients reported usable data on location; 95% CI of frequencies of PIs were as follows: sacrum 26.9–48.0%, buttocks 4.1–46.4%, heel 18.5–38.9%, hips 10.9–15.7%, ears 4.3–19.7%, and shoulders 0.0–40.2%.Conclusions: Although well-designed studies are needed to ensure the scope of the problem of pressure injuries is better understood, it is clear prevention strategies are also required.