Background: The inability to ensure adequate nutrition for patients, and failure to provide adequate calorie and protein intake, result in malnutrition, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. The present study assesses the two approaches to enteral nutrition—intermittent and continuous enteral feeding—in critically ill pediatric patients in Türkiye to determine the superiority of one method over the other. Methods: Included in this multicenter prospective study were patients receiving enteral nutrition via a tube who were followed up over a 3-month period. Anthropometric data, calorie and protein intake, and signs of feeding intolerance were evaluated in a comparison of the different feeding methods. Results: A total of 510 patients were examined. In the continuous enteral feeding (CEF) group, 20.2% of patients developed metabolic abnormalities, and 49.5% experienced enteral nutrition intolerance, both of which were higher than in the intermittent enteral feeding (IEF) group, and the differences were statistically significant. No significant differences were observed between the two feeding methods in terms of reaching the target calorie intake on days 2 and 7 (p > 0.05). On day 7, there were significant differences between the two feeding methods in terms of calorie and protein intake (p = 0.023 and 0.014, respectively). Conclusions: In the present study, assessing the IEF and CEF approaches to enteral nutrition, critically ill pediatric patients receiving intermittent feeding exhibited lower rates of enteral nutrition intolerance and metabolic abnormalities. Furthermore, the calorie and protein intake on day 7 were noted to be higher in the IEF group than in the CEF group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings of the present study.

Background. Acute respiratory failure is a prevalent condition in childhood with a high rate of mortality. Invasive mechanical ventilation support may be required for the management of these patients. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a method used when ventilation support is insufficient. However, the less invasive extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal method can be used as an alternative in cases of hypercapnic respiratory failure. Case. A 9-year-old patient with cystic fibrosis presented to the hospital with acute respiratory failure due to pneumonia. Bilateral patchy areas of consolidation were evident in the chest x-ray. Invasive mechanical ventilation support was consequently provided to treat severe hypercapnia. Although peak and plateau pressure levels exceeded 32 cmH₂O (49 cmH₂O) and 28 cmH₂O (35 cmH₂O), respectively, the patient continued to have severe respiratory acidosis. Therefore extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal support was initiated to provide lung-protective ventilation. By Day 10, venovenous ECMO support was initiated due to deteriorating oxygenation. Conclusion. In cases where conventional invasive mechanical ventilation support is insufficient due to acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal support, which is less invasive compared to ECMO, should be considered as an effective and reliable alternative method. However, it should be noted that extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal support does not affect oxygenation; it functions solely as a carbon dioxide removal system.

Management of anomalous aortic origin of coronary arteries in children: A single-center experience - Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of direct and videolaryngoscopy procedures performed by pediatric residents who had limited experience of direct endotracheal intubation and had not previously used video laryngoscopes in a normal airway child manikin. Material and Methods: The endotracheal intubations performed by pediatric residents with a direct laryngoscope and Storz C-MAC videolaryngoscope on a pediatric manikin with a normal airway were compared. Theoretical and practical training was given before the study. In the first attempt, the success of the intubation procedure, glottis visual duration, and endotracheal tube insertion time were determined. Practitioners grouped the glottis image between 1-4 according to the Cormack-Lehane Staging (Stage 1 ideal image). After the intervention, the participants scored one to ten points on direct and videolaryngoscopy (1 not useful, 10 very useful). Results: The success of direct and videolaryngoscopy of 51 pediatric residents on the same manikin was 48 out of 51 (94%) for each method (p> 0.05). Glottis visual duration was similar in both methods (p>0.05); tube insertion and total intubation time were shorter in the video laryngoscope group (p<0.05); glottis image was better in the video laryngoscope group according to Cormack-Lehane Classification (p<0.05). Participants’ rating was higher on videolaryngoscope (p<0.05). Conclusion: Users with limited endotracheal intubation experience use Video laryncoscope more effectively than direct laryngoscope in children with normal airway model after training. Cite this article as: Anıl AB, Anıl M, Durak F, et al. Comparison of direct and video laryngoscope endotracheal intubations by pediatric residents: A study of a child model with normal airway. Turk Arch Pediatr 2021; 56(3): 224-9.