StayCurrentMD · Emergency department discharge following successful radiologic reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children: A protocol based prospective observational study
Article1 min read·Published Oct 2018Older

Emergency department discharge following successful radiologic reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children: A protocol based prospective observational study

jpedsurg.org shows its articles on its own site.

Read the article on jpedsurg.org ↗

Article · Oct 2018 · 1 min read

In brief

In brief

Prospective study of 115 pediatric patients with ileocolic intussusception managed via ED observation protocol after successful fluoroscopic air enema reduction. Protocol implementation reduced median hospital time from 19.7 to 4.8 hours with comparable safety outcomes, supporting same-day discharge for appropriately selected patients.

Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.

Abstract

Purpose

Pediatric intussusception's first line treatment consists of fluoroscopic guided air enema reduction. Postprocedure, these patients are usually admitted overnight for observation. The purpose of our study was to document the results of emergency department (ED) observation and discharge protocol after successful reduction of ileocolic intussusception.

Methods

A prospective observational study was conducted after implementation of an ED protocol for ileocolic intussusception from 10/2014 to 7/2017 and compared these patients to a historical cohort immediately prior to protocol initiation (10/2011–9/2014). Data collected included demographics, total time in the ED and hospital, enema reduction, recurrence, and requirement for operative intervention. Results reported as means with standard deviation and medians reported with interquartile ranges (IQR).

Results

115 patients were treated with the prospective protocol and were compared to a 90 patient historical cohort. Reduction was successful in 84%–89% of cases. Median hospital time after enema was shorter in the protocol group [4.8 h (4.25, 14.97) versus 19.7 h (13.9, 33.45), p 

Read it at the source ↗

Try
Intelligent Search· scoped to this article · not medical adviceSearch the whole library →