Joanna Thomson, MD, MPH

Children with neurologic impairment (NI; eg, hypoxic-­ischemic encephalopathy, muscular dystrophy) are characterized by functional and/or intellectual impairments resulting from a variety of neurologic diseases.¹ These children commonly have respiratory comorbidities, including central hypoventilation, impaired cough, and oromotor dysfunction, that may lead to chronic respiratory insufficiency and a need for chronic respiratory support at baseline.^2,3 Baseline respiratory support modalities can include supplemental oxygen, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation.

Acute respiratory infections (ARI; eg, pneumonia, bronchiolitis) are the most common cause of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death for children with NI.^1,3 Discharge criteria for otherwise healthy children admitted to the hospital with ARI often include return to respiratory baseline.⁴ Children with complex chronic conditions have longer hospitalizations when hospitalized with respiratory infections,^5-7 because, in part, comorbidities and complications prolong the time to return to baseline. This prolonged return to respiratory baseline in combination with family knowledge, comfort, and skill in managing respiratory support and other complexities at home may alter discharge practices in the population of children with NI. In our clinical experience, discharge before return to baseline respiratory support occurs more frequently in children with NI than in otherwise healthy children when hospitalized with ARI. However, the consequences of discharging children with NI prior to return to respiratory baseline are unknown.

In this study, we sought to determine if discharge prior to return to baseline respiratory support is associated with reutilization among children with NI hospitalized with ARI. We hypothesized that patients discharged prior to return to respiratory baseline would have higher rates of 30-day hospital reutilization.

Study Design and Data Source

This single-center, retrospective cohort study of children hospitalized at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) used data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) and the electronic medical record (EMR). PHIS, an administrative database of 45 not-for-profit, tertiary care, US pediatric hospitals managed by Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas), was used to identify eligible children, examine demographic and clinical variables, and define outcomes. PHIS contains data regarding patient demographics, inpatient resource utilization, and diagnoses. Encrypted medical record numbers in PHIS allowed for local identification of patients’ medical records to complete EMR review to confirm eligibility and obtain detailed patient-level clinical information (eg, respiratory support needs) not available in PHIS.

Pilot medical record reviews allowed for standardized study definitions and procedures. All study staff underwent training with the primary investigator, including detailed review of 10 initial abstractions. Two investigators (K.M. and S.C.) performed repeat abstractions from 40 randomly selected records to enable assessment of interrater reliability. Average reliability, indicated by the κ statistic, indicated substantial to near-perfect reliability⁸ (κ = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.00) for the primary exposure. EMR data were managed using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap, Nashville, Tennessee)⁹ and subsequently merged with PHIS data.

Study Population

Hospitalizations of children with NI aged 1 to 18 years at CCHMC between January 2010 and September 2015 were eligible for inclusion if they had a principal discharge diagnosis indicative of ARI and required increased respiratory support from baseline during hospitalization. NI was defined as a high-intensity, chronic neurological diagnosis with substantial functional impairments according to previously defined diagnosis codes.^1,10 ARI was identified using codes in the Clinical Classification Software (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD) respiratory group indicative of ARI (eg, pneumonia, bronchiolitis, influenza; Appendix Table).

Children transferred to CCHMC were excluded because records from their initial illness presentation and management were not available. Because of expected differences in management and outcomes, children with a known diagnosis of tuberculosis or human immunodeficiency virus were excluded. Because exposure criteria were dependent on hospital discharge status, hospitalizations for children who died during admission (4 of 632 hospitalizations, 0.63%) were excluded from the final cohort (Appendix Figure).

Study Definitions

Baseline respiratory support (ie, “respiratory baseline”) was defined as the child’s highest level of respiratory support needed prior to admission when well (ie, no support, supplemental oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP], or ventilator support), and further characterized by night or day/night requirement. Respiratory baseline was identified using EMR documentation of home respiratory support use at the time of index admission. Return to respiratory baseline was defined as the date on which the child achieved documented home respiratory support settings, regardless of clinical symptoms.

Children may have required increased respiratory support from baseline at any time during hospitalization. Maximum respiratory support required was categorized as one of the following: (1) initiation of supplemental oxygen or increase in oxygen flow or duration; (2) initiation of CPAP or BiPAP; (3) increase in pressure settings or duration of pressure support for those with baseline CPAP, BiPAP, or ventilator use; and (4) initiation of full mechanical ventilation. Respiratory support categories were mutually exclusive: children requiring multiple types of increased respiratory support were classified for analysis by the most invasive form of respiratory support used (eg, a child requiring increase in both oxygen flow and pressure settings was categorized as an increase in pressure settings). Children who received heated high-flow nasal cannula therapy as maximum support were categorized as initiation or increase in oxygen support.

Time to return to respiratory baseline was defined as the difference in days between date of return to respiratory baseline and date of admission. Time to return to respiratory baseline was determined only for children who were discharged at respiratory baseline.

Primary Exposure and Outcome Measures

The primary exposure was hospital discharge before return to respiratory baseline (ie, discharge on higher respiratory support than at baseline settings). At our institution, standardized discharge criteria for children with NI do not exist. The primary outcome was all-cause, 30-day hospital reutilization, including hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) revisits. Secondary outcomes included 30-day reutilization for ARI and hospital length of stay (LOS) in days.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Demographic and patient characteristics that might influence hospital discharge before return to respiratory baseline or readmission were obtained from PHIS (eg, demographic information, age, insurance type, measures of clinical complexity, illness severity) and by EMR review (eg, baseline respiratory support needs, maximum respiratory support during hospitalization). Measures of clinical complexity included comorbid complex chronic conditions (CCCs)^11-14 and technology dependence^14-16 using previously defined diagnostic codes. Measures of illness severity included sepsis¹⁷ and ICU-level care. At our institution, children with baseline ventilator use do not require admission to the ICU unless they are clinically unstable.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were described using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). Categorical variables were described using counts and percentages. Patient characteristics and outcomes were stratified by primary exposure and compared using chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables.

To examine the independent association between discharge before return to respiratory baseline and hospital reutilization, a generalized estimating equation was used that included potential confounders while accounting for within-patient clustering. Patient demographics included age, race, ethnicity, and insurance type; measures of clinical complexity included number of CCCs, technology dependence, and baseline respiratory support; and measures of acute illness severity included ARI diagnosis, degree of increase in respiratory support during hospitalization, and ICU-level care. LOS was also included in the model as a covariate because of its expected association with both exposure and outcome.

Secondary analyses were conducted using the outcome of 30-day reutilization for ARI. Subgroup analysis excluding hospitalizations of children lost to follow-up (ie, no encounters in the 6 months after hospital discharge) was also conducted. All analyses were performed with SAS v9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). P values < .05 were considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Study Cohort

A total of 632 hospitalizations experienced by 366 children with NI who were admitted with ARI were included (Appendix Figure). Most children (66.4%) in the cohort experienced only one hospitalization, 17.5% had two hospitalizations, 7.9% had three hospitalizations, and 8.2% had four or more hospitalizations. The median age at hospitalization was 5.0 years (IQR 2.8-10.5) and most hospitalizations were for children who were male (56.6%), white (78.3%), non-Hispanic (96.0%), and publicly insured (51.7%; Table 1). More than one-quarter (28.6%) of hospitalizations were for children with four or more CCCs, and in 73.4% of hospitalizations, children were technology dependent (Table 1). Baseline respiratory support was common (46.8%), including home mechanical ventilation in 11.1% of hospitalizations (Table 1). Bacterial pneumonia, including aspiration pneumonia, was the most common discharge diagnosis (50.5%, Table 1).

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

Children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline in 30.4% of hospitalizations (Appendix Figure). Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were older (median age 5.7 years, IQR 3.1-11.0, vs 4.9 years, IQR 2.6-9.7; P = .04) and more likely to be privately insured (54.2% vs 43.4%; P = .04), compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline (Table 1). Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were also more likely to have a respiratory CCC (59.9% vs 30.9%; P < .001), have a respiratory technology dependence diagnosis code (44.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001), and have baseline respiratory support needs on EMR review (67.7% vs 37.7%; P < .001), compared with children discharged at baseline (Table 1).

Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline required significantly greater escalation in respiratory support during hospitalization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline, including higher rates of initiation of CPAP or BiPAP, increased pressure settings from baseline (for home CPAP, BiPAP, or ventilator users), and initiation of full mechanical ventilation (Table 1). Hospitalizations in which children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline were also more likely to include ICU care than were those for children discharged at baseline (52.1% vs 35.2%; P < .001; Table 1).

Clinical Outcomes and Utilization

Reutilization within 30 days occurred after 32.1% of hospitalizations, with 26.1% requiring hospital readmission and 6.0% requiring ED revisit (Table 2). There was no statistical association in either unadjusted (Table 2) or adjusted (Table 3) analysis between children discharged before return to respiratory baseline and 30-day all-cause hospital reutilizations, hospital readmissions, or ED revisits.

In analysis of secondary outcomes, 30-day reutilization because of ARI occurred after 21.5% of hospitalizations, with 19.0% requiring hospital readmission and 2.5% requiring ED revisit. Median hospital LOS for the cohort was 4 days (IQR 2-8; Table 2). Hospitalizations in which children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline were longer than in those discharged at baseline (median 6 days, IQR 3-11, vs 4 days, IQR 2-7; P < .001; Table 2).

For hospitalizations of children discharged at respiratory baseline, the median time to return to respiratory baseline was 3 days (IQR 1-5, complete range 0-80). In these encounters, discharge occurred soon after return to respiratory baseline (median 1 day, IQR 0-1.5, complete range 0-54).

In subgroup analysis excluding the 18 hospitalizations in which children were lost to follow-up (2.8% of the total cohort), discharge before return to respiratory baseline was not associated with 30-day all-cause hospital reutilization (Table 4).

In this retrospective cohort study, children with NI hospitalized with ARI were frequently discharged using increased respiratory support from baseline. However, those discharged before return to respiratory baseline, despite their greater clinical complexity and acute illness severity, did not have increased hospital reutilization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Our findings suggest that discharge before return to baseline respiratory support after ARI may be clinically appropriate in some children with NI.

With the growing emphasis on decreasing hospital costs, concern exists that patients are being discharged from hospitals “quicker and sicker,”^18,19 with shortening lengths of stay and higher patient instability at discharge. Clinical instability at discharge has been associated with adverse postdischarge outcomes in adults with pneumonia^20-23; however, studies evaluating discharge readiness have not examined the population of children with NI. Our findings of no difference in reutilization for children with NI discharged before return to respiratory baseline, which would be expected to approximate one or more clinical instabilities, contrast these concerns.

Clinicians caring for children with NI hospitalized with ARI may find it difficult to determine a child’s discharge readiness, in part because many children with NI have longer times to return to respiratory baseline and some never return to their pre-­illness baseline.²⁴ In otherwise healthy children hospitalized with respiratory infections such as pneumonia, discharge criteria typically include complete wean from respiratory support prior to discharge.^4,25 In our study’s more complex children, whose parents already manage respiratory support at home, we hypothesize that discharging providers may be comfortable with discharge when the child has certain types of increased respiratory support compatible with home equipment, a parent skilled with monitoring the child’s respiratory status, and the support of an experienced outpatient provider and home nursing providers. At our institution, outpatient respiratory support weans are primarily performed by pediatric pulmonologists and, for isolated weaning of supplemental oxygen or time using support, by parents and outpatient pediatricians.

Another important factor in determining a child’s discharge readiness is the perspective of the child’s parent. Berry et al found that children whose parents believe they are not healthy enough for discharge are more likely to experience unplanned hospital readmissions,²⁴ signaling the role of child- and family-­specific factors in safe discharge decisions. Therefore, parents of children with NI should be proactively involved throughout the multidisciplinary discharge process,^26,27 including the decision to discharge before return to respiratory baseline. Parents have identified ongoing provider support, opportunities to practice home care skills, and written instructions with contingency plans as important components of discharge readiness.²⁸ Further work to create partnerships with these highly skilled caregivers in discharge decision making and transition planning are needed to promote safe discharge practices in this complex population.

In our study, children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were more likely to be older and privately insured compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Prior studies have found that social factors including low socioeconomic status influence ED provider admissions decisions for children with pneumonia.^29,30 However, the role of socioeconomic factors in provider discharge decisions for children with NI has not been assessed. These traits may also be proxy markers of other sociodemographic factors, such as parent education level, financial hardship influencing ability to participate in a child’s care at the bedside, access to comprehensive outpatient primary care, and availability of private home nursing. We hypothesize that these related characteristics directly and indirectly influence provider discharge decisions.

Discharging providers are likely more comfortable with discharge prior to return to respiratory baseline when the family has private duty nursing in the home. Home nurses can assist families in providing increased respiratory support and recognizing respiratory problems that may arise following discharge. However, home nursing shortages are common nationwide.^31,32 Low-income children, children with respiratory technology use, and children without Medicaid have been found to have larger gaps in home nursing availability.^31,32 Further studies are needed to understand the role of home nursing availability in provider discharge decisions in this population.

This study has several limitations. The retrospective design of this study creates the potential for residual confounding; there may be other clinical or demographic factors influencing hospital discharge decisions that we are unable to capture using EMR review, including parental knowledge and comfort managing illness, quality of discharge instructions, frequency of follow-up visits, and presence of skilled home nursing services. Categorization of children based on respiratory support status at discharge lends potential for misclassification of exposure; however, our substantial interrater reliability suggests that misclassification bias is small. This study’s primary finding indicated no difference between exposure groups; although we may be unable to detect small differences, we had sufficient power with our sample size to detect meaningful differences in reutilization outcomes.

This study was not designed to capture outpatient time to return to respiratory baseline; prospective studies are needed to identify rates of return to respiratory baseline following ARI in children with NI. We did not measure the level of respiratory support used by children at the time of discharge and, therefore, are unable to estimate the amount of respiratory support weaning needed following discharge or the compatibility of support with home equipment using our data. In addition, this study focused on respiratory support modalities and, thus, did not measure inpatient utilization of mucociliary clearance technologies that might be hypothesized to decrease the time to return to baseline respiratory support. Next steps in evaluating treatment of ARI include investigating the effect of mucociliary clearance on both exposure and outcome in this population.

There may be other clinically meaningful outcomes for this population apart from reutilization that we have not assessed in this study, including increased respiratory support required following discharge, primary care reutilization, healthcare costs, or parent satisfaction with timing of and outcomes after discharge. Finally, although our hospital has reutilization rates for children with NI that are similar to other institutions in the United States,³³ our results may not be generalizable to children with NI hospitalized at other institutions because local discharge processes and systems of care may be different. Prospective, multicenter investigation is needed to evaluate the clinical consequences of discharge before return to respiratory baseline more broadly.

At our institution, approximately one-quarter of children with NI hospitalized with ARI were discharged before return to respiratory baseline, but these children were not at increased risk of reutilization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Our findings suggest that return to baseline respiratory support might not be a necessary component of hospital discharge criteria. In otherwise clinically stable children with NI, discharge before return to respiratory baseline may be reasonable if their parents are comfortable managing respiratory support at home.

The authors thank Jonathan Rodean of the Children’s Hospital Association for his assistance with abstraction of PHIS data.

Children with neurologic impairment (NI; eg, hypoxic-­ischemic encephalopathy, muscular dystrophy) are characterized by functional and/or intellectual impairments resulting from a variety of neurologic diseases.¹ These children commonly have respiratory comorbidities, including central hypoventilation, impaired cough, and oromotor dysfunction, that may lead to chronic respiratory insufficiency and a need for chronic respiratory support at baseline.^2,3 Baseline respiratory support modalities can include supplemental oxygen, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation.

Acute respiratory infections (ARI; eg, pneumonia, bronchiolitis) are the most common cause of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death for children with NI.^1,3 Discharge criteria for otherwise healthy children admitted to the hospital with ARI often include return to respiratory baseline.⁴ Children with complex chronic conditions have longer hospitalizations when hospitalized with respiratory infections,^5-7 because, in part, comorbidities and complications prolong the time to return to baseline. This prolonged return to respiratory baseline in combination with family knowledge, comfort, and skill in managing respiratory support and other complexities at home may alter discharge practices in the population of children with NI. In our clinical experience, discharge before return to baseline respiratory support occurs more frequently in children with NI than in otherwise healthy children when hospitalized with ARI. However, the consequences of discharging children with NI prior to return to respiratory baseline are unknown.

In this study, we sought to determine if discharge prior to return to baseline respiratory support is associated with reutilization among children with NI hospitalized with ARI. We hypothesized that patients discharged prior to return to respiratory baseline would have higher rates of 30-day hospital reutilization.

Study Design and Data Source

This single-center, retrospective cohort study of children hospitalized at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) used data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) and the electronic medical record (EMR). PHIS, an administrative database of 45 not-for-profit, tertiary care, US pediatric hospitals managed by Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas), was used to identify eligible children, examine demographic and clinical variables, and define outcomes. PHIS contains data regarding patient demographics, inpatient resource utilization, and diagnoses. Encrypted medical record numbers in PHIS allowed for local identification of patients’ medical records to complete EMR review to confirm eligibility and obtain detailed patient-level clinical information (eg, respiratory support needs) not available in PHIS.

Pilot medical record reviews allowed for standardized study definitions and procedures. All study staff underwent training with the primary investigator, including detailed review of 10 initial abstractions. Two investigators (K.M. and S.C.) performed repeat abstractions from 40 randomly selected records to enable assessment of interrater reliability. Average reliability, indicated by the κ statistic, indicated substantial to near-perfect reliability⁸ (κ = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.00) for the primary exposure. EMR data were managed using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap, Nashville, Tennessee)⁹ and subsequently merged with PHIS data.

Study Population

Hospitalizations of children with NI aged 1 to 18 years at CCHMC between January 2010 and September 2015 were eligible for inclusion if they had a principal discharge diagnosis indicative of ARI and required increased respiratory support from baseline during hospitalization. NI was defined as a high-intensity, chronic neurological diagnosis with substantial functional impairments according to previously defined diagnosis codes.^1,10 ARI was identified using codes in the Clinical Classification Software (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD) respiratory group indicative of ARI (eg, pneumonia, bronchiolitis, influenza; Appendix Table).

Children transferred to CCHMC were excluded because records from their initial illness presentation and management were not available. Because of expected differences in management and outcomes, children with a known diagnosis of tuberculosis or human immunodeficiency virus were excluded. Because exposure criteria were dependent on hospital discharge status, hospitalizations for children who died during admission (4 of 632 hospitalizations, 0.63%) were excluded from the final cohort (Appendix Figure).

Study Definitions

Baseline respiratory support (ie, “respiratory baseline”) was defined as the child’s highest level of respiratory support needed prior to admission when well (ie, no support, supplemental oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP], or ventilator support), and further characterized by night or day/night requirement. Respiratory baseline was identified using EMR documentation of home respiratory support use at the time of index admission. Return to respiratory baseline was defined as the date on which the child achieved documented home respiratory support settings, regardless of clinical symptoms.

Children may have required increased respiratory support from baseline at any time during hospitalization. Maximum respiratory support required was categorized as one of the following: (1) initiation of supplemental oxygen or increase in oxygen flow or duration; (2) initiation of CPAP or BiPAP; (3) increase in pressure settings or duration of pressure support for those with baseline CPAP, BiPAP, or ventilator use; and (4) initiation of full mechanical ventilation. Respiratory support categories were mutually exclusive: children requiring multiple types of increased respiratory support were classified for analysis by the most invasive form of respiratory support used (eg, a child requiring increase in both oxygen flow and pressure settings was categorized as an increase in pressure settings). Children who received heated high-flow nasal cannula therapy as maximum support were categorized as initiation or increase in oxygen support.

Time to return to respiratory baseline was defined as the difference in days between date of return to respiratory baseline and date of admission. Time to return to respiratory baseline was determined only for children who were discharged at respiratory baseline.

Primary Exposure and Outcome Measures

The primary exposure was hospital discharge before return to respiratory baseline (ie, discharge on higher respiratory support than at baseline settings). At our institution, standardized discharge criteria for children with NI do not exist. The primary outcome was all-cause, 30-day hospital reutilization, including hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) revisits. Secondary outcomes included 30-day reutilization for ARI and hospital length of stay (LOS) in days.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Demographic and patient characteristics that might influence hospital discharge before return to respiratory baseline or readmission were obtained from PHIS (eg, demographic information, age, insurance type, measures of clinical complexity, illness severity) and by EMR review (eg, baseline respiratory support needs, maximum respiratory support during hospitalization). Measures of clinical complexity included comorbid complex chronic conditions (CCCs)^11-14 and technology dependence^14-16 using previously defined diagnostic codes. Measures of illness severity included sepsis¹⁷ and ICU-level care. At our institution, children with baseline ventilator use do not require admission to the ICU unless they are clinically unstable.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were described using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). Categorical variables were described using counts and percentages. Patient characteristics and outcomes were stratified by primary exposure and compared using chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables.

To examine the independent association between discharge before return to respiratory baseline and hospital reutilization, a generalized estimating equation was used that included potential confounders while accounting for within-patient clustering. Patient demographics included age, race, ethnicity, and insurance type; measures of clinical complexity included number of CCCs, technology dependence, and baseline respiratory support; and measures of acute illness severity included ARI diagnosis, degree of increase in respiratory support during hospitalization, and ICU-level care. LOS was also included in the model as a covariate because of its expected association with both exposure and outcome.

Secondary analyses were conducted using the outcome of 30-day reutilization for ARI. Subgroup analysis excluding hospitalizations of children lost to follow-up (ie, no encounters in the 6 months after hospital discharge) was also conducted. All analyses were performed with SAS v9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). P values < .05 were considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Study Cohort

A total of 632 hospitalizations experienced by 366 children with NI who were admitted with ARI were included (Appendix Figure). Most children (66.4%) in the cohort experienced only one hospitalization, 17.5% had two hospitalizations, 7.9% had three hospitalizations, and 8.2% had four or more hospitalizations. The median age at hospitalization was 5.0 years (IQR 2.8-10.5) and most hospitalizations were for children who were male (56.6%), white (78.3%), non-Hispanic (96.0%), and publicly insured (51.7%; Table 1). More than one-quarter (28.6%) of hospitalizations were for children with four or more CCCs, and in 73.4% of hospitalizations, children were technology dependent (Table 1). Baseline respiratory support was common (46.8%), including home mechanical ventilation in 11.1% of hospitalizations (Table 1). Bacterial pneumonia, including aspiration pneumonia, was the most common discharge diagnosis (50.5%, Table 1).

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

Children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline in 30.4% of hospitalizations (Appendix Figure). Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were older (median age 5.7 years, IQR 3.1-11.0, vs 4.9 years, IQR 2.6-9.7; P = .04) and more likely to be privately insured (54.2% vs 43.4%; P = .04), compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline (Table 1). Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were also more likely to have a respiratory CCC (59.9% vs 30.9%; P < .001), have a respiratory technology dependence diagnosis code (44.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001), and have baseline respiratory support needs on EMR review (67.7% vs 37.7%; P < .001), compared with children discharged at baseline (Table 1).

Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline required significantly greater escalation in respiratory support during hospitalization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline, including higher rates of initiation of CPAP or BiPAP, increased pressure settings from baseline (for home CPAP, BiPAP, or ventilator users), and initiation of full mechanical ventilation (Table 1). Hospitalizations in which children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline were also more likely to include ICU care than were those for children discharged at baseline (52.1% vs 35.2%; P < .001; Table 1).

Clinical Outcomes and Utilization

Reutilization within 30 days occurred after 32.1% of hospitalizations, with 26.1% requiring hospital readmission and 6.0% requiring ED revisit (Table 2). There was no statistical association in either unadjusted (Table 2) or adjusted (Table 3) analysis between children discharged before return to respiratory baseline and 30-day all-cause hospital reutilizations, hospital readmissions, or ED revisits.

In analysis of secondary outcomes, 30-day reutilization because of ARI occurred after 21.5% of hospitalizations, with 19.0% requiring hospital readmission and 2.5% requiring ED revisit. Median hospital LOS for the cohort was 4 days (IQR 2-8; Table 2). Hospitalizations in which children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline were longer than in those discharged at baseline (median 6 days, IQR 3-11, vs 4 days, IQR 2-7; P < .001; Table 2).

For hospitalizations of children discharged at respiratory baseline, the median time to return to respiratory baseline was 3 days (IQR 1-5, complete range 0-80). In these encounters, discharge occurred soon after return to respiratory baseline (median 1 day, IQR 0-1.5, complete range 0-54).

In subgroup analysis excluding the 18 hospitalizations in which children were lost to follow-up (2.8% of the total cohort), discharge before return to respiratory baseline was not associated with 30-day all-cause hospital reutilization (Table 4).

In this retrospective cohort study, children with NI hospitalized with ARI were frequently discharged using increased respiratory support from baseline. However, those discharged before return to respiratory baseline, despite their greater clinical complexity and acute illness severity, did not have increased hospital reutilization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Our findings suggest that discharge before return to baseline respiratory support after ARI may be clinically appropriate in some children with NI.

With the growing emphasis on decreasing hospital costs, concern exists that patients are being discharged from hospitals “quicker and sicker,”^18,19 with shortening lengths of stay and higher patient instability at discharge. Clinical instability at discharge has been associated with adverse postdischarge outcomes in adults with pneumonia^20-23; however, studies evaluating discharge readiness have not examined the population of children with NI. Our findings of no difference in reutilization for children with NI discharged before return to respiratory baseline, which would be expected to approximate one or more clinical instabilities, contrast these concerns.

Clinicians caring for children with NI hospitalized with ARI may find it difficult to determine a child’s discharge readiness, in part because many children with NI have longer times to return to respiratory baseline and some never return to their pre-­illness baseline.²⁴ In otherwise healthy children hospitalized with respiratory infections such as pneumonia, discharge criteria typically include complete wean from respiratory support prior to discharge.^4,25 In our study’s more complex children, whose parents already manage respiratory support at home, we hypothesize that discharging providers may be comfortable with discharge when the child has certain types of increased respiratory support compatible with home equipment, a parent skilled with monitoring the child’s respiratory status, and the support of an experienced outpatient provider and home nursing providers. At our institution, outpatient respiratory support weans are primarily performed by pediatric pulmonologists and, for isolated weaning of supplemental oxygen or time using support, by parents and outpatient pediatricians.

Another important factor in determining a child’s discharge readiness is the perspective of the child’s parent. Berry et al found that children whose parents believe they are not healthy enough for discharge are more likely to experience unplanned hospital readmissions,²⁴ signaling the role of child- and family-­specific factors in safe discharge decisions. Therefore, parents of children with NI should be proactively involved throughout the multidisciplinary discharge process,^26,27 including the decision to discharge before return to respiratory baseline. Parents have identified ongoing provider support, opportunities to practice home care skills, and written instructions with contingency plans as important components of discharge readiness.²⁸ Further work to create partnerships with these highly skilled caregivers in discharge decision making and transition planning are needed to promote safe discharge practices in this complex population.

In our study, children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were more likely to be older and privately insured compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Prior studies have found that social factors including low socioeconomic status influence ED provider admissions decisions for children with pneumonia.^29,30 However, the role of socioeconomic factors in provider discharge decisions for children with NI has not been assessed. These traits may also be proxy markers of other sociodemographic factors, such as parent education level, financial hardship influencing ability to participate in a child’s care at the bedside, access to comprehensive outpatient primary care, and availability of private home nursing. We hypothesize that these related characteristics directly and indirectly influence provider discharge decisions.

Discharging providers are likely more comfortable with discharge prior to return to respiratory baseline when the family has private duty nursing in the home. Home nurses can assist families in providing increased respiratory support and recognizing respiratory problems that may arise following discharge. However, home nursing shortages are common nationwide.^31,32 Low-income children, children with respiratory technology use, and children without Medicaid have been found to have larger gaps in home nursing availability.^31,32 Further studies are needed to understand the role of home nursing availability in provider discharge decisions in this population.

This study has several limitations. The retrospective design of this study creates the potential for residual confounding; there may be other clinical or demographic factors influencing hospital discharge decisions that we are unable to capture using EMR review, including parental knowledge and comfort managing illness, quality of discharge instructions, frequency of follow-up visits, and presence of skilled home nursing services. Categorization of children based on respiratory support status at discharge lends potential for misclassification of exposure; however, our substantial interrater reliability suggests that misclassification bias is small. This study’s primary finding indicated no difference between exposure groups; although we may be unable to detect small differences, we had sufficient power with our sample size to detect meaningful differences in reutilization outcomes.

This study was not designed to capture outpatient time to return to respiratory baseline; prospective studies are needed to identify rates of return to respiratory baseline following ARI in children with NI. We did not measure the level of respiratory support used by children at the time of discharge and, therefore, are unable to estimate the amount of respiratory support weaning needed following discharge or the compatibility of support with home equipment using our data. In addition, this study focused on respiratory support modalities and, thus, did not measure inpatient utilization of mucociliary clearance technologies that might be hypothesized to decrease the time to return to baseline respiratory support. Next steps in evaluating treatment of ARI include investigating the effect of mucociliary clearance on both exposure and outcome in this population.

There may be other clinically meaningful outcomes for this population apart from reutilization that we have not assessed in this study, including increased respiratory support required following discharge, primary care reutilization, healthcare costs, or parent satisfaction with timing of and outcomes after discharge. Finally, although our hospital has reutilization rates for children with NI that are similar to other institutions in the United States,³³ our results may not be generalizable to children with NI hospitalized at other institutions because local discharge processes and systems of care may be different. Prospective, multicenter investigation is needed to evaluate the clinical consequences of discharge before return to respiratory baseline more broadly.

At our institution, approximately one-quarter of children with NI hospitalized with ARI were discharged before return to respiratory baseline, but these children were not at increased risk of reutilization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Our findings suggest that return to baseline respiratory support might not be a necessary component of hospital discharge criteria. In otherwise clinically stable children with NI, discharge before return to respiratory baseline may be reasonable if their parents are comfortable managing respiratory support at home.

The authors thank Jonathan Rodean of the Children’s Hospital Association for his assistance with abstraction of PHIS data.

Children with neurologic impairment (NI; eg, hypoxic-­ischemic encephalopathy, muscular dystrophy) are characterized by functional and/or intellectual impairments resulting from a variety of neurologic diseases.¹ These children commonly have respiratory comorbidities, including central hypoventilation, impaired cough, and oromotor dysfunction, that may lead to chronic respiratory insufficiency and a need for chronic respiratory support at baseline.^2,3 Baseline respiratory support modalities can include supplemental oxygen, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation.

Acute respiratory infections (ARI; eg, pneumonia, bronchiolitis) are the most common cause of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death for children with NI.^1,3 Discharge criteria for otherwise healthy children admitted to the hospital with ARI often include return to respiratory baseline.⁴ Children with complex chronic conditions have longer hospitalizations when hospitalized with respiratory infections,^5-7 because, in part, comorbidities and complications prolong the time to return to baseline. This prolonged return to respiratory baseline in combination with family knowledge, comfort, and skill in managing respiratory support and other complexities at home may alter discharge practices in the population of children with NI. In our clinical experience, discharge before return to baseline respiratory support occurs more frequently in children with NI than in otherwise healthy children when hospitalized with ARI. However, the consequences of discharging children with NI prior to return to respiratory baseline are unknown.

In this study, we sought to determine if discharge prior to return to baseline respiratory support is associated with reutilization among children with NI hospitalized with ARI. We hypothesized that patients discharged prior to return to respiratory baseline would have higher rates of 30-day hospital reutilization.

Study Design and Data Source

This single-center, retrospective cohort study of children hospitalized at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) used data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) and the electronic medical record (EMR). PHIS, an administrative database of 45 not-for-profit, tertiary care, US pediatric hospitals managed by Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas), was used to identify eligible children, examine demographic and clinical variables, and define outcomes. PHIS contains data regarding patient demographics, inpatient resource utilization, and diagnoses. Encrypted medical record numbers in PHIS allowed for local identification of patients’ medical records to complete EMR review to confirm eligibility and obtain detailed patient-level clinical information (eg, respiratory support needs) not available in PHIS.

Pilot medical record reviews allowed for standardized study definitions and procedures. All study staff underwent training with the primary investigator, including detailed review of 10 initial abstractions. Two investigators (K.M. and S.C.) performed repeat abstractions from 40 randomly selected records to enable assessment of interrater reliability. Average reliability, indicated by the κ statistic, indicated substantial to near-perfect reliability⁸ (κ = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.00) for the primary exposure. EMR data were managed using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap, Nashville, Tennessee)⁹ and subsequently merged with PHIS data.

Study Population

Hospitalizations of children with NI aged 1 to 18 years at CCHMC between January 2010 and September 2015 were eligible for inclusion if they had a principal discharge diagnosis indicative of ARI and required increased respiratory support from baseline during hospitalization. NI was defined as a high-intensity, chronic neurological diagnosis with substantial functional impairments according to previously defined diagnosis codes.^1,10 ARI was identified using codes in the Clinical Classification Software (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD) respiratory group indicative of ARI (eg, pneumonia, bronchiolitis, influenza; Appendix Table).

Children transferred to CCHMC were excluded because records from their initial illness presentation and management were not available. Because of expected differences in management and outcomes, children with a known diagnosis of tuberculosis or human immunodeficiency virus were excluded. Because exposure criteria were dependent on hospital discharge status, hospitalizations for children who died during admission (4 of 632 hospitalizations, 0.63%) were excluded from the final cohort (Appendix Figure).

Study Definitions

Baseline respiratory support (ie, “respiratory baseline”) was defined as the child’s highest level of respiratory support needed prior to admission when well (ie, no support, supplemental oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP], or ventilator support), and further characterized by night or day/night requirement. Respiratory baseline was identified using EMR documentation of home respiratory support use at the time of index admission. Return to respiratory baseline was defined as the date on which the child achieved documented home respiratory support settings, regardless of clinical symptoms.

Children may have required increased respiratory support from baseline at any time during hospitalization. Maximum respiratory support required was categorized as one of the following: (1) initiation of supplemental oxygen or increase in oxygen flow or duration; (2) initiation of CPAP or BiPAP; (3) increase in pressure settings or duration of pressure support for those with baseline CPAP, BiPAP, or ventilator use; and (4) initiation of full mechanical ventilation. Respiratory support categories were mutually exclusive: children requiring multiple types of increased respiratory support were classified for analysis by the most invasive form of respiratory support used (eg, a child requiring increase in both oxygen flow and pressure settings was categorized as an increase in pressure settings). Children who received heated high-flow nasal cannula therapy as maximum support were categorized as initiation or increase in oxygen support.

Time to return to respiratory baseline was defined as the difference in days between date of return to respiratory baseline and date of admission. Time to return to respiratory baseline was determined only for children who were discharged at respiratory baseline.

Primary Exposure and Outcome Measures

The primary exposure was hospital discharge before return to respiratory baseline (ie, discharge on higher respiratory support than at baseline settings). At our institution, standardized discharge criteria for children with NI do not exist. The primary outcome was all-cause, 30-day hospital reutilization, including hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) revisits. Secondary outcomes included 30-day reutilization for ARI and hospital length of stay (LOS) in days.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Demographic and patient characteristics that might influence hospital discharge before return to respiratory baseline or readmission were obtained from PHIS (eg, demographic information, age, insurance type, measures of clinical complexity, illness severity) and by EMR review (eg, baseline respiratory support needs, maximum respiratory support during hospitalization). Measures of clinical complexity included comorbid complex chronic conditions (CCCs)^11-14 and technology dependence^14-16 using previously defined diagnostic codes. Measures of illness severity included sepsis¹⁷ and ICU-level care. At our institution, children with baseline ventilator use do not require admission to the ICU unless they are clinically unstable.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were described using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). Categorical variables were described using counts and percentages. Patient characteristics and outcomes were stratified by primary exposure and compared using chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables.

To examine the independent association between discharge before return to respiratory baseline and hospital reutilization, a generalized estimating equation was used that included potential confounders while accounting for within-patient clustering. Patient demographics included age, race, ethnicity, and insurance type; measures of clinical complexity included number of CCCs, technology dependence, and baseline respiratory support; and measures of acute illness severity included ARI diagnosis, degree of increase in respiratory support during hospitalization, and ICU-level care. LOS was also included in the model as a covariate because of its expected association with both exposure and outcome.

Secondary analyses were conducted using the outcome of 30-day reutilization for ARI. Subgroup analysis excluding hospitalizations of children lost to follow-up (ie, no encounters in the 6 months after hospital discharge) was also conducted. All analyses were performed with SAS v9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). P values < .05 were considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Study Cohort

A total of 632 hospitalizations experienced by 366 children with NI who were admitted with ARI were included (Appendix Figure). Most children (66.4%) in the cohort experienced only one hospitalization, 17.5% had two hospitalizations, 7.9% had three hospitalizations, and 8.2% had four or more hospitalizations. The median age at hospitalization was 5.0 years (IQR 2.8-10.5) and most hospitalizations were for children who were male (56.6%), white (78.3%), non-Hispanic (96.0%), and publicly insured (51.7%; Table 1). More than one-quarter (28.6%) of hospitalizations were for children with four or more CCCs, and in 73.4% of hospitalizations, children were technology dependent (Table 1). Baseline respiratory support was common (46.8%), including home mechanical ventilation in 11.1% of hospitalizations (Table 1). Bacterial pneumonia, including aspiration pneumonia, was the most common discharge diagnosis (50.5%, Table 1).

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

Children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline in 30.4% of hospitalizations (Appendix Figure). Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were older (median age 5.7 years, IQR 3.1-11.0, vs 4.9 years, IQR 2.6-9.7; P = .04) and more likely to be privately insured (54.2% vs 43.4%; P = .04), compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline (Table 1). Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were also more likely to have a respiratory CCC (59.9% vs 30.9%; P < .001), have a respiratory technology dependence diagnosis code (44.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001), and have baseline respiratory support needs on EMR review (67.7% vs 37.7%; P < .001), compared with children discharged at baseline (Table 1).

Children discharged before return to respiratory baseline required significantly greater escalation in respiratory support during hospitalization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline, including higher rates of initiation of CPAP or BiPAP, increased pressure settings from baseline (for home CPAP, BiPAP, or ventilator users), and initiation of full mechanical ventilation (Table 1). Hospitalizations in which children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline were also more likely to include ICU care than were those for children discharged at baseline (52.1% vs 35.2%; P < .001; Table 1).

Clinical Outcomes and Utilization

Reutilization within 30 days occurred after 32.1% of hospitalizations, with 26.1% requiring hospital readmission and 6.0% requiring ED revisit (Table 2). There was no statistical association in either unadjusted (Table 2) or adjusted (Table 3) analysis between children discharged before return to respiratory baseline and 30-day all-cause hospital reutilizations, hospital readmissions, or ED revisits.

In analysis of secondary outcomes, 30-day reutilization because of ARI occurred after 21.5% of hospitalizations, with 19.0% requiring hospital readmission and 2.5% requiring ED revisit. Median hospital LOS for the cohort was 4 days (IQR 2-8; Table 2). Hospitalizations in which children were discharged before return to respiratory baseline were longer than in those discharged at baseline (median 6 days, IQR 3-11, vs 4 days, IQR 2-7; P < .001; Table 2).

For hospitalizations of children discharged at respiratory baseline, the median time to return to respiratory baseline was 3 days (IQR 1-5, complete range 0-80). In these encounters, discharge occurred soon after return to respiratory baseline (median 1 day, IQR 0-1.5, complete range 0-54).

In subgroup analysis excluding the 18 hospitalizations in which children were lost to follow-up (2.8% of the total cohort), discharge before return to respiratory baseline was not associated with 30-day all-cause hospital reutilization (Table 4).

In this retrospective cohort study, children with NI hospitalized with ARI were frequently discharged using increased respiratory support from baseline. However, those discharged before return to respiratory baseline, despite their greater clinical complexity and acute illness severity, did not have increased hospital reutilization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Our findings suggest that discharge before return to baseline respiratory support after ARI may be clinically appropriate in some children with NI.

With the growing emphasis on decreasing hospital costs, concern exists that patients are being discharged from hospitals “quicker and sicker,”^18,19 with shortening lengths of stay and higher patient instability at discharge. Clinical instability at discharge has been associated with adverse postdischarge outcomes in adults with pneumonia^20-23; however, studies evaluating discharge readiness have not examined the population of children with NI. Our findings of no difference in reutilization for children with NI discharged before return to respiratory baseline, which would be expected to approximate one or more clinical instabilities, contrast these concerns.

Clinicians caring for children with NI hospitalized with ARI may find it difficult to determine a child’s discharge readiness, in part because many children with NI have longer times to return to respiratory baseline and some never return to their pre-­illness baseline.²⁴ In otherwise healthy children hospitalized with respiratory infections such as pneumonia, discharge criteria typically include complete wean from respiratory support prior to discharge.^4,25 In our study’s more complex children, whose parents already manage respiratory support at home, we hypothesize that discharging providers may be comfortable with discharge when the child has certain types of increased respiratory support compatible with home equipment, a parent skilled with monitoring the child’s respiratory status, and the support of an experienced outpatient provider and home nursing providers. At our institution, outpatient respiratory support weans are primarily performed by pediatric pulmonologists and, for isolated weaning of supplemental oxygen or time using support, by parents and outpatient pediatricians.

Another important factor in determining a child’s discharge readiness is the perspective of the child’s parent. Berry et al found that children whose parents believe they are not healthy enough for discharge are more likely to experience unplanned hospital readmissions,²⁴ signaling the role of child- and family-­specific factors in safe discharge decisions. Therefore, parents of children with NI should be proactively involved throughout the multidisciplinary discharge process,^26,27 including the decision to discharge before return to respiratory baseline. Parents have identified ongoing provider support, opportunities to practice home care skills, and written instructions with contingency plans as important components of discharge readiness.²⁸ Further work to create partnerships with these highly skilled caregivers in discharge decision making and transition planning are needed to promote safe discharge practices in this complex population.

In our study, children discharged before return to respiratory baseline were more likely to be older and privately insured compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Prior studies have found that social factors including low socioeconomic status influence ED provider admissions decisions for children with pneumonia.^29,30 However, the role of socioeconomic factors in provider discharge decisions for children with NI has not been assessed. These traits may also be proxy markers of other sociodemographic factors, such as parent education level, financial hardship influencing ability to participate in a child’s care at the bedside, access to comprehensive outpatient primary care, and availability of private home nursing. We hypothesize that these related characteristics directly and indirectly influence provider discharge decisions.

Discharging providers are likely more comfortable with discharge prior to return to respiratory baseline when the family has private duty nursing in the home. Home nurses can assist families in providing increased respiratory support and recognizing respiratory problems that may arise following discharge. However, home nursing shortages are common nationwide.^31,32 Low-income children, children with respiratory technology use, and children without Medicaid have been found to have larger gaps in home nursing availability.^31,32 Further studies are needed to understand the role of home nursing availability in provider discharge decisions in this population.

This study has several limitations. The retrospective design of this study creates the potential for residual confounding; there may be other clinical or demographic factors influencing hospital discharge decisions that we are unable to capture using EMR review, including parental knowledge and comfort managing illness, quality of discharge instructions, frequency of follow-up visits, and presence of skilled home nursing services. Categorization of children based on respiratory support status at discharge lends potential for misclassification of exposure; however, our substantial interrater reliability suggests that misclassification bias is small. This study’s primary finding indicated no difference between exposure groups; although we may be unable to detect small differences, we had sufficient power with our sample size to detect meaningful differences in reutilization outcomes.

This study was not designed to capture outpatient time to return to respiratory baseline; prospective studies are needed to identify rates of return to respiratory baseline following ARI in children with NI. We did not measure the level of respiratory support used by children at the time of discharge and, therefore, are unable to estimate the amount of respiratory support weaning needed following discharge or the compatibility of support with home equipment using our data. In addition, this study focused on respiratory support modalities and, thus, did not measure inpatient utilization of mucociliary clearance technologies that might be hypothesized to decrease the time to return to baseline respiratory support. Next steps in evaluating treatment of ARI include investigating the effect of mucociliary clearance on both exposure and outcome in this population.

There may be other clinically meaningful outcomes for this population apart from reutilization that we have not assessed in this study, including increased respiratory support required following discharge, primary care reutilization, healthcare costs, or parent satisfaction with timing of and outcomes after discharge. Finally, although our hospital has reutilization rates for children with NI that are similar to other institutions in the United States,³³ our results may not be generalizable to children with NI hospitalized at other institutions because local discharge processes and systems of care may be different. Prospective, multicenter investigation is needed to evaluate the clinical consequences of discharge before return to respiratory baseline more broadly.

At our institution, approximately one-quarter of children with NI hospitalized with ARI were discharged before return to respiratory baseline, but these children were not at increased risk of reutilization, compared with children discharged at respiratory baseline. Our findings suggest that return to baseline respiratory support might not be a necessary component of hospital discharge criteria. In otherwise clinically stable children with NI, discharge before return to respiratory baseline may be reasonable if their parents are comfortable managing respiratory support at home.

The authors thank Jonathan Rodean of the Children’s Hospital Association for his assistance with abstraction of PHIS data.

Due to the pandemic spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of COVID-19 infection, there is significant disruption to the global supply of PPE.² Order volumes of PPE have increased, prices have surged, and distributors are experiencing challenges meeting order demands.³ With decreased overseas exports, suppliers have placed hospitals on PPE allocations, and many hospitals’ orders for PPE have been only partially filled.^3,4 Unless hospitals have established stockpiles, most only have supplies for 3-7 days of routine use, leaving them vulnerable to exhausting PPE supplies. At the onset of the pandemic, 86% of United States hospitals reported concerns about their PPE supply.⁴

The potential for PPE shortages has led both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization to call for the rational and appropriate use of PPE in order to conserve supplies.^2,3 By the time COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, 54% of hospitals had imposed PPE conservation protocols,⁴ with more expected to follow in the weeks and months to come. Innovative protocols have been conceptualized and used to conserve PPE in hospitals (Table).

Yet these conservation protocols often fail to identify missed opportunities to improve the value of PPE that already exist in hospital care. By defining the value of inpatient PPE, hospitals can identify opportunities for value improvement. Changes implemented now will maximize PPE value and preserve supply during this pandemic and beyond.

In order to conserve PPE supply, hospitals might consider limiting PPE to cases in which clear evidence exists to support its use. However, evidence for PPE use can be challenging to interpret because the impact of preventing nosocomial infections (an outcome that did not occur) is inherently problematic to measure. This makes assessing the value of PPE in preventing nosocomial transmission in specific situations difficult.

The basis of using PPE is its effectiveness in controlling outbreaks.¹ A meta-analysis of 6 case-control studies from the SARS outbreak of 2003, which disproportionately infected healthcare workers, suggested that handwashing and PPE were effective in preventing disease transmission. Handwashing alone reduced transmission by 55%, wearing gloves by 57%, and wearing facemasks by 68%; the cumulative effect of handwashing, masks, gloves, and gowns reduced transmission by 91%.⁵ A cohort study of healthcare workers exposed to H1N1 influenza A in 2009 found that use of a facemask or an N95 respirator was associated with negative viral serology suggesting noninfected status.⁶ With respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks, a narrative synthesis of 4 studies examining transmission also suggested gowns, facemasks, and eye protection are effective, with eye protection perhaps more effective than gowns and masks.⁷ Yet these studies’ conclusions are limited by study design differences and small sample sizes.

The evidence supporting PPE use for routine hospital conditions is more challenging to interpret. One pediatric study of seasonal respiratory viruses showed that adding droplet precautions to an existing policy of contact precautions alone decreased nosocomial infections for most viruses evaluated.⁸ Yet this study, like many of PPE use, is limited by sample size and possible misclassification of exposure and outcome biases. Because PPE is always utilized in conjunction with other preventive measures, isolating the impact of PPE is challenging, let alone isolating the individual effects of PPE components. In the absence of strong empirical evidence, hospitals must rely on the inherent rationale of PPE use for patient and healthcare worker safety in assessing its value.

In order to protect patients from disease transmission during a pandemic, hospitals might also reconsider whether to use PPE in cases in which evidence is absent, such as routine prevention for colonized but noninfected patients. However, evidence of the possible patient harms of PPE are emerging. Healthcare providers spend less time with isolated patients^9,10 and document fewer vital signs.¹¹ Patients in PPE may experience delays in admission¹² and discharge,¹³ and have higher rates of falls, pressure ulcers, and medication errors.^14,15 They may also experience higher rates of anxiety and depression.¹⁶ Yet no evidence suggests PPE use for noninfected patients prevents transmission to patients or to healthcare workers. Using PPE when it is not indicated deemphasizes the value of other preventative precautions (eg, handwashing), unnecessarily depletes PPE supply, and may create patient harm without added benefit. High-value PPE, both during a pandemic and beyond, is defined by a system designed so that healthcare workers use PPE when they need it, and do not use PPE when not indicated.

While all hospitalized patients are admitted using standard precautions, decisions surrounding PPE can be nuanced for even experienced clinicians. Although the CDC does provide guidance for PPE use based on symptoms that correlate with potential for transmission (eg, patients with cough should be placed in at least droplet precautions),¹ guidelines must rely on provider evaluation and interpretation. For instance, three etiologies of cough—pneumococcal pneumonia, RSV bronchiolitis, and pulmonary tuberculosis—would all require different PPE. The clinician must weigh the probabilities of each pathogen and assess the harm of not protecting against certain pathogens in his or her decision.

Amidst the stress and cognitive burdens placed on clinicians, accuracy in PPE decisions is easily deprioritized. Clinicians may not completely consider patient-specific indications for PPE, implications for patients and staff, and supply shortages. Although the CDC and many hospitals have PPE initiation and discontinuation criteria, clinicians may favor educated guesswork and reliance on past experience when guidelines are poorly accessible or poorly searchable. Such individual, nonstandardized decisions likely lead to variability in practice patterns, inaccuracies in PPE decisions, and ultimately waste of PPE resources.

At our institution, the inconveniences, cognitive burden, and perceived benefit of routine PPE interventions have created a system in which PPE is regularly overused. On our hospital medicine wards, we found that PPE was both over-ordered upon admission (eg, contact/droplet precautions ordered for influenza when droplet precautions only would have sufficed) and unnecessarily continued even after children met discontinuation criteria.

On discharge review from our general pediatric ward in 2019, 18% of children discharged with PPE orders no longer met criteria for PPE. Two conditions—community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infections—accounted for 47% of discharges with unnecessary PPE orders. At an estimated cost of $0.13-$0.53 for droplet precautions per use, $0.69 for contact precautions, and $0.82-$1.22 for both, the absolute cost of continuing PPE without indication could be as high as $61/day per patient when estimating 50 uses per day. This direct cost represents healthcare spending without added value when PPE are not necessary. Furthermore, the additional emotional cost to the patient and family in their hospitalization experience, the cost of clinician time donning and doffing, the environmental cost of PPE waste, and the cost to the limited PPE supply are not considered in these calculations.

During a pandemic characterized by PPE shortages nationwide, allowing missed opportunities for PPE discontinuation to persist is not only wasteful, but inattentive to public health.

For individual clinicians, opportunities exist to improve PPE usage in daily patient care. Clinicians should not overlook PPE decisions; instead they should make it a practice to review PPE orders daily during rounds as they would lab orders. Clinicians and nursing staff should work together to identify PPE discontinuation opportunities, leveraging the electronic medical record when possible. For the benefit of patients and families, clinicians and bedside staff should recognize and assist in managing patient expectations of PPE.

Hospitals should work to make PPE references easily accessible and interpretable by frontline clinicians. To minimize variability of use, PPE ordering for routine conditions should be standardized and streamlined, including discontinuation criteria. Hospitals should invest in behavioral health programs to support patients with conditions necessitating PPE and develop policies to ensure ancillary services are equally available to all patients. To alleviate concerns about limited clinician time spent with isolated patients, hospitals should assign clinician workloads while accounting for the known increased time needed to care for patients with PPE.

For hospitals with extreme supply shortages, conservation might include decreased use of PPE for conditions in which its use is controversial (eg, patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or multidrug resistant organisms) as has been trialed in institutions prior to this pandemic.^17,18 Such PPE policy changes might occur in addition to, or in conjunction with, the conservation strategies suggested by other institutions (Table).

Healthcare systems should continually reassess the value of PPE for their hospitals and make changes accordingly. In the midst of difficulties directly demonstrating PPE’s value, hospitals must rely on the inherent rationale of PPE use in assessing value decisions weighed against harms while balancing healthcare worker protection regulations. Decisions should always occur while continuing other sensible infection-control procedures, such as handwashing and environmental hygiene measures.

To effect maximal change, healthcare systems should invest in redesigning PPE ordering systems at the highest level. This should include harnessing existing technologies to streamline PPE ordering decisions to meet clinicians’ cognitive needs. Decision support and auditing technologies could automate and monitor PPE orders efficiently. Likely to be most effective, an investment in creating and maintaining centralized PPE expert management teams to assess, order, and discontinue PPE would minimize individual ordering variation, minimize cost, and maximize value to patients, staff, and hospitals.

In this pandemic, we have the opportunity to rethink how we understand and use PPE in hospitalized patients. It is vitally important now more than ever to consciously conserve the limited supply of PPE resources. As we seek to increase healthcare value while limiting overuse and waste, PPE is a prime target for value improvement efforts as the effective but also burdensome tool that it is. Hospitalists are well-positioned to lead the redesign of how, when, and why PPE is used and to create a more optimized, lasting system that provides maximal value to patients, families, and healthcare workers during this current crisis and beyond.

Due to the pandemic spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of COVID-19 infection, there is significant disruption to the global supply of PPE.² Order volumes of PPE have increased, prices have surged, and distributors are experiencing challenges meeting order demands.³ With decreased overseas exports, suppliers have placed hospitals on PPE allocations, and many hospitals’ orders for PPE have been only partially filled.^3,4 Unless hospitals have established stockpiles, most only have supplies for 3-7 days of routine use, leaving them vulnerable to exhausting PPE supplies. At the onset of the pandemic, 86% of United States hospitals reported concerns about their PPE supply.⁴

The potential for PPE shortages has led both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization to call for the rational and appropriate use of PPE in order to conserve supplies.^2,3 By the time COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, 54% of hospitals had imposed PPE conservation protocols,⁴ with more expected to follow in the weeks and months to come. Innovative protocols have been conceptualized and used to conserve PPE in hospitals (Table).

Yet these conservation protocols often fail to identify missed opportunities to improve the value of PPE that already exist in hospital care. By defining the value of inpatient PPE, hospitals can identify opportunities for value improvement. Changes implemented now will maximize PPE value and preserve supply during this pandemic and beyond.

In order to conserve PPE supply, hospitals might consider limiting PPE to cases in which clear evidence exists to support its use. However, evidence for PPE use can be challenging to interpret because the impact of preventing nosocomial infections (an outcome that did not occur) is inherently problematic to measure. This makes assessing the value of PPE in preventing nosocomial transmission in specific situations difficult.

The basis of using PPE is its effectiveness in controlling outbreaks.¹ A meta-analysis of 6 case-control studies from the SARS outbreak of 2003, which disproportionately infected healthcare workers, suggested that handwashing and PPE were effective in preventing disease transmission. Handwashing alone reduced transmission by 55%, wearing gloves by 57%, and wearing facemasks by 68%; the cumulative effect of handwashing, masks, gloves, and gowns reduced transmission by 91%.⁵ A cohort study of healthcare workers exposed to H1N1 influenza A in 2009 found that use of a facemask or an N95 respirator was associated with negative viral serology suggesting noninfected status.⁶ With respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks, a narrative synthesis of 4 studies examining transmission also suggested gowns, facemasks, and eye protection are effective, with eye protection perhaps more effective than gowns and masks.⁷ Yet these studies’ conclusions are limited by study design differences and small sample sizes.

The evidence supporting PPE use for routine hospital conditions is more challenging to interpret. One pediatric study of seasonal respiratory viruses showed that adding droplet precautions to an existing policy of contact precautions alone decreased nosocomial infections for most viruses evaluated.⁸ Yet this study, like many of PPE use, is limited by sample size and possible misclassification of exposure and outcome biases. Because PPE is always utilized in conjunction with other preventive measures, isolating the impact of PPE is challenging, let alone isolating the individual effects of PPE components. In the absence of strong empirical evidence, hospitals must rely on the inherent rationale of PPE use for patient and healthcare worker safety in assessing its value.

In order to protect patients from disease transmission during a pandemic, hospitals might also reconsider whether to use PPE in cases in which evidence is absent, such as routine prevention for colonized but noninfected patients. However, evidence of the possible patient harms of PPE are emerging. Healthcare providers spend less time with isolated patients^9,10 and document fewer vital signs.¹¹ Patients in PPE may experience delays in admission¹² and discharge,¹³ and have higher rates of falls, pressure ulcers, and medication errors.^14,15 They may also experience higher rates of anxiety and depression.¹⁶ Yet no evidence suggests PPE use for noninfected patients prevents transmission to patients or to healthcare workers. Using PPE when it is not indicated deemphasizes the value of other preventative precautions (eg, handwashing), unnecessarily depletes PPE supply, and may create patient harm without added benefit. High-value PPE, both during a pandemic and beyond, is defined by a system designed so that healthcare workers use PPE when they need it, and do not use PPE when not indicated.

While all hospitalized patients are admitted using standard precautions, decisions surrounding PPE can be nuanced for even experienced clinicians. Although the CDC does provide guidance for PPE use based on symptoms that correlate with potential for transmission (eg, patients with cough should be placed in at least droplet precautions),¹ guidelines must rely on provider evaluation and interpretation. For instance, three etiologies of cough—pneumococcal pneumonia, RSV bronchiolitis, and pulmonary tuberculosis—would all require different PPE. The clinician must weigh the probabilities of each pathogen and assess the harm of not protecting against certain pathogens in his or her decision.

Amidst the stress and cognitive burdens placed on clinicians, accuracy in PPE decisions is easily deprioritized. Clinicians may not completely consider patient-specific indications for PPE, implications for patients and staff, and supply shortages. Although the CDC and many hospitals have PPE initiation and discontinuation criteria, clinicians may favor educated guesswork and reliance on past experience when guidelines are poorly accessible or poorly searchable. Such individual, nonstandardized decisions likely lead to variability in practice patterns, inaccuracies in PPE decisions, and ultimately waste of PPE resources.

At our institution, the inconveniences, cognitive burden, and perceived benefit of routine PPE interventions have created a system in which PPE is regularly overused. On our hospital medicine wards, we found that PPE was both over-ordered upon admission (eg, contact/droplet precautions ordered for influenza when droplet precautions only would have sufficed) and unnecessarily continued even after children met discontinuation criteria.

On discharge review from our general pediatric ward in 2019, 18% of children discharged with PPE orders no longer met criteria for PPE. Two conditions—community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infections—accounted for 47% of discharges with unnecessary PPE orders. At an estimated cost of $0.13-$0.53 for droplet precautions per use, $0.69 for contact precautions, and $0.82-$1.22 for both, the absolute cost of continuing PPE without indication could be as high as $61/day per patient when estimating 50 uses per day. This direct cost represents healthcare spending without added value when PPE are not necessary. Furthermore, the additional emotional cost to the patient and family in their hospitalization experience, the cost of clinician time donning and doffing, the environmental cost of PPE waste, and the cost to the limited PPE supply are not considered in these calculations.

During a pandemic characterized by PPE shortages nationwide, allowing missed opportunities for PPE discontinuation to persist is not only wasteful, but inattentive to public health.

For individual clinicians, opportunities exist to improve PPE usage in daily patient care. Clinicians should not overlook PPE decisions; instead they should make it a practice to review PPE orders daily during rounds as they would lab orders. Clinicians and nursing staff should work together to identify PPE discontinuation opportunities, leveraging the electronic medical record when possible. For the benefit of patients and families, clinicians and bedside staff should recognize and assist in managing patient expectations of PPE.

Hospitals should work to make PPE references easily accessible and interpretable by frontline clinicians. To minimize variability of use, PPE ordering for routine conditions should be standardized and streamlined, including discontinuation criteria. Hospitals should invest in behavioral health programs to support patients with conditions necessitating PPE and develop policies to ensure ancillary services are equally available to all patients. To alleviate concerns about limited clinician time spent with isolated patients, hospitals should assign clinician workloads while accounting for the known increased time needed to care for patients with PPE.

For hospitals with extreme supply shortages, conservation might include decreased use of PPE for conditions in which its use is controversial (eg, patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or multidrug resistant organisms) as has been trialed in institutions prior to this pandemic.^17,18 Such PPE policy changes might occur in addition to, or in conjunction with, the conservation strategies suggested by other institutions (Table).

Healthcare systems should continually reassess the value of PPE for their hospitals and make changes accordingly. In the midst of difficulties directly demonstrating PPE’s value, hospitals must rely on the inherent rationale of PPE use in assessing value decisions weighed against harms while balancing healthcare worker protection regulations. Decisions should always occur while continuing other sensible infection-control procedures, such as handwashing and environmental hygiene measures.

To effect maximal change, healthcare systems should invest in redesigning PPE ordering systems at the highest level. This should include harnessing existing technologies to streamline PPE ordering decisions to meet clinicians’ cognitive needs. Decision support and auditing technologies could automate and monitor PPE orders efficiently. Likely to be most effective, an investment in creating and maintaining centralized PPE expert management teams to assess, order, and discontinue PPE would minimize individual ordering variation, minimize cost, and maximize value to patients, staff, and hospitals.

In this pandemic, we have the opportunity to rethink how we understand and use PPE in hospitalized patients. It is vitally important now more than ever to consciously conserve the limited supply of PPE resources. As we seek to increase healthcare value while limiting overuse and waste, PPE is a prime target for value improvement efforts as the effective but also burdensome tool that it is. Hospitalists are well-positioned to lead the redesign of how, when, and why PPE is used and to create a more optimized, lasting system that provides maximal value to patients, families, and healthcare workers during this current crisis and beyond.

Due to the pandemic spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of COVID-19 infection, there is significant disruption to the global supply of PPE.² Order volumes of PPE have increased, prices have surged, and distributors are experiencing challenges meeting order demands.³ With decreased overseas exports, suppliers have placed hospitals on PPE allocations, and many hospitals’ orders for PPE have been only partially filled.^3,4 Unless hospitals have established stockpiles, most only have supplies for 3-7 days of routine use, leaving them vulnerable to exhausting PPE supplies. At the onset of the pandemic, 86% of United States hospitals reported concerns about their PPE supply.⁴

The potential for PPE shortages has led both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization to call for the rational and appropriate use of PPE in order to conserve supplies.^2,3 By the time COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, 54% of hospitals had imposed PPE conservation protocols,⁴ with more expected to follow in the weeks and months to come. Innovative protocols have been conceptualized and used to conserve PPE in hospitals (Table).

Yet these conservation protocols often fail to identify missed opportunities to improve the value of PPE that already exist in hospital care. By defining the value of inpatient PPE, hospitals can identify opportunities for value improvement. Changes implemented now will maximize PPE value and preserve supply during this pandemic and beyond.

In order to conserve PPE supply, hospitals might consider limiting PPE to cases in which clear evidence exists to support its use. However, evidence for PPE use can be challenging to interpret because the impact of preventing nosocomial infections (an outcome that did not occur) is inherently problematic to measure. This makes assessing the value of PPE in preventing nosocomial transmission in specific situations difficult.

The basis of using PPE is its effectiveness in controlling outbreaks.¹ A meta-analysis of 6 case-control studies from the SARS outbreak of 2003, which disproportionately infected healthcare workers, suggested that handwashing and PPE were effective in preventing disease transmission. Handwashing alone reduced transmission by 55%, wearing gloves by 57%, and wearing facemasks by 68%; the cumulative effect of handwashing, masks, gloves, and gowns reduced transmission by 91%.⁵ A cohort study of healthcare workers exposed to H1N1 influenza A in 2009 found that use of a facemask or an N95 respirator was associated with negative viral serology suggesting noninfected status.⁶ With respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks, a narrative synthesis of 4 studies examining transmission also suggested gowns, facemasks, and eye protection are effective, with eye protection perhaps more effective than gowns and masks.⁷ Yet these studies’ conclusions are limited by study design differences and small sample sizes.

The evidence supporting PPE use for routine hospital conditions is more challenging to interpret. One pediatric study of seasonal respiratory viruses showed that adding droplet precautions to an existing policy of contact precautions alone decreased nosocomial infections for most viruses evaluated.⁸ Yet this study, like many of PPE use, is limited by sample size and possible misclassification of exposure and outcome biases. Because PPE is always utilized in conjunction with other preventive measures, isolating the impact of PPE is challenging, let alone isolating the individual effects of PPE components. In the absence of strong empirical evidence, hospitals must rely on the inherent rationale of PPE use for patient and healthcare worker safety in assessing its value.

In order to protect patients from disease transmission during a pandemic, hospitals might also reconsider whether to use PPE in cases in which evidence is absent, such as routine prevention for colonized but noninfected patients. However, evidence of the possible patient harms of PPE are emerging. Healthcare providers spend less time with isolated patients^9,10 and document fewer vital signs.¹¹ Patients in PPE may experience delays in admission¹² and discharge,¹³ and have higher rates of falls, pressure ulcers, and medication errors.^14,15 They may also experience higher rates of anxiety and depression.¹⁶ Yet no evidence suggests PPE use for noninfected patients prevents transmission to patients or to healthcare workers. Using PPE when it is not indicated deemphasizes the value of other preventative precautions (eg, handwashing), unnecessarily depletes PPE supply, and may create patient harm without added benefit. High-value PPE, both during a pandemic and beyond, is defined by a system designed so that healthcare workers use PPE when they need it, and do not use PPE when not indicated.

While all hospitalized patients are admitted using standard precautions, decisions surrounding PPE can be nuanced for even experienced clinicians. Although the CDC does provide guidance for PPE use based on symptoms that correlate with potential for transmission (eg, patients with cough should be placed in at least droplet precautions),¹ guidelines must rely on provider evaluation and interpretation. For instance, three etiologies of cough—pneumococcal pneumonia, RSV bronchiolitis, and pulmonary tuberculosis—would all require different PPE. The clinician must weigh the probabilities of each pathogen and assess the harm of not protecting against certain pathogens in his or her decision.

Amidst the stress and cognitive burdens placed on clinicians, accuracy in PPE decisions is easily deprioritized. Clinicians may not completely consider patient-specific indications for PPE, implications for patients and staff, and supply shortages. Although the CDC and many hospitals have PPE initiation and discontinuation criteria, clinicians may favor educated guesswork and reliance on past experience when guidelines are poorly accessible or poorly searchable. Such individual, nonstandardized decisions likely lead to variability in practice patterns, inaccuracies in PPE decisions, and ultimately waste of PPE resources.

At our institution, the inconveniences, cognitive burden, and perceived benefit of routine PPE interventions have created a system in which PPE is regularly overused. On our hospital medicine wards, we found that PPE was both over-ordered upon admission (eg, contact/droplet precautions ordered for influenza when droplet precautions only would have sufficed) and unnecessarily continued even after children met discontinuation criteria.

On discharge review from our general pediatric ward in 2019, 18% of children discharged with PPE orders no longer met criteria for PPE. Two conditions—community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infections—accounted for 47% of discharges with unnecessary PPE orders. At an estimated cost of $0.13-$0.53 for droplet precautions per use, $0.69 for contact precautions, and $0.82-$1.22 for both, the absolute cost of continuing PPE without indication could be as high as $61/day per patient when estimating 50 uses per day. This direct cost represents healthcare spending without added value when PPE are not necessary. Furthermore, the additional emotional cost to the patient and family in their hospitalization experience, the cost of clinician time donning and doffing, the environmental cost of PPE waste, and the cost to the limited PPE supply are not considered in these calculations.

During a pandemic characterized by PPE shortages nationwide, allowing missed opportunities for PPE discontinuation to persist is not only wasteful, but inattentive to public health.

For individual clinicians, opportunities exist to improve PPE usage in daily patient care. Clinicians should not overlook PPE decisions; instead they should make it a practice to review PPE orders daily during rounds as they would lab orders. Clinicians and nursing staff should work together to identify PPE discontinuation opportunities, leveraging the electronic medical record when possible. For the benefit of patients and families, clinicians and bedside staff should recognize and assist in managing patient expectations of PPE.

Hospitals should work to make PPE references easily accessible and interpretable by frontline clinicians. To minimize variability of use, PPE ordering for routine conditions should be standardized and streamlined, including discontinuation criteria. Hospitals should invest in behavioral health programs to support patients with conditions necessitating PPE and develop policies to ensure ancillary services are equally available to all patients. To alleviate concerns about limited clinician time spent with isolated patients, hospitals should assign clinician workloads while accounting for the known increased time needed to care for patients with PPE.

For hospitals with extreme supply shortages, conservation might include decreased use of PPE for conditions in which its use is controversial (eg, patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or multidrug resistant organisms) as has been trialed in institutions prior to this pandemic.^17,18 Such PPE policy changes might occur in addition to, or in conjunction with, the conservation strategies suggested by other institutions (Table).

Healthcare systems should continually reassess the value of PPE for their hospitals and make changes accordingly. In the midst of difficulties directly demonstrating PPE’s value, hospitals must rely on the inherent rationale of PPE use in assessing value decisions weighed against harms while balancing healthcare worker protection regulations. Decisions should always occur while continuing other sensible infection-control procedures, such as handwashing and environmental hygiene measures.

To effect maximal change, healthcare systems should invest in redesigning PPE ordering systems at the highest level. This should include harnessing existing technologies to streamline PPE ordering decisions to meet clinicians’ cognitive needs. Decision support and auditing technologies could automate and monitor PPE orders efficiently. Likely to be most effective, an investment in creating and maintaining centralized PPE expert management teams to assess, order, and discontinue PPE would minimize individual ordering variation, minimize cost, and maximize value to patients, staff, and hospitals.

In this pandemic, we have the opportunity to rethink how we understand and use PPE in hospitalized patients. It is vitally important now more than ever to consciously conserve the limited supply of PPE resources. As we seek to increase healthcare value while limiting overuse and waste, PPE is a prime target for value improvement efforts as the effective but also burdensome tool that it is. Hospitalists are well-positioned to lead the redesign of how, when, and why PPE is used and to create a more optimized, lasting system that provides maximal value to patients, families, and healthcare workers during this current crisis and beyond.

Neurologic impairment (NI) encompasses static and progressive diseases of the central and/or peripheral nervous systems that result in functional and intellectual impairments.¹ While a variety of neurologic diseases are responsible for NI (eg, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, muscular dystrophy), consequences of these diseases extend beyond neurologic manifestations.¹ These children are at an increased risk for aspiration of oral and gastric contents given their common comorbidities of dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux, impaired cough, and respiratory muscle weakness.² While aspiration may manifest as a self-resolving pneumonitis, the presence of oral or enteric bacteria in aspirated material may result in the development of bacterial pneumonia. Children with NI hospitalized with aspiration pneumonia have higher complication rates, longer and costlier hospitalizations, and higher readmission rates when compared with children with nonaspiration pneumonia.³

While pediatric aspiration pneumonia is commonly attributed to anaerobic bacteria, this is largely based on extrapolation from epidemiologic studies that were conducted in past decades.^4-8 A single randomized controlled trial found that penicillin and clindamycin, antimicrobials with similar antimicrobial activity against anaerobes, to be equally effective.⁹ However, the recent literature emphasizes the polymicrobial nature of aspiration pneumonia in adults, with the common isolation of Gram-negative enteric bacteria.¹⁰ Further, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa is often identified in respiratory cultures from children with NI and chronic respiratory insufficiency,^11,12 the significance of P. aeruginosa in lower airways remains unclear.

We designed this study to compare hospital outcomes associated with the most commonly prescribed empiric antimicrobial therapies for aspiration pneumonia in children with NI.

Study Design and Data Source

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study used the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. PHIS, an administrative database of 50 not-for-profit tertiary care pediatric hospitals, contains data regarding patient demographics, diagnoses and procedures, and daily billed resource utilization, including laboratory and imaging studies. Data quality and reliability are assured through the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA; Lenexa, Kansas) and participating hospitals. Due to incomplete data through the study period and data quality issues, six hospitals were excluded.

Inclusion Criteria

Children 1-18 years of age who were discharged between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2015 were included if they had a NI diagnosis,¹ a principal diagnosis indicative of aspiration pneumonia (507.x),^3,13,14 and received antibiotics in the first two calendar days of admission. NI was determined using previously defined International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes.¹ We only included children who received antibiotics in the first two calendar days of admission to minimize the likelihood of including children admitted for other reasons who acquired aspiration pneumonia after hospitalization. For children with multiple hospitalizations, one admission was randomly selected for inclusion to minimize weighting results toward repeat visits.

Exclusion Criteria

Children transferred from another hospital were excluded as records from their initial presentation, including treatment and outcomes, were not available. We also excluded children with tracheostomy^15,16 or chronic ventilator dependence,¹⁷ those with a diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus or tuberculosis, and children who received chemotherapy during hospitalization given expected differences in etiology, treatment, and outcomes.¹⁸

Exposure

The primary exposure was antibiotic therapy received in the first two days of admission. Antibiotics were classified by their antimicrobial spectra of activity as defined by The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy¹⁹ against the most commonly recognized pathogens of aspiration pneumonia: anaerobes, Gram-negatives, and P. aeruginosa (Appendix Table 1).^10,20 For example, penicillin G and clindamycin were among the antibiotics classified as providing anaerobic coverage alone, whereas ceftriaxone was classified as providing Gram-negative coverage alone and ampicillin-sulbactam or as combination therapy with clindamycin and ceftriaxone were classified as providing anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage. Piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem were classified as providing anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage. We excluded antibiotics that do not provide coverage against anaerobes, Gram-negative, or P. aeruginosa (eg, ampicillin, azithromycin) or that provide coverage against Gram-negative and P. aeruginosa, but not anaerobes (eg, cefepime, tobramycin), as these therapies were prescribed for <5% of the cohort. We chose not to examine the coverage for Streptococcus pneumonia or Staphylococcus aureus as antibiotics included in this analysis covered these bacteria for 99.9% of our cohort.

Outcomes included acute respiratory failure during hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Acute respiratory failure during hospitalization was defined as the presence of Clinical Transaction Classification (CTC) or ICD-9 procedure code for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation on day two or later of hospitalization, with or without the need for respiratory support on day 0 or day 1 (Appendix Table 2). Given the variability in hospital policies that may drive ICU admission criteria for complex patients, our outcome of ICU transfer was defined as the requirement for ICU level care on day two or later of hospitalization without ICU admission. Acute respiratory failure and ICU care occurring within the first two hospital days were not classified as outcomes because these early events likely reflect illness severity at presentation rather than outcomes attributable to treatment failure; these were included as markers of severity in the models.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Demographic and clinical characteristics that might influence antibiotic choice and/or hospital outcomes were assessed. Clinical characteristics included complex chronic conditions,^21-23 medical technology assistance,²⁴ performance of diagnostic testing, and markers of severe illness on presentation. Diagnostic testing included bacterial cultures (blood, respiratory, urine) and chest radiograph performance in the first two days of hospitalization. Results of diagnostic testing are not available in the PHIS. Illness severity on presentation included acute respiratory failure, pleural drainage, receipt of vasoactive agents, and transfusion of blood products in the first two days of hospitalization (Appendix Table 2).^17,25,26

Continuous data were described with median and interquartile ranges (IQR) due to nonnormal distribution. Categorical data were described with frequencies and percentages. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and hospital outcomes were stratified by empiric antimicrobial coverage and compared using chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests as appropriate.

Generalized linear mixed-effects models with random hospital intercepts were derived to assess the independent effect of antimicrobial spectra of activity on outcomes of acute respiratory failure, ICU transfer, and LOS while adjusting for important differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. LOS had a nonnormal distribution. Thus, we used an exponential distribution. Covariates were chosen a priori given the clinical and biological relevance to exposure and outcomes—age, presence of complex chronic condition diagnoses, the number of complex chronic conditions, technology dependence, the performance of diagnostic tests on presentation, and illness severity on presentation. ICU admission was included as a covariate in acute respiratory failure and LOS outcome models. The results of the model for acute respiratory failure and ICU transfer are presented as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with a 95% CI. LOS results are presented as adjusted rate ratios (RR) with 95% CI.

All analyses were performed with SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). P values <.05 were considered statistically significant. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Institutional Review Board considered this deidentified dataset study as not human subjects research.

Study Cohort

At the 44 hospitals included, 4,812 children with NI hospitalized with the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia met the eligibility criteria. However, 79 received antibiotics with the spectra of activity not examined, leaving 4,733 children in our final analysis (Appendix Figure). Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study cohort are shown in Table 1. Median age was five years (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-11 years). Most subjects were male (53.9%), non-Hispanic white (47.9%), and publicly insured (63.6%). There was a slight variation in the distribution of admissions across seasons (spring 31.6%, summer 19.2%, fall 21.3%, and winter 27.9%). One-third of children had four or more comorbid CCCs (complex chronic conditions; 34.2%). The three most common nonneurologic CCC diagnosis categories were gastrointestinal (63.1%), congenital and/or genetic defects (36.9%), and respiratory (8.9%). Assistance with medical technologies was also common (82%)—particularly gastrointestinal (63.1%) and neurologic/neuromuscular (9.8%) technologies. The vast majority of children (92.5%) had either a chest radiograph (90.5%), respiratory viral study (33.7%), or respiratory culture (10.0%) obtained on presentation. A minority required noninvasive or invasive respiratory support (25.4%), vasoactive agents (8.9%), blood products (1.2%), or pleural drainage (0.3%) in the first two hospital days.

Spectrum of Antimicrobial Coverage

Most children (57.9%) received anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage; 16.2% received anaerobic, Gram-negative and P. aeruginosa coverage; 15.3% received anaerobic coverage alone; and 10.6% received Gram-negative coverage alone. Empiric antimicrobial coverage varied substantially across hospitals: anaerobic coverage was prescribed for 0%-44% of patients; Gram-negative coverage was prescribed for 3%-26% of patients; anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage was prescribed for 25%-90% of patients; and anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage was prescribed for 0%-65% of patients (Figure 1).

Outcomes

Acute Respiratory Failure

One-quarter (25.4%) of patients had acute respiratory failure on presentation; 22.5% required respiratory support (continued from presentation or were new) on day two or later of hospitalization (Table 2). In the adjusted analysis, children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone had two-fold greater odds (OR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.41-3.27) and children receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage had 1.6-fold greater odds (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19-2.28), of respiratory failure during hospitalization compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2). Odds of respiratory failure during hospitalization did not significantly differ for children receiving anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone.

ICU Transfer

Nearly thirty percent (29.0%) of children required ICU admission, with an additional 3.8% requiring ICU transfer following admission (Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, the odds of an ICU transfer were greater for children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone (OR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.03-3.14) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone. There was no statistical difference in ICU transfer for those receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage (with or without P. aeruginosa coverage) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2).

Length of Stay

Median hospital LOS for the total cohort was five days (IQR: 3-9 days; Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone had a longer LOS (RR 1.28; 95% CI: 1.16-1.41) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone, whereas children receiving anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage had a shorter LOS (RR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76-0.90) than those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2). There was no statistical difference in the LOS between children receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage and those receiving anaerobic coverage alone.

In this multicenter study of children with NI hospitalized with aspiration pneumonia, we found substantial variation in empiric antimicrobial coverage for children with aspiration pneumonia. When comparing outcomes across groups, children who received anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage had outcomes similar to children who received anaerobic therapy alone. However, children who did not receive anaerobic coverage (ie, Gram-negative coverage alone) had worse outcomes, most notably a greater than two-fold increase in the odds of experiencing acute respiratory failure during hospitalization when compared with children receiving anaerobic therapy. These findings support prior literature that has highlighted the importance of anaerobic therapy in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia. The benefit of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative organisms, in addition to anaerobes, remains uncertain.

The variability in empiric antimicrobial coverage likely reflects the paucity of available information on oral and/or enteric bacteria required to identify them as causative organisms in aspiration pneumonia. In part, this problem is due to the difficulty in obtaining adequate sputum for culture from pediatric patients.²⁷ While it may be more feasible to obtain tracheal aspirates for respiratory culture in children with a tracheostomy, interpretation of culture results remains challenging because the lower airways of children with tracheostomy are commonly colonized with bacterial pathogens.²⁸ Thus, physicians are often left to choose empiric antimicrobial coverage with inadequate supporting evidence.²⁹ Although the polymicrobial nature of aspiration pneumonia is well recognized in adult and pediatric literature,^10,30 it is less clear which organisms are of pathological significance and require treatment.

The treatment standard for aspiration pneumonia has long included anaerobic therapy.²⁹ The worse outcomes of children not receiving anaerobic therapy (ie, Gram-negative coverage alone) compared with children who received anaerobic therapy support the continued importance of anaerobic therapy in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia for hospitalized children with NI. The role of antibiotics covering Gram-negative organisms is less clear. Recent studies suggest the role of anaerobes is overemphasized in the etiology and treatment of aspiration pneumonia.^10,29,31-38 Multiple studies on aspiration pneumonia bacteriology in hospitalized adults have demonstrated a predominance of Gram-negative organisms (ranging from 37%-71% of isolates identified on respiratory culture) and a relative scarcity of anaerobes (ranging from 0%-16% of isolates).^31-37 A prospective study of 50 children hospitalized with clinical and radiographic evidence of pneumonia with known aspiration risk (eg, neuromuscular disease or dysphagia) found that ~80% of 163 bacterial isolates were Gram-negative.³⁸ However, this study included repeat cultures from the same children, and thus, may overestimate the prevalence of Gram-negative organisms. In our study, children who received both anaerobic and Gram-negative therapy had no differences in ICU transfer or LOS but did experience higher odds of acute respiratory failure. As these results may be due to unmeasured confounding, future studies should further explore the necessity of Gram-negative coverage in addition to anaerobic coverage in this population.

While these recent studies may seem to suggest that anaerobic coverage is not necessary for aspiration pneumonia, there are important limitations worth noting. First, these studies used a variety of sampling techniques. While organisms grown from samples obtained via bronchoalveolar lavage^31-34,36 are likely pathogenic, those grown from tracheal or oral samples obtained via percutaneous transtracheal aspiration,³⁴ a protected specimen brush,^34,36,37 or expectorated sputum^35,38 may not represent lower airway organisms. Second, anaerobic cultures were not obtained in all studies.^31,34,38 Anaerobic organisms are difficult to isolate using traditional clinical specimen collection techniques and aerobic culture media.¹⁸ Furthermore, anaerobes are not easily recovered from lung infections after the receipt of antibiotic therapy.³⁹ Details regarding pretreatment, which are largely lacking from these studies, are necessary to interpret the relative scarcity of anaerobes on respiratory culture. Finally, caution should be taken when extrapolating the results of studies focused on the etiology and treatment of aspiration pneumonia in elderly adults to children. Our results, particularly in the context of the limitation of these more recent studies, suggest that the role of anaerobes has been underestimated.

Recent studies examining populations of children with cerebral palsy and/or tracheostomy have emphasized the high rates of carriage and infection rates with Gram-negative and drug-resistant bacteria; in particular, P. aeruginosa accounts for 50%-72% of pathogenic bacteria.^11,12,38,40These studies note the generally poor outcomes of children with P. aeruginosa—including multiple and longer hospitalizations, frequent readmissions, and the increased severity of pneumonia, including the need for ICU admission, pleural effusions, the need for intubation, and mortality.^{11,12,38,40,41} In our study, nearly 35% of children who received anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage experienced acute respiratory failure during hospitalization compared with 20% of children who received other therapies. While these results might seem to suggest that broader spectrum therapy is harmful, they must be interpreted in the context of important population differences; children who received a combination of anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage had greater medical complexity and greater severity of illness on presentation. Such factors may provide the reason for the appropriate prescription of antipseudomonal antibiotics (eg, history of tracheostomy colonization or infection, long-term care facility resident).⁴² When we controlled for population differences, children who received antipseudomonal therapy had a significantly shorter LOS and no differences in outcomes of acute respiratory failure or ICU transfer compared with those receiving anaerobic therapy alone. This result suggests that worse outcomes were associated with antipseudomonal therapy on unadjusted analyses resulting from underlying medical complexity and illness severity rather than from colonization or infection with P. aeruginosa.

Our multicenter observational study has several limitations. We used diagnosis codes to identify patients with aspiration pneumonia. As validated clinical criteria for the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia do not exist, clinicians may assign a diagnosis of and treatment for aspiration pneumonia by subjective suspicion based on a child’s severe NI or illness severity on presentation leading to selection bias. Although administrative data are not able to verify pneumonia type with absolute certainty, we previously demonstrated that the differences in the outcomes of children with aspiration and nonaspiration pneumonia diagnosis codes persist after accounting for the complexity that might influence the diagnosis.³It is also possible that the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia was not made upon admission for a subset of patients leading to misclassification of exposure. Some children may have had aspiration pneumonia on admission but were not assigned that diagnosis or treated for presumed aspiration pneumonia until later in the hospital course as they demonstrated treatment failure or clinical worsening. It is also possible that some children had an aspiration event during hospitalization that developed into aspiration pneumonia. We attempted to adjust for medical complexity and illness severity through multivariable adjustment based on the diagnosis and procedure codes, as well as the laboratory testing performed. However, unmeasured or residual confounding may remain as administrative data are not equipped to distinguish detailed functional status (eg, ability to cough, chest wall strength) or illness severity (eg, respiratory distress) that might influence antibiotic selection and/or outcomes.

Frthermore, we were unable to account for laboratory, microbiology, or radiology test results, and other management practices (eg, frequency of airway clearance, previous antimicrobial therapy) that may influence outcomes. Future studies should certainly include an examination of the concordance of the antibiotics prescribed with causative organisms, as this undoubtedly affects patient outcomes. Other outcomes are important to examine (eg, time to return to respiratory baseline), but we were unable to do so, given the lack of clinical detail in our database. We randomly selected a single hospitalization for children with multiple admissions; alternative methods could have different results. Although children with NI predominately use children’s hospitals,¹ results may not be generalizable.

These findings support prior literature that has highlighted the important role anaerobic therapy plays in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia in children with NI. In light of the limitations of our study design, we believe that rigorous clinical trials comparing anaerobic with anaerobic and Gram-negative therapy are an important and necessary next step to determine the optimal treatment for aspiration pneumonia in this population.

Disclosures

The authors do not have any financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Thomson was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under award number K08HS025138. Dr. Ambroggio was supported by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under award number K01AI125413. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the AHRQ or NIAID.

Neurologic impairment (NI) encompasses static and progressive diseases of the central and/or peripheral nervous systems that result in functional and intellectual impairments.¹ While a variety of neurologic diseases are responsible for NI (eg, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, muscular dystrophy), consequences of these diseases extend beyond neurologic manifestations.¹ These children are at an increased risk for aspiration of oral and gastric contents given their common comorbidities of dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux, impaired cough, and respiratory muscle weakness.² While aspiration may manifest as a self-resolving pneumonitis, the presence of oral or enteric bacteria in aspirated material may result in the development of bacterial pneumonia. Children with NI hospitalized with aspiration pneumonia have higher complication rates, longer and costlier hospitalizations, and higher readmission rates when compared with children with nonaspiration pneumonia.³

While pediatric aspiration pneumonia is commonly attributed to anaerobic bacteria, this is largely based on extrapolation from epidemiologic studies that were conducted in past decades.^4-8 A single randomized controlled trial found that penicillin and clindamycin, antimicrobials with similar antimicrobial activity against anaerobes, to be equally effective.⁹ However, the recent literature emphasizes the polymicrobial nature of aspiration pneumonia in adults, with the common isolation of Gram-negative enteric bacteria.¹⁰ Further, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa is often identified in respiratory cultures from children with NI and chronic respiratory insufficiency,^11,12 the significance of P. aeruginosa in lower airways remains unclear.

We designed this study to compare hospital outcomes associated with the most commonly prescribed empiric antimicrobial therapies for aspiration pneumonia in children with NI.

Study Design and Data Source

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study used the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. PHIS, an administrative database of 50 not-for-profit tertiary care pediatric hospitals, contains data regarding patient demographics, diagnoses and procedures, and daily billed resource utilization, including laboratory and imaging studies. Data quality and reliability are assured through the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA; Lenexa, Kansas) and participating hospitals. Due to incomplete data through the study period and data quality issues, six hospitals were excluded.

Inclusion Criteria

Children 1-18 years of age who were discharged between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2015 were included if they had a NI diagnosis,¹ a principal diagnosis indicative of aspiration pneumonia (507.x),^3,13,14 and received antibiotics in the first two calendar days of admission. NI was determined using previously defined International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes.¹ We only included children who received antibiotics in the first two calendar days of admission to minimize the likelihood of including children admitted for other reasons who acquired aspiration pneumonia after hospitalization. For children with multiple hospitalizations, one admission was randomly selected for inclusion to minimize weighting results toward repeat visits.

Exclusion Criteria

Children transferred from another hospital were excluded as records from their initial presentation, including treatment and outcomes, were not available. We also excluded children with tracheostomy^15,16 or chronic ventilator dependence,¹⁷ those with a diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus or tuberculosis, and children who received chemotherapy during hospitalization given expected differences in etiology, treatment, and outcomes.¹⁸

Exposure

The primary exposure was antibiotic therapy received in the first two days of admission. Antibiotics were classified by their antimicrobial spectra of activity as defined by The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy¹⁹ against the most commonly recognized pathogens of aspiration pneumonia: anaerobes, Gram-negatives, and P. aeruginosa (Appendix Table 1).^10,20 For example, penicillin G and clindamycin were among the antibiotics classified as providing anaerobic coverage alone, whereas ceftriaxone was classified as providing Gram-negative coverage alone and ampicillin-sulbactam or as combination therapy with clindamycin and ceftriaxone were classified as providing anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage. Piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem were classified as providing anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage. We excluded antibiotics that do not provide coverage against anaerobes, Gram-negative, or P. aeruginosa (eg, ampicillin, azithromycin) or that provide coverage against Gram-negative and P. aeruginosa, but not anaerobes (eg, cefepime, tobramycin), as these therapies were prescribed for <5% of the cohort. We chose not to examine the coverage for Streptococcus pneumonia or Staphylococcus aureus as antibiotics included in this analysis covered these bacteria for 99.9% of our cohort.

Outcomes included acute respiratory failure during hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Acute respiratory failure during hospitalization was defined as the presence of Clinical Transaction Classification (CTC) or ICD-9 procedure code for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation on day two or later of hospitalization, with or without the need for respiratory support on day 0 or day 1 (Appendix Table 2). Given the variability in hospital policies that may drive ICU admission criteria for complex patients, our outcome of ICU transfer was defined as the requirement for ICU level care on day two or later of hospitalization without ICU admission. Acute respiratory failure and ICU care occurring within the first two hospital days were not classified as outcomes because these early events likely reflect illness severity at presentation rather than outcomes attributable to treatment failure; these were included as markers of severity in the models.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Demographic and clinical characteristics that might influence antibiotic choice and/or hospital outcomes were assessed. Clinical characteristics included complex chronic conditions,^21-23 medical technology assistance,²⁴ performance of diagnostic testing, and markers of severe illness on presentation. Diagnostic testing included bacterial cultures (blood, respiratory, urine) and chest radiograph performance in the first two days of hospitalization. Results of diagnostic testing are not available in the PHIS. Illness severity on presentation included acute respiratory failure, pleural drainage, receipt of vasoactive agents, and transfusion of blood products in the first two days of hospitalization (Appendix Table 2).^17,25,26

Continuous data were described with median and interquartile ranges (IQR) due to nonnormal distribution. Categorical data were described with frequencies and percentages. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and hospital outcomes were stratified by empiric antimicrobial coverage and compared using chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests as appropriate.

Generalized linear mixed-effects models with random hospital intercepts were derived to assess the independent effect of antimicrobial spectra of activity on outcomes of acute respiratory failure, ICU transfer, and LOS while adjusting for important differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. LOS had a nonnormal distribution. Thus, we used an exponential distribution. Covariates were chosen a priori given the clinical and biological relevance to exposure and outcomes—age, presence of complex chronic condition diagnoses, the number of complex chronic conditions, technology dependence, the performance of diagnostic tests on presentation, and illness severity on presentation. ICU admission was included as a covariate in acute respiratory failure and LOS outcome models. The results of the model for acute respiratory failure and ICU transfer are presented as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with a 95% CI. LOS results are presented as adjusted rate ratios (RR) with 95% CI.

All analyses were performed with SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). P values <.05 were considered statistically significant. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Institutional Review Board considered this deidentified dataset study as not human subjects research.

Study Cohort

At the 44 hospitals included, 4,812 children with NI hospitalized with the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia met the eligibility criteria. However, 79 received antibiotics with the spectra of activity not examined, leaving 4,733 children in our final analysis (Appendix Figure). Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study cohort are shown in Table 1. Median age was five years (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-11 years). Most subjects were male (53.9%), non-Hispanic white (47.9%), and publicly insured (63.6%). There was a slight variation in the distribution of admissions across seasons (spring 31.6%, summer 19.2%, fall 21.3%, and winter 27.9%). One-third of children had four or more comorbid CCCs (complex chronic conditions; 34.2%). The three most common nonneurologic CCC diagnosis categories were gastrointestinal (63.1%), congenital and/or genetic defects (36.9%), and respiratory (8.9%). Assistance with medical technologies was also common (82%)—particularly gastrointestinal (63.1%) and neurologic/neuromuscular (9.8%) technologies. The vast majority of children (92.5%) had either a chest radiograph (90.5%), respiratory viral study (33.7%), or respiratory culture (10.0%) obtained on presentation. A minority required noninvasive or invasive respiratory support (25.4%), vasoactive agents (8.9%), blood products (1.2%), or pleural drainage (0.3%) in the first two hospital days.

Spectrum of Antimicrobial Coverage

Most children (57.9%) received anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage; 16.2% received anaerobic, Gram-negative and P. aeruginosa coverage; 15.3% received anaerobic coverage alone; and 10.6% received Gram-negative coverage alone. Empiric antimicrobial coverage varied substantially across hospitals: anaerobic coverage was prescribed for 0%-44% of patients; Gram-negative coverage was prescribed for 3%-26% of patients; anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage was prescribed for 25%-90% of patients; and anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage was prescribed for 0%-65% of patients (Figure 1).

Outcomes

Acute Respiratory Failure

One-quarter (25.4%) of patients had acute respiratory failure on presentation; 22.5% required respiratory support (continued from presentation or were new) on day two or later of hospitalization (Table 2). In the adjusted analysis, children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone had two-fold greater odds (OR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.41-3.27) and children receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage had 1.6-fold greater odds (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19-2.28), of respiratory failure during hospitalization compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2). Odds of respiratory failure during hospitalization did not significantly differ for children receiving anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone.

ICU Transfer

Nearly thirty percent (29.0%) of children required ICU admission, with an additional 3.8% requiring ICU transfer following admission (Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, the odds of an ICU transfer were greater for children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone (OR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.03-3.14) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone. There was no statistical difference in ICU transfer for those receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage (with or without P. aeruginosa coverage) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2).

Length of Stay

Median hospital LOS for the total cohort was five days (IQR: 3-9 days; Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone had a longer LOS (RR 1.28; 95% CI: 1.16-1.41) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone, whereas children receiving anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage had a shorter LOS (RR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76-0.90) than those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2). There was no statistical difference in the LOS between children receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage and those receiving anaerobic coverage alone.

In this multicenter study of children with NI hospitalized with aspiration pneumonia, we found substantial variation in empiric antimicrobial coverage for children with aspiration pneumonia. When comparing outcomes across groups, children who received anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage had outcomes similar to children who received anaerobic therapy alone. However, children who did not receive anaerobic coverage (ie, Gram-negative coverage alone) had worse outcomes, most notably a greater than two-fold increase in the odds of experiencing acute respiratory failure during hospitalization when compared with children receiving anaerobic therapy. These findings support prior literature that has highlighted the importance of anaerobic therapy in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia. The benefit of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative organisms, in addition to anaerobes, remains uncertain.

The variability in empiric antimicrobial coverage likely reflects the paucity of available information on oral and/or enteric bacteria required to identify them as causative organisms in aspiration pneumonia. In part, this problem is due to the difficulty in obtaining adequate sputum for culture from pediatric patients.²⁷ While it may be more feasible to obtain tracheal aspirates for respiratory culture in children with a tracheostomy, interpretation of culture results remains challenging because the lower airways of children with tracheostomy are commonly colonized with bacterial pathogens.²⁸ Thus, physicians are often left to choose empiric antimicrobial coverage with inadequate supporting evidence.²⁹ Although the polymicrobial nature of aspiration pneumonia is well recognized in adult and pediatric literature,^10,30 it is less clear which organisms are of pathological significance and require treatment.

The treatment standard for aspiration pneumonia has long included anaerobic therapy.²⁹ The worse outcomes of children not receiving anaerobic therapy (ie, Gram-negative coverage alone) compared with children who received anaerobic therapy support the continued importance of anaerobic therapy in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia for hospitalized children with NI. The role of antibiotics covering Gram-negative organisms is less clear. Recent studies suggest the role of anaerobes is overemphasized in the etiology and treatment of aspiration pneumonia.^10,29,31-38 Multiple studies on aspiration pneumonia bacteriology in hospitalized adults have demonstrated a predominance of Gram-negative organisms (ranging from 37%-71% of isolates identified on respiratory culture) and a relative scarcity of anaerobes (ranging from 0%-16% of isolates).^31-37 A prospective study of 50 children hospitalized with clinical and radiographic evidence of pneumonia with known aspiration risk (eg, neuromuscular disease or dysphagia) found that ~80% of 163 bacterial isolates were Gram-negative.³⁸ However, this study included repeat cultures from the same children, and thus, may overestimate the prevalence of Gram-negative organisms. In our study, children who received both anaerobic and Gram-negative therapy had no differences in ICU transfer or LOS but did experience higher odds of acute respiratory failure. As these results may be due to unmeasured confounding, future studies should further explore the necessity of Gram-negative coverage in addition to anaerobic coverage in this population.

While these recent studies may seem to suggest that anaerobic coverage is not necessary for aspiration pneumonia, there are important limitations worth noting. First, these studies used a variety of sampling techniques. While organisms grown from samples obtained via bronchoalveolar lavage^31-34,36 are likely pathogenic, those grown from tracheal or oral samples obtained via percutaneous transtracheal aspiration,³⁴ a protected specimen brush,^34,36,37 or expectorated sputum^35,38 may not represent lower airway organisms. Second, anaerobic cultures were not obtained in all studies.^31,34,38 Anaerobic organisms are difficult to isolate using traditional clinical specimen collection techniques and aerobic culture media.¹⁸ Furthermore, anaerobes are not easily recovered from lung infections after the receipt of antibiotic therapy.³⁹ Details regarding pretreatment, which are largely lacking from these studies, are necessary to interpret the relative scarcity of anaerobes on respiratory culture. Finally, caution should be taken when extrapolating the results of studies focused on the etiology and treatment of aspiration pneumonia in elderly adults to children. Our results, particularly in the context of the limitation of these more recent studies, suggest that the role of anaerobes has been underestimated.

Recent studies examining populations of children with cerebral palsy and/or tracheostomy have emphasized the high rates of carriage and infection rates with Gram-negative and drug-resistant bacteria; in particular, P. aeruginosa accounts for 50%-72% of pathogenic bacteria.^11,12,38,40These studies note the generally poor outcomes of children with P. aeruginosa—including multiple and longer hospitalizations, frequent readmissions, and the increased severity of pneumonia, including the need for ICU admission, pleural effusions, the need for intubation, and mortality.^{11,12,38,40,41} In our study, nearly 35% of children who received anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage experienced acute respiratory failure during hospitalization compared with 20% of children who received other therapies. While these results might seem to suggest that broader spectrum therapy is harmful, they must be interpreted in the context of important population differences; children who received a combination of anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage had greater medical complexity and greater severity of illness on presentation. Such factors may provide the reason for the appropriate prescription of antipseudomonal antibiotics (eg, history of tracheostomy colonization or infection, long-term care facility resident).⁴² When we controlled for population differences, children who received antipseudomonal therapy had a significantly shorter LOS and no differences in outcomes of acute respiratory failure or ICU transfer compared with those receiving anaerobic therapy alone. This result suggests that worse outcomes were associated with antipseudomonal therapy on unadjusted analyses resulting from underlying medical complexity and illness severity rather than from colonization or infection with P. aeruginosa.

Our multicenter observational study has several limitations. We used diagnosis codes to identify patients with aspiration pneumonia. As validated clinical criteria for the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia do not exist, clinicians may assign a diagnosis of and treatment for aspiration pneumonia by subjective suspicion based on a child’s severe NI or illness severity on presentation leading to selection bias. Although administrative data are not able to verify pneumonia type with absolute certainty, we previously demonstrated that the differences in the outcomes of children with aspiration and nonaspiration pneumonia diagnosis codes persist after accounting for the complexity that might influence the diagnosis.³It is also possible that the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia was not made upon admission for a subset of patients leading to misclassification of exposure. Some children may have had aspiration pneumonia on admission but were not assigned that diagnosis or treated for presumed aspiration pneumonia until later in the hospital course as they demonstrated treatment failure or clinical worsening. It is also possible that some children had an aspiration event during hospitalization that developed into aspiration pneumonia. We attempted to adjust for medical complexity and illness severity through multivariable adjustment based on the diagnosis and procedure codes, as well as the laboratory testing performed. However, unmeasured or residual confounding may remain as administrative data are not equipped to distinguish detailed functional status (eg, ability to cough, chest wall strength) or illness severity (eg, respiratory distress) that might influence antibiotic selection and/or outcomes.

Frthermore, we were unable to account for laboratory, microbiology, or radiology test results, and other management practices (eg, frequency of airway clearance, previous antimicrobial therapy) that may influence outcomes. Future studies should certainly include an examination of the concordance of the antibiotics prescribed with causative organisms, as this undoubtedly affects patient outcomes. Other outcomes are important to examine (eg, time to return to respiratory baseline), but we were unable to do so, given the lack of clinical detail in our database. We randomly selected a single hospitalization for children with multiple admissions; alternative methods could have different results. Although children with NI predominately use children’s hospitals,¹ results may not be generalizable.

These findings support prior literature that has highlighted the important role anaerobic therapy plays in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia in children with NI. In light of the limitations of our study design, we believe that rigorous clinical trials comparing anaerobic with anaerobic and Gram-negative therapy are an important and necessary next step to determine the optimal treatment for aspiration pneumonia in this population.

Disclosures

The authors do not have any financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Thomson was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under award number K08HS025138. Dr. Ambroggio was supported by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under award number K01AI125413. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the AHRQ or NIAID.

Neurologic impairment (NI) encompasses static and progressive diseases of the central and/or peripheral nervous systems that result in functional and intellectual impairments.¹ While a variety of neurologic diseases are responsible for NI (eg, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, muscular dystrophy), consequences of these diseases extend beyond neurologic manifestations.¹ These children are at an increased risk for aspiration of oral and gastric contents given their common comorbidities of dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux, impaired cough, and respiratory muscle weakness.² While aspiration may manifest as a self-resolving pneumonitis, the presence of oral or enteric bacteria in aspirated material may result in the development of bacterial pneumonia. Children with NI hospitalized with aspiration pneumonia have higher complication rates, longer and costlier hospitalizations, and higher readmission rates when compared with children with nonaspiration pneumonia.³

While pediatric aspiration pneumonia is commonly attributed to anaerobic bacteria, this is largely based on extrapolation from epidemiologic studies that were conducted in past decades.^4-8 A single randomized controlled trial found that penicillin and clindamycin, antimicrobials with similar antimicrobial activity against anaerobes, to be equally effective.⁹ However, the recent literature emphasizes the polymicrobial nature of aspiration pneumonia in adults, with the common isolation of Gram-negative enteric bacteria.¹⁰ Further, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa is often identified in respiratory cultures from children with NI and chronic respiratory insufficiency,^11,12 the significance of P. aeruginosa in lower airways remains unclear.

We designed this study to compare hospital outcomes associated with the most commonly prescribed empiric antimicrobial therapies for aspiration pneumonia in children with NI.

Study Design and Data Source

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study used the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. PHIS, an administrative database of 50 not-for-profit tertiary care pediatric hospitals, contains data regarding patient demographics, diagnoses and procedures, and daily billed resource utilization, including laboratory and imaging studies. Data quality and reliability are assured through the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA; Lenexa, Kansas) and participating hospitals. Due to incomplete data through the study period and data quality issues, six hospitals were excluded.

Inclusion Criteria

Children 1-18 years of age who were discharged between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2015 were included if they had a NI diagnosis,¹ a principal diagnosis indicative of aspiration pneumonia (507.x),^3,13,14 and received antibiotics in the first two calendar days of admission. NI was determined using previously defined International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes.¹ We only included children who received antibiotics in the first two calendar days of admission to minimize the likelihood of including children admitted for other reasons who acquired aspiration pneumonia after hospitalization. For children with multiple hospitalizations, one admission was randomly selected for inclusion to minimize weighting results toward repeat visits.

Exclusion Criteria

Children transferred from another hospital were excluded as records from their initial presentation, including treatment and outcomes, were not available. We also excluded children with tracheostomy^15,16 or chronic ventilator dependence,¹⁷ those with a diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus or tuberculosis, and children who received chemotherapy during hospitalization given expected differences in etiology, treatment, and outcomes.¹⁸

Exposure

The primary exposure was antibiotic therapy received in the first two days of admission. Antibiotics were classified by their antimicrobial spectra of activity as defined by The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy¹⁹ against the most commonly recognized pathogens of aspiration pneumonia: anaerobes, Gram-negatives, and P. aeruginosa (Appendix Table 1).^10,20 For example, penicillin G and clindamycin were among the antibiotics classified as providing anaerobic coverage alone, whereas ceftriaxone was classified as providing Gram-negative coverage alone and ampicillin-sulbactam or as combination therapy with clindamycin and ceftriaxone were classified as providing anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage. Piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem were classified as providing anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage. We excluded antibiotics that do not provide coverage against anaerobes, Gram-negative, or P. aeruginosa (eg, ampicillin, azithromycin) or that provide coverage against Gram-negative and P. aeruginosa, but not anaerobes (eg, cefepime, tobramycin), as these therapies were prescribed for <5% of the cohort. We chose not to examine the coverage for Streptococcus pneumonia or Staphylococcus aureus as antibiotics included in this analysis covered these bacteria for 99.9% of our cohort.

Outcomes included acute respiratory failure during hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Acute respiratory failure during hospitalization was defined as the presence of Clinical Transaction Classification (CTC) or ICD-9 procedure code for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation on day two or later of hospitalization, with or without the need for respiratory support on day 0 or day 1 (Appendix Table 2). Given the variability in hospital policies that may drive ICU admission criteria for complex patients, our outcome of ICU transfer was defined as the requirement for ICU level care on day two or later of hospitalization without ICU admission. Acute respiratory failure and ICU care occurring within the first two hospital days were not classified as outcomes because these early events likely reflect illness severity at presentation rather than outcomes attributable to treatment failure; these were included as markers of severity in the models.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Demographic and clinical characteristics that might influence antibiotic choice and/or hospital outcomes were assessed. Clinical characteristics included complex chronic conditions,^21-23 medical technology assistance,²⁴ performance of diagnostic testing, and markers of severe illness on presentation. Diagnostic testing included bacterial cultures (blood, respiratory, urine) and chest radiograph performance in the first two days of hospitalization. Results of diagnostic testing are not available in the PHIS. Illness severity on presentation included acute respiratory failure, pleural drainage, receipt of vasoactive agents, and transfusion of blood products in the first two days of hospitalization (Appendix Table 2).^17,25,26

Continuous data were described with median and interquartile ranges (IQR) due to nonnormal distribution. Categorical data were described with frequencies and percentages. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and hospital outcomes were stratified by empiric antimicrobial coverage and compared using chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests as appropriate.

Generalized linear mixed-effects models with random hospital intercepts were derived to assess the independent effect of antimicrobial spectra of activity on outcomes of acute respiratory failure, ICU transfer, and LOS while adjusting for important differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. LOS had a nonnormal distribution. Thus, we used an exponential distribution. Covariates were chosen a priori given the clinical and biological relevance to exposure and outcomes—age, presence of complex chronic condition diagnoses, the number of complex chronic conditions, technology dependence, the performance of diagnostic tests on presentation, and illness severity on presentation. ICU admission was included as a covariate in acute respiratory failure and LOS outcome models. The results of the model for acute respiratory failure and ICU transfer are presented as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with a 95% CI. LOS results are presented as adjusted rate ratios (RR) with 95% CI.

All analyses were performed with SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). P values <.05 were considered statistically significant. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Institutional Review Board considered this deidentified dataset study as not human subjects research.

Study Cohort

At the 44 hospitals included, 4,812 children with NI hospitalized with the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia met the eligibility criteria. However, 79 received antibiotics with the spectra of activity not examined, leaving 4,733 children in our final analysis (Appendix Figure). Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study cohort are shown in Table 1. Median age was five years (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-11 years). Most subjects were male (53.9%), non-Hispanic white (47.9%), and publicly insured (63.6%). There was a slight variation in the distribution of admissions across seasons (spring 31.6%, summer 19.2%, fall 21.3%, and winter 27.9%). One-third of children had four or more comorbid CCCs (complex chronic conditions; 34.2%). The three most common nonneurologic CCC diagnosis categories were gastrointestinal (63.1%), congenital and/or genetic defects (36.9%), and respiratory (8.9%). Assistance with medical technologies was also common (82%)—particularly gastrointestinal (63.1%) and neurologic/neuromuscular (9.8%) technologies. The vast majority of children (92.5%) had either a chest radiograph (90.5%), respiratory viral study (33.7%), or respiratory culture (10.0%) obtained on presentation. A minority required noninvasive or invasive respiratory support (25.4%), vasoactive agents (8.9%), blood products (1.2%), or pleural drainage (0.3%) in the first two hospital days.

Spectrum of Antimicrobial Coverage

Most children (57.9%) received anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage; 16.2% received anaerobic, Gram-negative and P. aeruginosa coverage; 15.3% received anaerobic coverage alone; and 10.6% received Gram-negative coverage alone. Empiric antimicrobial coverage varied substantially across hospitals: anaerobic coverage was prescribed for 0%-44% of patients; Gram-negative coverage was prescribed for 3%-26% of patients; anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage was prescribed for 25%-90% of patients; and anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage was prescribed for 0%-65% of patients (Figure 1).

Outcomes

Acute Respiratory Failure

One-quarter (25.4%) of patients had acute respiratory failure on presentation; 22.5% required respiratory support (continued from presentation or were new) on day two or later of hospitalization (Table 2). In the adjusted analysis, children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone had two-fold greater odds (OR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.41-3.27) and children receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage had 1.6-fold greater odds (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19-2.28), of respiratory failure during hospitalization compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2). Odds of respiratory failure during hospitalization did not significantly differ for children receiving anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone.

ICU Transfer

Nearly thirty percent (29.0%) of children required ICU admission, with an additional 3.8% requiring ICU transfer following admission (Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, the odds of an ICU transfer were greater for children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone (OR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.03-3.14) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone. There was no statistical difference in ICU transfer for those receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage (with or without P. aeruginosa coverage) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2).

Length of Stay

Median hospital LOS for the total cohort was five days (IQR: 3-9 days; Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, children receiving Gram-negative coverage alone had a longer LOS (RR 1.28; 95% CI: 1.16-1.41) compared with those receiving anaerobic coverage alone, whereas children receiving anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage had a shorter LOS (RR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76-0.90) than those receiving anaerobic coverage alone (Figure 2). There was no statistical difference in the LOS between children receiving anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage and those receiving anaerobic coverage alone.

In this multicenter study of children with NI hospitalized with aspiration pneumonia, we found substantial variation in empiric antimicrobial coverage for children with aspiration pneumonia. When comparing outcomes across groups, children who received anaerobic and Gram-negative coverage had outcomes similar to children who received anaerobic therapy alone. However, children who did not receive anaerobic coverage (ie, Gram-negative coverage alone) had worse outcomes, most notably a greater than two-fold increase in the odds of experiencing acute respiratory failure during hospitalization when compared with children receiving anaerobic therapy. These findings support prior literature that has highlighted the importance of anaerobic therapy in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia. The benefit of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative organisms, in addition to anaerobes, remains uncertain.

The variability in empiric antimicrobial coverage likely reflects the paucity of available information on oral and/or enteric bacteria required to identify them as causative organisms in aspiration pneumonia. In part, this problem is due to the difficulty in obtaining adequate sputum for culture from pediatric patients.²⁷ While it may be more feasible to obtain tracheal aspirates for respiratory culture in children with a tracheostomy, interpretation of culture results remains challenging because the lower airways of children with tracheostomy are commonly colonized with bacterial pathogens.²⁸ Thus, physicians are often left to choose empiric antimicrobial coverage with inadequate supporting evidence.²⁹ Although the polymicrobial nature of aspiration pneumonia is well recognized in adult and pediatric literature,^10,30 it is less clear which organisms are of pathological significance and require treatment.

The treatment standard for aspiration pneumonia has long included anaerobic therapy.²⁹ The worse outcomes of children not receiving anaerobic therapy (ie, Gram-negative coverage alone) compared with children who received anaerobic therapy support the continued importance of anaerobic therapy in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia for hospitalized children with NI. The role of antibiotics covering Gram-negative organisms is less clear. Recent studies suggest the role of anaerobes is overemphasized in the etiology and treatment of aspiration pneumonia.^10,29,31-38 Multiple studies on aspiration pneumonia bacteriology in hospitalized adults have demonstrated a predominance of Gram-negative organisms (ranging from 37%-71% of isolates identified on respiratory culture) and a relative scarcity of anaerobes (ranging from 0%-16% of isolates).^31-37 A prospective study of 50 children hospitalized with clinical and radiographic evidence of pneumonia with known aspiration risk (eg, neuromuscular disease or dysphagia) found that ~80% of 163 bacterial isolates were Gram-negative.³⁸ However, this study included repeat cultures from the same children, and thus, may overestimate the prevalence of Gram-negative organisms. In our study, children who received both anaerobic and Gram-negative therapy had no differences in ICU transfer or LOS but did experience higher odds of acute respiratory failure. As these results may be due to unmeasured confounding, future studies should further explore the necessity of Gram-negative coverage in addition to anaerobic coverage in this population.

While these recent studies may seem to suggest that anaerobic coverage is not necessary for aspiration pneumonia, there are important limitations worth noting. First, these studies used a variety of sampling techniques. While organisms grown from samples obtained via bronchoalveolar lavage^31-34,36 are likely pathogenic, those grown from tracheal or oral samples obtained via percutaneous transtracheal aspiration,³⁴ a protected specimen brush,^34,36,37 or expectorated sputum^35,38 may not represent lower airway organisms. Second, anaerobic cultures were not obtained in all studies.^31,34,38 Anaerobic organisms are difficult to isolate using traditional clinical specimen collection techniques and aerobic culture media.¹⁸ Furthermore, anaerobes are not easily recovered from lung infections after the receipt of antibiotic therapy.³⁹ Details regarding pretreatment, which are largely lacking from these studies, are necessary to interpret the relative scarcity of anaerobes on respiratory culture. Finally, caution should be taken when extrapolating the results of studies focused on the etiology and treatment of aspiration pneumonia in elderly adults to children. Our results, particularly in the context of the limitation of these more recent studies, suggest that the role of anaerobes has been underestimated.

Recent studies examining populations of children with cerebral palsy and/or tracheostomy have emphasized the high rates of carriage and infection rates with Gram-negative and drug-resistant bacteria; in particular, P. aeruginosa accounts for 50%-72% of pathogenic bacteria.^11,12,38,40These studies note the generally poor outcomes of children with P. aeruginosa—including multiple and longer hospitalizations, frequent readmissions, and the increased severity of pneumonia, including the need for ICU admission, pleural effusions, the need for intubation, and mortality.^{11,12,38,40,41} In our study, nearly 35% of children who received anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage experienced acute respiratory failure during hospitalization compared with 20% of children who received other therapies. While these results might seem to suggest that broader spectrum therapy is harmful, they must be interpreted in the context of important population differences; children who received a combination of anaerobic, Gram-negative, and P. aeruginosa coverage had greater medical complexity and greater severity of illness on presentation. Such factors may provide the reason for the appropriate prescription of antipseudomonal antibiotics (eg, history of tracheostomy colonization or infection, long-term care facility resident).⁴² When we controlled for population differences, children who received antipseudomonal therapy had a significantly shorter LOS and no differences in outcomes of acute respiratory failure or ICU transfer compared with those receiving anaerobic therapy alone. This result suggests that worse outcomes were associated with antipseudomonal therapy on unadjusted analyses resulting from underlying medical complexity and illness severity rather than from colonization or infection with P. aeruginosa.

Our multicenter observational study has several limitations. We used diagnosis codes to identify patients with aspiration pneumonia. As validated clinical criteria for the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia do not exist, clinicians may assign a diagnosis of and treatment for aspiration pneumonia by subjective suspicion based on a child’s severe NI or illness severity on presentation leading to selection bias. Although administrative data are not able to verify pneumonia type with absolute certainty, we previously demonstrated that the differences in the outcomes of children with aspiration and nonaspiration pneumonia diagnosis codes persist after accounting for the complexity that might influence the diagnosis.³It is also possible that the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia was not made upon admission for a subset of patients leading to misclassification of exposure. Some children may have had aspiration pneumonia on admission but were not assigned that diagnosis or treated for presumed aspiration pneumonia until later in the hospital course as they demonstrated treatment failure or clinical worsening. It is also possible that some children had an aspiration event during hospitalization that developed into aspiration pneumonia. We attempted to adjust for medical complexity and illness severity through multivariable adjustment based on the diagnosis and procedure codes, as well as the laboratory testing performed. However, unmeasured or residual confounding may remain as administrative data are not equipped to distinguish detailed functional status (eg, ability to cough, chest wall strength) or illness severity (eg, respiratory distress) that might influence antibiotic selection and/or outcomes.

Frthermore, we were unable to account for laboratory, microbiology, or radiology test results, and other management practices (eg, frequency of airway clearance, previous antimicrobial therapy) that may influence outcomes. Future studies should certainly include an examination of the concordance of the antibiotics prescribed with causative organisms, as this undoubtedly affects patient outcomes. Other outcomes are important to examine (eg, time to return to respiratory baseline), but we were unable to do so, given the lack of clinical detail in our database. We randomly selected a single hospitalization for children with multiple admissions; alternative methods could have different results. Although children with NI predominately use children’s hospitals,¹ results may not be generalizable.

These findings support prior literature that has highlighted the important role anaerobic therapy plays in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia in children with NI. In light of the limitations of our study design, we believe that rigorous clinical trials comparing anaerobic with anaerobic and Gram-negative therapy are an important and necessary next step to determine the optimal treatment for aspiration pneumonia in this population.

Disclosures

The authors do not have any financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Thomson was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under award number K08HS025138. Dr. Ambroggio was supported by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under award number K01AI125413. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the AHRQ or NIAID.

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason” series reviews practices which have become common parts of hospital care but which may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent “black and white” conclusions or clinical practice standards, but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A four-year-old girl, with a history of one wheezing episode, presents to the emergency department (ED) with wheezing, tachypnea, and respiratory distress. She receives three successive treatments of short-acting bronchodilators and is given one dose of dexamethasone, after which she improves significantly. Because of persistent tachypnea and wheezing, she is admitted for further management. By the next day she is much improved, now requiring bronchodilator treatment every four hours. She receives a second dose of dexamethasone to complete her steroid burst. Was the trajectory of this patient’s illness altered by treatment with systemic corticosteroids (SCS)? Is there any benefit to SCS treatment in a wheezing preschool-aged patient?

Wheezing is common in preschool-aged children (ages 2-5 years), with up to half in this age group having experienced a wheezing episode and up to one-third, recurrent wheezing.^1,2 Young children with wheezing require ED visits and hospitalizations at much higher rates than older children and adults.³ Several studies have also demonstrated that children in this age group have higher rates of SCS prescriptions compared with older children.^4,5 Despite the high prevalence of wheezing in this age group, there is great heterogeneity in the etiology and clinical progression of early childhood wheezing, with up to six described phenotypes each with varying levels of association with the development of asthma.⁶ Given the high frequency of asthma, preschool-aged children admitted with wheezing are often treated with SCS, as this is the standard of care for an acute asthma exacerbation.⁷

The benefit of SCS in school-aged children and adolescents with multitrigger asthma exacerbation is well established and includes shorter time to resolution of acute illness and reduction in relapses.⁸ Because of these benefits, expert panels and regulatory agencies often include preschool-aged children in treatment recommendations for the older age groups.^7,9,10 Consequently, apart from infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis, SCS remain a common and accepted treatment for young children presenting with asthma-like symptoms.^4,5

Some data suggest that there may be clinical benefit from treatment with SCS in preschool children who wheeze. A recent trial by Foster et al. included 605 children, aged 24-72 months, presenting to a pediatric ED with wheeze plus viral upper respiratory symptoms.¹¹ Patients were randomized to receive a three-day course of prednisolone (1 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay until ready for discharge, which they found was significantly longer for placebo-treated patients (540 minutes) versus prednisolone (370 minutes).

There are few randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SCS in preschool-aged children with viral-induced wheezing, and these children are often grouped with younger or older children in studies. While limited in number, these studies have evaluated SCS efficacy with acute wheezing in preschool-aged children in outpatient, ED, and inpatient settings (Appendix Table).^12-16 The majority of trials of SCS in this age group have shown mixed or negative results.

Admission rates for preschoolers with viral wheezing were not statistically different in those receiving oral prednisolone versus placebo in a study conducted by Oomen et al. evaluating outpatient, parent-initiated prednisolone.¹⁴ Tal et al. found overall benefit with reduced admission rate for patients treated in the ED with methylprednisolone versus placebo; however, this finding was not statistically significant in patients 24-54 months old.¹⁶

For those requiring hospitalization, length of hospital stay and time until readiness to discharge were the primary outcomes assessed by Panickar et al. and Jartti et al. Neither study found a statistically significant difference between groups who received oral prednisolone versus placebo for 3 or 5 days. Secondary outcomes such as symptom scores, symptom duration, albuterol use, and 60-day relapse rate were also not improved in those taking oral prednisolone compared with placebo.^14,15

The mixed results of studies assessing the efficacy of SCS in preschool-aged wheezing children may be attributed to the fact that wheezing in this age group likely represents multiple underlying processes. Most acute wheezing at this age is not associated with atopy and is often triggered by viral respiratory tract infections.¹⁷ Furthermore, 90% of wheezing in children under the age of five years does not persist to the asthma phenotype (recurrent episodes with multiple triggers, airway obstruction, and hyper-responsiveness) once they reach school age.¹⁸

While SCS are generally not expensive, their use is not without cost. Studies of oral corticosteroid use in children with asthma have shown adverse effects including vomiting, hypertension, and impaired growth.¹⁹ Children with recurrent wheeze receiving SCS may demonstrate biochemical hypothalamic-pituitary-axis dysfunction.²⁰ Given the high utilization and SCS prescription rates in this age group, reducing the use of SCS with wheezing episodes could have a large clinical and financial impact.^3,4 These medications should be used judiciously in order to balance benefit with potential risks.

Given that there is diversity in the phenotype of preschool-aged children who wheeze, it is possible that a subset of these children would benefit from SCS. Some studies have shown that certain groups of patients derive benefit, including those with rhinovirus infection, eczema, and children at higher risk for multitrigger asthma.^11,13 Children who have atopic wheeze are more likely to have persistent symptoms that may eventually be diagnosed as asthma.¹⁸ These children will have airway inflammation secondary to eosinophilic infiltration and may be responsive to SCS at times of exacerbation. However, attempts to classify preschool children based on risk of asthma have not shown consistent results.

The Asthma Predictive Index (API), a tool developed as a part of the Tucson Children’s Respiratory Study, uses clinical factors including history of wheeze, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis to determine a young child’s risk of having asthma symptoms after age six years.²¹ Jartti et al. and Panickar et al. used the API to stratify patients based on future asthma risk.^13,15 The high risk group in the Jartti et al. study showed the benefit of SCS, while there was no benefit in the Panickar et al. study. When Oommen et al. also attempted to stratify asthma risk using levels of blood eosinophil proteins, which when elevated, are predictive of persistent wheeze.¹⁴ There was no difference in drug efficacy between patients with high and low blood eosinophil proteins. Although Foster et al. demonstrated shorter length of stay (LOS) with SCS overall, this was only seen in the subgroup with a previous diagnosis of asthma.

Patients presenting with severe disease (including those requiring critical care or with the highest symptom scores) have mostly been excluded from these studies. Although patients with severe disease often receive steroids, there is insufficient evidence of the efficacy of SCS in this population.^12,13,15,22 Foster et al. did include patients with high symptom scores (although they excluded patients with “critical wheeze”) and found that the efficacy of SCS was clearest for those with severe presentations.¹¹

Finally, some studies have demonstrated a virus-specific effect, with a reduction in time to readiness for discharge and reduction in recurrent wheeze in children treated with prednisolone who were positive for rhinovirus.^12,23 Rhinovirus infection has also been associated with allergic sensitization and recurrent wheezing.^23,24 However, rhinovirus-specific steroid responsiveness has not been consistently replicated by other investigators.¹¹

The majority of preschool-aged children presenting with wheeze in the care of hospitalists have mild to moderate symptoms, triggered by viral infections.²² It can be helpful to categorize the wheezing child as atopic or nonatopic. Laboratory studies such as allergen-specific IgE, peripheral eosinophil count, and exhaled nitric oxide can aid in predicting response to asthma medications and progression to the classic asthma phenotype.²⁵ In the absence of these diagnostic studies, which are often costly and challenging to obtain in young children, a clinical score such as the API, or the recently validated Pediatric Asthma Risk Score (PARS), can help to assess future risk of developing multitrigger asthma.^21,26 A positive API requires a history of more than three episodes of wheeze over the past year as well as one major (physician-diagnosed atopic dermatitis or parental asthma) or two minor (peripheral blood eosinophilia, physician-diagnosed allergic rhinitis, or wheezing apart from colds) criteria.¹⁷ It has a sensitivity of 57% and specificity of 81%.²⁶ The PARS uses the presence of parental asthma, eczema, early wheezing, wheezing apart from colds, African-American race, and ≥2 positive skin prick tests to predict asthma. The sensitivity and specificity of PARS are similar to the API at 68% and 79%, respectively.²⁶

Given the mixed results from studies evaluating the benefit of SCS in preschoolers with atopic symptoms and/or a positive API, evidence is lacking to guide decision-making in these children.^13-15 However, it is reasonable to treat those at higher risk for future multitrigger asthma with SCS. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether those with more severe disease or those infected with particular viral pathogens may benefit. Therefore, for the majority of children presenting with viral-induced wheezing, with a negative API or low PARS, there is no evidence that treatment with an SCS provides benefit in the form of reduced LOS, reduction in clinical symptoms, treatment failure, or relapse rate.

• Do not routinely treat with SCS preschool-aged children who have episodic wheezing triggered by viral respiratory tract infections and who do not have risk factors for persistent asthma.
• For preschool-aged children with a history of atopy, a positive API, or elevated PARS, SCS can be considered during admissions for respiratory distress and wheezing.
• Preschool-aged children presenting with severe disease or requiring intensive care may benefit from SCS, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether this practice provides benefit.

Current evidence does not support the routine use of SCS for preschool-aged children admitted for mild to moderate wheezing episodes. The majority of these children have viral episodic wheeze that does not develop into the asthma phenotype. For children with severe disease or at higher risk for asthma, SCS may be considered, although there remains insufficient evidence as to their efficacy. The patient in the introductory case lacks risk factors that would suggest SCS responsiveness (eg, positive API, previous asthma diagnosis, inhaled corticosteroid use, or severe disease) and would likely receive no clinical benefit from dexamethasone treatment.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason?” Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason” topics by emailing TWDFNR@hospitalmedicine.org.

Disclosures

Dr. Jennifer O’Toole consulted with and received honoraria payment from the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. She also holds stock options in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a nonpublicly traded company. Drs. Jones and Hubbell have nothing to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Thomson was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality under award number K08HS025138.

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason” series reviews practices which have become common parts of hospital care but which may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent “black and white” conclusions or clinical practice standards, but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A four-year-old girl, with a history of one wheezing episode, presents to the emergency department (ED) with wheezing, tachypnea, and respiratory distress. She receives three successive treatments of short-acting bronchodilators and is given one dose of dexamethasone, after which she improves significantly. Because of persistent tachypnea and wheezing, she is admitted for further management. By the next day she is much improved, now requiring bronchodilator treatment every four hours. She receives a second dose of dexamethasone to complete her steroid burst. Was the trajectory of this patient’s illness altered by treatment with systemic corticosteroids (SCS)? Is there any benefit to SCS treatment in a wheezing preschool-aged patient?

Wheezing is common in preschool-aged children (ages 2-5 years), with up to half in this age group having experienced a wheezing episode and up to one-third, recurrent wheezing.^1,2 Young children with wheezing require ED visits and hospitalizations at much higher rates than older children and adults.³ Several studies have also demonstrated that children in this age group have higher rates of SCS prescriptions compared with older children.^4,5 Despite the high prevalence of wheezing in this age group, there is great heterogeneity in the etiology and clinical progression of early childhood wheezing, with up to six described phenotypes each with varying levels of association with the development of asthma.⁶ Given the high frequency of asthma, preschool-aged children admitted with wheezing are often treated with SCS, as this is the standard of care for an acute asthma exacerbation.⁷

The benefit of SCS in school-aged children and adolescents with multitrigger asthma exacerbation is well established and includes shorter time to resolution of acute illness and reduction in relapses.⁸ Because of these benefits, expert panels and regulatory agencies often include preschool-aged children in treatment recommendations for the older age groups.^7,9,10 Consequently, apart from infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis, SCS remain a common and accepted treatment for young children presenting with asthma-like symptoms.^4,5

Some data suggest that there may be clinical benefit from treatment with SCS in preschool children who wheeze. A recent trial by Foster et al. included 605 children, aged 24-72 months, presenting to a pediatric ED with wheeze plus viral upper respiratory symptoms.¹¹ Patients were randomized to receive a three-day course of prednisolone (1 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay until ready for discharge, which they found was significantly longer for placebo-treated patients (540 minutes) versus prednisolone (370 minutes).

There are few randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SCS in preschool-aged children with viral-induced wheezing, and these children are often grouped with younger or older children in studies. While limited in number, these studies have evaluated SCS efficacy with acute wheezing in preschool-aged children in outpatient, ED, and inpatient settings (Appendix Table).^12-16 The majority of trials of SCS in this age group have shown mixed or negative results.

Admission rates for preschoolers with viral wheezing were not statistically different in those receiving oral prednisolone versus placebo in a study conducted by Oomen et al. evaluating outpatient, parent-initiated prednisolone.¹⁴ Tal et al. found overall benefit with reduced admission rate for patients treated in the ED with methylprednisolone versus placebo; however, this finding was not statistically significant in patients 24-54 months old.¹⁶

For those requiring hospitalization, length of hospital stay and time until readiness to discharge were the primary outcomes assessed by Panickar et al. and Jartti et al. Neither study found a statistically significant difference between groups who received oral prednisolone versus placebo for 3 or 5 days. Secondary outcomes such as symptom scores, symptom duration, albuterol use, and 60-day relapse rate were also not improved in those taking oral prednisolone compared with placebo.^14,15

The mixed results of studies assessing the efficacy of SCS in preschool-aged wheezing children may be attributed to the fact that wheezing in this age group likely represents multiple underlying processes. Most acute wheezing at this age is not associated with atopy and is often triggered by viral respiratory tract infections.¹⁷ Furthermore, 90% of wheezing in children under the age of five years does not persist to the asthma phenotype (recurrent episodes with multiple triggers, airway obstruction, and hyper-responsiveness) once they reach school age.¹⁸

While SCS are generally not expensive, their use is not without cost. Studies of oral corticosteroid use in children with asthma have shown adverse effects including vomiting, hypertension, and impaired growth.¹⁹ Children with recurrent wheeze receiving SCS may demonstrate biochemical hypothalamic-pituitary-axis dysfunction.²⁰ Given the high utilization and SCS prescription rates in this age group, reducing the use of SCS with wheezing episodes could have a large clinical and financial impact.^3,4 These medications should be used judiciously in order to balance benefit with potential risks.

Given that there is diversity in the phenotype of preschool-aged children who wheeze, it is possible that a subset of these children would benefit from SCS. Some studies have shown that certain groups of patients derive benefit, including those with rhinovirus infection, eczema, and children at higher risk for multitrigger asthma.^11,13 Children who have atopic wheeze are more likely to have persistent symptoms that may eventually be diagnosed as asthma.¹⁸ These children will have airway inflammation secondary to eosinophilic infiltration and may be responsive to SCS at times of exacerbation. However, attempts to classify preschool children based on risk of asthma have not shown consistent results.

The Asthma Predictive Index (API), a tool developed as a part of the Tucson Children’s Respiratory Study, uses clinical factors including history of wheeze, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis to determine a young child’s risk of having asthma symptoms after age six years.²¹ Jartti et al. and Panickar et al. used the API to stratify patients based on future asthma risk.^13,15 The high risk group in the Jartti et al. study showed the benefit of SCS, while there was no benefit in the Panickar et al. study. When Oommen et al. also attempted to stratify asthma risk using levels of blood eosinophil proteins, which when elevated, are predictive of persistent wheeze.¹⁴ There was no difference in drug efficacy between patients with high and low blood eosinophil proteins. Although Foster et al. demonstrated shorter length of stay (LOS) with SCS overall, this was only seen in the subgroup with a previous diagnosis of asthma.

Patients presenting with severe disease (including those requiring critical care or with the highest symptom scores) have mostly been excluded from these studies. Although patients with severe disease often receive steroids, there is insufficient evidence of the efficacy of SCS in this population.^12,13,15,22 Foster et al. did include patients with high symptom scores (although they excluded patients with “critical wheeze”) and found that the efficacy of SCS was clearest for those with severe presentations.¹¹

Finally, some studies have demonstrated a virus-specific effect, with a reduction in time to readiness for discharge and reduction in recurrent wheeze in children treated with prednisolone who were positive for rhinovirus.^12,23 Rhinovirus infection has also been associated with allergic sensitization and recurrent wheezing.^23,24 However, rhinovirus-specific steroid responsiveness has not been consistently replicated by other investigators.¹¹

The majority of preschool-aged children presenting with wheeze in the care of hospitalists have mild to moderate symptoms, triggered by viral infections.²² It can be helpful to categorize the wheezing child as atopic or nonatopic. Laboratory studies such as allergen-specific IgE, peripheral eosinophil count, and exhaled nitric oxide can aid in predicting response to asthma medications and progression to the classic asthma phenotype.²⁵ In the absence of these diagnostic studies, which are often costly and challenging to obtain in young children, a clinical score such as the API, or the recently validated Pediatric Asthma Risk Score (PARS), can help to assess future risk of developing multitrigger asthma.^21,26 A positive API requires a history of more than three episodes of wheeze over the past year as well as one major (physician-diagnosed atopic dermatitis or parental asthma) or two minor (peripheral blood eosinophilia, physician-diagnosed allergic rhinitis, or wheezing apart from colds) criteria.¹⁷ It has a sensitivity of 57% and specificity of 81%.²⁶ The PARS uses the presence of parental asthma, eczema, early wheezing, wheezing apart from colds, African-American race, and ≥2 positive skin prick tests to predict asthma. The sensitivity and specificity of PARS are similar to the API at 68% and 79%, respectively.²⁶

Given the mixed results from studies evaluating the benefit of SCS in preschoolers with atopic symptoms and/or a positive API, evidence is lacking to guide decision-making in these children.^13-15 However, it is reasonable to treat those at higher risk for future multitrigger asthma with SCS. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether those with more severe disease or those infected with particular viral pathogens may benefit. Therefore, for the majority of children presenting with viral-induced wheezing, with a negative API or low PARS, there is no evidence that treatment with an SCS provides benefit in the form of reduced LOS, reduction in clinical symptoms, treatment failure, or relapse rate.

• Do not routinely treat with SCS preschool-aged children who have episodic wheezing triggered by viral respiratory tract infections and who do not have risk factors for persistent asthma.
• For preschool-aged children with a history of atopy, a positive API, or elevated PARS, SCS can be considered during admissions for respiratory distress and wheezing.
• Preschool-aged children presenting with severe disease or requiring intensive care may benefit from SCS, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether this practice provides benefit.

Current evidence does not support the routine use of SCS for preschool-aged children admitted for mild to moderate wheezing episodes. The majority of these children have viral episodic wheeze that does not develop into the asthma phenotype. For children with severe disease or at higher risk for asthma, SCS may be considered, although there remains insufficient evidence as to their efficacy. The patient in the introductory case lacks risk factors that would suggest SCS responsiveness (eg, positive API, previous asthma diagnosis, inhaled corticosteroid use, or severe disease) and would likely receive no clinical benefit from dexamethasone treatment.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason?” Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason” topics by emailing TWDFNR@hospitalmedicine.org.

Disclosures

Dr. Jennifer O’Toole consulted with and received honoraria payment from the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. She also holds stock options in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a nonpublicly traded company. Drs. Jones and Hubbell have nothing to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Thomson was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality under award number K08HS025138.

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason” series reviews practices which have become common parts of hospital care but which may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent “black and white” conclusions or clinical practice standards, but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A four-year-old girl, with a history of one wheezing episode, presents to the emergency department (ED) with wheezing, tachypnea, and respiratory distress. She receives three successive treatments of short-acting bronchodilators and is given one dose of dexamethasone, after which she improves significantly. Because of persistent tachypnea and wheezing, she is admitted for further management. By the next day she is much improved, now requiring bronchodilator treatment every four hours. She receives a second dose of dexamethasone to complete her steroid burst. Was the trajectory of this patient’s illness altered by treatment with systemic corticosteroids (SCS)? Is there any benefit to SCS treatment in a wheezing preschool-aged patient?

Wheezing is common in preschool-aged children (ages 2-5 years), with up to half in this age group having experienced a wheezing episode and up to one-third, recurrent wheezing.^1,2 Young children with wheezing require ED visits and hospitalizations at much higher rates than older children and adults.³ Several studies have also demonstrated that children in this age group have higher rates of SCS prescriptions compared with older children.^4,5 Despite the high prevalence of wheezing in this age group, there is great heterogeneity in the etiology and clinical progression of early childhood wheezing, with up to six described phenotypes each with varying levels of association with the development of asthma.⁶ Given the high frequency of asthma, preschool-aged children admitted with wheezing are often treated with SCS, as this is the standard of care for an acute asthma exacerbation.⁷

The benefit of SCS in school-aged children and adolescents with multitrigger asthma exacerbation is well established and includes shorter time to resolution of acute illness and reduction in relapses.⁸ Because of these benefits, expert panels and regulatory agencies often include preschool-aged children in treatment recommendations for the older age groups.^7,9,10 Consequently, apart from infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis, SCS remain a common and accepted treatment for young children presenting with asthma-like symptoms.^4,5

Some data suggest that there may be clinical benefit from treatment with SCS in preschool children who wheeze. A recent trial by Foster et al. included 605 children, aged 24-72 months, presenting to a pediatric ED with wheeze plus viral upper respiratory symptoms.¹¹ Patients were randomized to receive a three-day course of prednisolone (1 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay until ready for discharge, which they found was significantly longer for placebo-treated patients (540 minutes) versus prednisolone (370 minutes).

There are few randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SCS in preschool-aged children with viral-induced wheezing, and these children are often grouped with younger or older children in studies. While limited in number, these studies have evaluated SCS efficacy with acute wheezing in preschool-aged children in outpatient, ED, and inpatient settings (Appendix Table).^12-16 The majority of trials of SCS in this age group have shown mixed or negative results.

Admission rates for preschoolers with viral wheezing were not statistically different in those receiving oral prednisolone versus placebo in a study conducted by Oomen et al. evaluating outpatient, parent-initiated prednisolone.¹⁴ Tal et al. found overall benefit with reduced admission rate for patients treated in the ED with methylprednisolone versus placebo; however, this finding was not statistically significant in patients 24-54 months old.¹⁶

For those requiring hospitalization, length of hospital stay and time until readiness to discharge were the primary outcomes assessed by Panickar et al. and Jartti et al. Neither study found a statistically significant difference between groups who received oral prednisolone versus placebo for 3 or 5 days. Secondary outcomes such as symptom scores, symptom duration, albuterol use, and 60-day relapse rate were also not improved in those taking oral prednisolone compared with placebo.^14,15

The mixed results of studies assessing the efficacy of SCS in preschool-aged wheezing children may be attributed to the fact that wheezing in this age group likely represents multiple underlying processes. Most acute wheezing at this age is not associated with atopy and is often triggered by viral respiratory tract infections.¹⁷ Furthermore, 90% of wheezing in children under the age of five years does not persist to the asthma phenotype (recurrent episodes with multiple triggers, airway obstruction, and hyper-responsiveness) once they reach school age.¹⁸

While SCS are generally not expensive, their use is not without cost. Studies of oral corticosteroid use in children with asthma have shown adverse effects including vomiting, hypertension, and impaired growth.¹⁹ Children with recurrent wheeze receiving SCS may demonstrate biochemical hypothalamic-pituitary-axis dysfunction.²⁰ Given the high utilization and SCS prescription rates in this age group, reducing the use of SCS with wheezing episodes could have a large clinical and financial impact.^3,4 These medications should be used judiciously in order to balance benefit with potential risks.

Given that there is diversity in the phenotype of preschool-aged children who wheeze, it is possible that a subset of these children would benefit from SCS. Some studies have shown that certain groups of patients derive benefit, including those with rhinovirus infection, eczema, and children at higher risk for multitrigger asthma.^11,13 Children who have atopic wheeze are more likely to have persistent symptoms that may eventually be diagnosed as asthma.¹⁸ These children will have airway inflammation secondary to eosinophilic infiltration and may be responsive to SCS at times of exacerbation. However, attempts to classify preschool children based on risk of asthma have not shown consistent results.

The Asthma Predictive Index (API), a tool developed as a part of the Tucson Children’s Respiratory Study, uses clinical factors including history of wheeze, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis to determine a young child’s risk of having asthma symptoms after age six years.²¹ Jartti et al. and Panickar et al. used the API to stratify patients based on future asthma risk.^13,15 The high risk group in the Jartti et al. study showed the benefit of SCS, while there was no benefit in the Panickar et al. study. When Oommen et al. also attempted to stratify asthma risk using levels of blood eosinophil proteins, which when elevated, are predictive of persistent wheeze.¹⁴ There was no difference in drug efficacy between patients with high and low blood eosinophil proteins. Although Foster et al. demonstrated shorter length of stay (LOS) with SCS overall, this was only seen in the subgroup with a previous diagnosis of asthma.

Patients presenting with severe disease (including those requiring critical care or with the highest symptom scores) have mostly been excluded from these studies. Although patients with severe disease often receive steroids, there is insufficient evidence of the efficacy of SCS in this population.^12,13,15,22 Foster et al. did include patients with high symptom scores (although they excluded patients with “critical wheeze”) and found that the efficacy of SCS was clearest for those with severe presentations.¹¹

Finally, some studies have demonstrated a virus-specific effect, with a reduction in time to readiness for discharge and reduction in recurrent wheeze in children treated with prednisolone who were positive for rhinovirus.^12,23 Rhinovirus infection has also been associated with allergic sensitization and recurrent wheezing.^23,24 However, rhinovirus-specific steroid responsiveness has not been consistently replicated by other investigators.¹¹

The majority of preschool-aged children presenting with wheeze in the care of hospitalists have mild to moderate symptoms, triggered by viral infections.²² It can be helpful to categorize the wheezing child as atopic or nonatopic. Laboratory studies such as allergen-specific IgE, peripheral eosinophil count, and exhaled nitric oxide can aid in predicting response to asthma medications and progression to the classic asthma phenotype.²⁵ In the absence of these diagnostic studies, which are often costly and challenging to obtain in young children, a clinical score such as the API, or the recently validated Pediatric Asthma Risk Score (PARS), can help to assess future risk of developing multitrigger asthma.^21,26 A positive API requires a history of more than three episodes of wheeze over the past year as well as one major (physician-diagnosed atopic dermatitis or parental asthma) or two minor (peripheral blood eosinophilia, physician-diagnosed allergic rhinitis, or wheezing apart from colds) criteria.¹⁷ It has a sensitivity of 57% and specificity of 81%.²⁶ The PARS uses the presence of parental asthma, eczema, early wheezing, wheezing apart from colds, African-American race, and ≥2 positive skin prick tests to predict asthma. The sensitivity and specificity of PARS are similar to the API at 68% and 79%, respectively.²⁶

Given the mixed results from studies evaluating the benefit of SCS in preschoolers with atopic symptoms and/or a positive API, evidence is lacking to guide decision-making in these children.^13-15 However, it is reasonable to treat those at higher risk for future multitrigger asthma with SCS. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether those with more severe disease or those infected with particular viral pathogens may benefit. Therefore, for the majority of children presenting with viral-induced wheezing, with a negative API or low PARS, there is no evidence that treatment with an SCS provides benefit in the form of reduced LOS, reduction in clinical symptoms, treatment failure, or relapse rate.

• Do not routinely treat with SCS preschool-aged children who have episodic wheezing triggered by viral respiratory tract infections and who do not have risk factors for persistent asthma.
• For preschool-aged children with a history of atopy, a positive API, or elevated PARS, SCS can be considered during admissions for respiratory distress and wheezing.
• Preschool-aged children presenting with severe disease or requiring intensive care may benefit from SCS, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether this practice provides benefit.

Current evidence does not support the routine use of SCS for preschool-aged children admitted for mild to moderate wheezing episodes. The majority of these children have viral episodic wheeze that does not develop into the asthma phenotype. For children with severe disease or at higher risk for asthma, SCS may be considered, although there remains insufficient evidence as to their efficacy. The patient in the introductory case lacks risk factors that would suggest SCS responsiveness (eg, positive API, previous asthma diagnosis, inhaled corticosteroid use, or severe disease) and would likely receive no clinical benefit from dexamethasone treatment.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason?” Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason” topics by emailing TWDFNR@hospitalmedicine.org.

Disclosures

Dr. Jennifer O’Toole consulted with and received honoraria payment from the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. She also holds stock options in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a nonpublicly traded company. Drs. Jones and Hubbell have nothing to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Thomson was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality under award number K08HS025138.