2022 Western Medical Research Conference

DOI: 10.1136/jim-2022-WRMC Published 23 December 2021

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables

  • Abstract #6 Table 1
  • Abstract #9 Table 1
    Patients Transplanted During COVID Pandemic (n=50)Patients Transplanted Prior to COVID Pandemic (n=482)P-Value
    1-Year Survival 94.0% 90.5% 0.438
    1-Year Freedom from CAV 100.0% 96.5% 0.192
    1-Year Freedom from NF-MACE 98.0% 86.9% 0.024
    1-Year Freedom from Any Treated Rejection 90.0% 84.2% 0.262
    1-Year Freedom from Acute Cellular Rejection 90.0% 92.1% 0.658
    1-Year Freedom from Antibody-Mediated Rejection 94.0% 94.8% 0.845
    Average Length of Hospital Stay (Days) 22.96 ± 37.19 17.21 ± 19.71 0.079
    Average Length of ICU Stay (Days) 11.06 ± 20.61 8.31 ± 8.19 0.069
  • Abstract #10 Table 1
    HTx Patients Transplanted between Mar.-Sep. 2020
    (n=55)    		HTx Patients Transplanted between Mar.-Sept. 2017–2019
    (n=169)    		P-Value
    6-Month Survival 92.7% 94.1% 0.733
    6-Month Freedom from ATR 90.9% 91.1% 0.981
    Rehospitalization within 6 Months 16.4% (9) 37.9% (64) 0.003
    Non-COVID Infection within 6 Months 10.9% (6) 18.9% (32) 0.323
  • Abstract #11 Table 1
    EndpointsFemale patients
    (n=73)    		Male patients
    (n=203)    		p-value
    6-month survival 98.6% 96.6% 0.249
    6-month freedom from severe illness 98.6% 96.1% 0.189
    Urgent status at listing 28.8% 49.3% 0.003
    Urgent status at removal 37.0% 59.1% 0.002
    Average time on waitlist (days) 124.4 ± 164.7 108.3 ± 181.9 0.546
  • Abstract #12 Table 1
    Oversized PHM [>140%] (n=64)Normal PHM [90–110%] (n=524)P-Value
    Mean PHM 154.86 ± 15.44 99.95 ± 5.53 <0.001
    1-Year Survival 93.8% 90.6% 0.420
    1-Year Freedom from CAV 96.9% 96.6% 0.852
    1-Year Freedom from NF-MACE 95.3% 87.2% 0.065
    1-Year Freedom from ACR 92.2% 91.8% 0.899
    1-Year Freedom from AMR 82.8% 94.8% <0.001
    1-Year Freedom from Right Heart Failure 100.0% 100.0% -
    1-Year Freedom from Cardiac Dysfunction 98.4% 99.0% 0.669
    1-Year Freedom from Pulmonary Hypertension 93.8% 95.0% 0.706
  • Abstract #18 Table 1

    Baseline characteristics

    Transwomen n=25
    n (%) or median (IQR)    		Transmen n=22
    n (%) or median (IQR)
    Age 40 (14) 38 (11)
    History of smoking 14 (56%) 16 (73%)
    Current smoker 7 (28%) 2 (9%)
    GAHT Duration, yr 3.2 (11.9) 5.5 (10.5)
    Family history of CAD 2 (8%) 6 (27%) *
    BMI 24.8 (7.3) 29.2 (6.2)
    SBP 119.0 (18) 118.0 (16)
    DBP 78.0 (15) 77.5 (9)
    HbA1c 5.3 (0.3) 5.3 (0.4)
    Triglycerides 126.0 (92) 102.5 (110)
    Cholesterol 182.0 (38) 182.0 (41)
    HDL 57.0 (34) 47.5 (30)
    LDL 91.0 (29) 105.5 (36)
    hsCRP 1.1 (1.5) 1.7 (2.5)
    Total testosterone 26.0 (131) 623.5 (741) *
    Estradiol 91.2 (167) * 35.5 (22.5)

    • *Statistically significant as determined by p value < 0.05

  • Abstract #27 Table 1

    Initial and follow-up biometrics in workers with (Cohort 1) and without (Cohort 2) health coaching

    Cohort 1Cohort 2
    InitialFollow-upp valueInitialFollow-upp value
    Cholesterol 191 ± 39 183 ± 40 0.0001 195 ± 37 187 ± 35 0.027
    LDL 121 ± 34 106 ± 36 0.0001 127 ± 33 113 ± 30 0.0001
    HDL 42 ± 12 48 ± 14 0.0001 49 ± 13 53 ± 14 0.004
    Triglycerides 144 ± 95 152 ± 97 0.21 98 ± 55 107 ± 61 0.157
  • Abstract #38 Table 1

    Mean reported pain scores

    TimeBaseline
    n = 71    		3 weeks
    n = 71    		6 weeks
    n = 71    		3 months
    n = 71    		6 months
    n = 71    		1 year
    n = 63    		1.5 years
    n = 58    		2 years
    n = 58    		3 years
    n = 54
    Mean Pain Score 5.6 3.6* 3.2* 3.1* 2.3* 1.9* 1.8* 1.8* 1.7*

    • *p < .001

  • Abstract #39 Table 1

    Multivariable logistic regression evaluating factors associated with frailty in the entire cohort (N=2947)

    VariablesOR95%CIp-value
    Age (years) 1.05 1.04–1.06 <0.001
    Male sex 0.74 0.57–0.95 0.017
    BMI:
    -Underweight 1.60 0.87–2.93 0.131
    -Normal weight ref -- --
    -Overweight 1.49 1.17–1.89 0.001
    -Obese 3.04 2.42–3.82 <0.001
    Primary Rheumatic Diagnoses:
    -Rheumatoid arthritis 1.18 0.91–1.54 0.217
    -Systemic lupus erythematous 1.76 1.02–3.03 0.042
    -Osteoarthritis ref -- --
    -Fibromyalgia 0.98 0.65–1.48 0.936
    -Spondylarthritis 1.29 0.37–4.44 0.687
    -Vasculitis 0.57 0.20–1.64 0.296
    -Connective Tissue Diseases* 1.45 0.75–2.77 0.268
    Fracture ever 1.87 1.56–2.26 <0.001
    Disease duration (years) 1.01 1.00–1.01 0.055
    Disease severity 1.24 1.18–1.30 <0.001
    Pain Scale 1.11 1.07–1.16 <0.001
    Medication use:
    -DMARD use 0.93 0.77–1.13 0.452
    -Biologic Use 0.78 0.64–0.96 0.019
    -Prednisone dose 1.01 1.00–1.03 0.142

    • -DMARD: disease modifying antirheumatic drug. *Connective tissue diseases: Sjogrens, scleroderma, mixed connective tissue disease and myositis

  • Abstract #47 Table 1

    Demographics and clinical characteristics of mother-infant dyads infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy

    Maternal Demographics and Medical HistoryAll Women (N = 101)
    Age, Median (Range) 33 (16–42)
    Race/Ethnicity No. (%)
    Latina 46 (45.5)
    White 27 (26.7)
    Black/African American 8 (7.9)
    Asian/Other 20 (19.8)
    Insurance No. (%)
    Public 36 (35.6)
    Private 65 (64.4)
    Gravidity, Median (Range) 2 (1–10)
    COVID-19 Severity No. (%)
    Asymptomatic 14 (13.9)
    Mild/Moderate 76 (75.2)
    Severe/Critical 11 (10.9)
    Gestational Age at Diagnosis No. (%)
    First Trimester 10 (9.9)
    Second Trimester 39 (38.6)
    Third Trimester 52 (51.5)
    Diagnosis Date-to-Delivery Interval, Median (IQR), Days 62 (32–120)
    Medical History Prior to Pregnancy No. (%)
    Any Comorbidities 52 (51.5)
    Obesity (Pre-Pregnancy BMI >30) 32 (31.7)
    Diabetes Mellitus (Not Gestational) 3 (3.0)
    Congenital Heart Disease 5 (5.0)
    Asthma 12 (11.9)
  • Abstract #52 Table 1

    Studies evaluating the association between vitamin D level and COVID-19 disease severity

    Author, year, and locationControls: number (N) and mean or median age (yrs)Subjects: number (N) and mean or median age (yrs)Serum 25(OH)D concentration in controls vs. subjects, p-valueOutcome based on comorbidities and vitamin D levels, p-value
    Radujkovic, 2020, Germany Controls: COVID-19 outpatients, N=92, Median age=56 Subjects: COVID-19 inpatients, N=93, Median age=63 Median: 18.6 vs. 14.6 ng/mL, p=0.001 Adjusted by age, gender, and comorbidities, VDD (<12 ng/mL) was associated with invasive mechanical ventilation and death (HR 6.12 and 14.73, respectively. p<0.001 for both).
    Luo, 2020, China Controls: Non-severe COVID-19, N=261, Median age=54.0 Subjects: Severe COVID-19, N=74, Median age=62.5 Median: 11.0 vs. 9.24 ng/mL, p<0.0001 Adjusted by sex, age, comorbidities, BMI, smoking status, and vitamin D status, VDD (<12 mg/L) was associated with COVID-19 severity (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.23–6.01, p=0.014), but VDD was not associated with mortality (p=1.0).
    Karahan, 2021, Turkey Controls: Moderate COVID-19, N=47, Mean age=56.1 Subjects: Severe-critical COVID-19, N=102, Mean age=67.0 Median: 26.3 vs. 10.1 ng/mL, p<0.001 25(OH)D levels significantly predictive of in-hospital mortality (multivariate analysis: OR 0.927, 95%CI 0.875–0.982, p=0.01).
    Jain, 2020, India Controls: Asymptomatic COVID-19, N=91, Mean age=42.34 Subjects: Severely ill COVID-19, N=63, Mean age=51.41 Mean: 27.89 vs. 14.35 ng/mL, p=0.0001 Fatality rate for VDD (<20 ng/mL) higher than that for normal 25(OH)D (21.1% vs. 31.1%, p-value NR).
    Macaya, 2020, Spain Controls: Non-severe COVID-19, N=49, Median age=63 Subjects: Severe COVID-19, N=31, Median age=75 Median: 19 vs. 13 ng/mL, p=0.145 Adjusted by age, gender, obesity, cardiac disease, and CKD, VDD (<20 ng/mL) did not significantly predict higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 (OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.9–11.4, p=0.07).
    Ye, 2020, China Controls: Mild/moderate COVID-19, N=50, Median age=39 Subjects: Severe/critical COVID-19, N=10, Median age=65 Median: 22.64 vs. 15.28 ng/mL, p<0.05 Multivariate analysis including VDD, age, sex, renal failure, diabetes, and HTN: Statistically significant association between VDD (<20 ng/mL) and severe/critical COVID-19 disease (OR 15.18, 95% CI 1.23–187.45).
    Kerget, 2020, Turkey Controls: COVID-19 without ARDS, N=53, Mean age=38.3 Subjects: COVID-19 with ARDS, N=35, Mean age=67.9 Mean: 21.8 vs. 16.8 ng/mL, p=0.102 NR
    Campi, 2021, Italy Controls: Severely symptomatic COVID-19 hospital ward admits, N=49, Mean age=68.82 Subjects: Severely symptomatic COVID-19 ICU admits, N=54, Mean age=63.67 Mean: 22.4 vs. 14.4 ng/mL, p=0.0003 25(OH)D levels inversely correlated with subsequent need for ICU admission in severely symptomatic patients (RR 0.989, 95%CI 0.981–0.997, p=0.011), and also inversely correlated with in-hospital mortality (p=0.002).

    • Units for vitamin D levels in two studies (Luo et al. and Ye et al.), originally reported in nmol/L, were converted to ng/mL in order to achieve consistency in the units across all studies. 25(OH)D=25-hydroxyvitamin D, VDD=Vitamin D Deficiency, HR=Hazard Ratio, OR=Odds Ratio, RR=Relative Risk, NR=Not Reported

  • Abstract #53 Table 1

    Studies on the efficacy of intravaginal probiotics in preventing recurrent UTIs

    First author’s last name, Year of Publication, Location of studyName of ProbioticDuration and frequency of usage (intravaginal)Number of Subjects and controlsFrequency of UTIs in subjects vs controlsP value
    Reid, 1992, Canada L casei rhamnosus and L fermentum Twice a week for 2 weeks then once monthly 19 vs 21 21% vs47% p<0.05
    Baerheim, 1994, Norway L casei rhamnosus Twice a week for 26 weeks 25 vs 22 Incidence ratio=1.4 95% CI=0.88 to 1.98 (p>0.05)
    Reid, 1995, Canada L. rhamnosus and L-fermentum Once a week 1 year 55 subjects, baseline was control Episodes decreased from 6 to 1.6/yr p<0.001
    Uehara, 2006, Tokyo L. Cirspatus (Lactin-V) Every 2 days for 1 year 9 Subjects, baseline was control Recurrences decreased from 5.0/yr to 1.3/yr p=0.0007
    Stapleton, 2011, USA L. Cirspatus (Lactin-V) 5 days, then weekly for 10 weeks 50 vs 50 15% vs 27% p<0.01
  • Abstract #59 Table 1

    Correlation between CBC HB and paired POC/blood gas Hb

    Sample sizeMean DifferenceStandard Deviation of Mean DifferencePearson Coefficient (r), p value
    CBC vs POC Gas within 12 hours 488 1.1 1.0 0.89, p < 0.05
    CBC vs POC Gas between 12–24 hours 243 1.3 1.0 0.83, p < 0.05
    CBC vs POC Hgb within 12 hours 477 1.0 1.0 0.87, p < 0.05
    CBC vs POC Hgb between 12–24 hours 290 1.3 1.2 0.75, p < 0.05
  • Abstract #61 Table 1

    Home oxygen therapy requirement against common neonatal outcomes

    Infants requiring home oxygenInfants not requiring home oxygenp-value
    Mean Birth Weight (g) 795 1077 <0.001
    Mean Gestational Age (weeks) 26 29 <0.001
    Histologic Chorioamnionitis (%) 19.5 6.5 0.003
    Intubation in Delivery Room (%) 56.0 30.8 <0.001
    Chest Compressions (%) 18.0 7.0 <0.001
    Surfactant Therapy (%) 50.7 39.4 0.024
    Invasive Ventilation at 24 hours (%) 70.3 24.9 <0.001
    Duration of Invasive Ventilation (days) 33 9 <0.001
    PDA (%) 84.7 52.8 <0.001
    PDA Requiring Surgery (%) 41.9 6.5 <0.001
    Severe IVH (%) 8.1 1.5 0.014
    BPD (%) 91.4 35.5 <0.001
    Length of Stay (days) 81 59 <0.001
  • Abstract #68 Table 1

    Comparison of blood gases at fixed timepoints

    Control Group (3:1 C:V resuscitation)
    Time Point PaCO2 (mm Hg) PaO2 (mm Hg) CaCO2 (mL O2/dL) Brain DO2 (mL o2/kg/dL)* FiO2
    During Chest Compressions 153 (11) 13 (15) 2.38 (3.2) 0.05 (0.06) 1.0
    At ROSC 153 (11) 26 (24) 4.58 (4.8) 0.62 (0.59) 1.0
    15 minutes post-ROSC 158 (24) 47 (42) 7.05 (6.6) 1.97 (2.21) 1.0
    Intervention Group (continuous asynchronous chest compressions with HFPV)
    During Chest Compressions 110 (5) 22 (3.1) 5.04 (1.8) 0.12 (0.11) 1.0
    At ROSC 85 (20) 57 (19) 13 (1.4) 3.8 (0.14) 1
    15 minutes post-ROSC 50 (11) 60 (24) 13.7 (1.5) 2.42 (0.71) 0.48 (0.21)

    • Data are mean (SD) *n = 2 for intervention group

  • Abstract #70 Table 1

    Characteristics of all patients and patients in the surgical site infection sample group

    Mastectomy Patients with Post Surgical Breast Malignancy
    (January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2021)    		Sampling of Patients with Surgical Site Infection
    (January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2021)
    CPT code for reconstruction AND Diagnosis code for breast malignancy N = 1386 CPT code for reconstruction AND Diagnosis code for breast malignancy N = 22
    Patients with ‘Diabetes’ diagnosis N = 181 Patients with ‘Diabetes’ diagnosis N = 17
    Patients with pre-op HgbA1C N = 268 Patients with pre-op HgbA1C N = 22
    Patients with Diabetes diagnosis AND pre-op HgbA1C N = 136 Patients with Diabetes diagnosis AND pre-op HgbA1C N = 17
    Average value of HgbA1C (%) 6.74
    (N = 268)     		Average value of HgbA1C (%) 6.94
    (N = 22)
    Average value of HgbA1C in patients with Diabetes diagnosis (%) 7.33
    (N = 136)     		Average value of HgbA1C in patients with Diabetes diagnosis (%) 7.34
    (N = 17)
    Average value of HgbA1c in non-diabetic patients (%) 6.13
    (N = 132)     		Average value of HgbA1c in non-diabetic patients (%) 5.58
    (N = 5)

    • Data are presented as mean values or as column percentage.

  • Abstract #71 Table 1
    Length of StayPre-Covid-19During Covid-19P-value
    10.23 (28.3) 5.57 (6.8) 0.032
    Estimated Blood Loss 125.7 (174.6) 173.5 (264.2) 0.064
    Minutes in OR 317.9 (158.5) 309.45 (176.1) 0.678
    Minutes skin-to-skin 223.7 (137.2) 216.3 (144.6) 0.641
    Discharge Disposition N(%) Home 131 (70.8%) 110 (75.3%) 0.400
    Nursing Facility 34 (18.4%) 27 (18.5%)
    Other 14 (7.6%) 6 (4.1%)
    Type of Case N(%) Non-Urgent 150 (81.1%) 104 (71.2%) 0.035
    Urgent 35 (18.9%) 42 (28.8%)
    Preoperative Pain 5.9 (2.9) 6.0 (2.8) 0.583
    Discharge Pain 4.15 (3.0) 4.9 (3.2) 0.045
    Short Term Pain 3.6 (2.8) 4.3 (3.0) 0.061
  • Abstract #73 Table 1

    Complications in patients with low and high GNRI scores

    GNRI < 97.5
    N=12    		GNRI ≥ 97.5
    N=32    		P Value
    Number of patients with complications (%) 8 (67) 6 (19) 0.016
    Return to the OR (%) 5 (42) 4 (13) 0.087
    Total LOS, day (mean ± SD) 18 ± 23 7 ± 7 0.119
    Discharge to SNF 4 (33) 2 (6) 0.039

    • GNRI, geriatric nutrition risk index.

  • Abstract #75 Table 1
    CohortMedicationsNumber of Patients
    Cohort 1 Supplements (Fish oil, krill oil, garlic, turmeric) 12
    Cohort 2 COX inhibitors 104
    Cohort 3 ADP inhibitors, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors 11
    Cohort 4 Vitamin K antagonists, direct thrombin inhibitors, direct Xa inhibitors, indirect thrombin inhibitors 25
    Cohort 5 No antithrombotic medications 91
  • Abstract #78 Table 1

    NTDB DM foot burn cohort characteristics (2007–2015)

    Cohort Characteristics
    Age (median, IQR) 56 [17]
    Diabetes Mellitus 1,338 (100)
    Alcohol 61 (5)
    Smoking 247 (18)
    Chronic Kidney Disease 73 (5)
    20–29% TBSA 45 (3)
    39–39% TBSA 13 (1)
    >40% TBSA 25 (2)
    African-American/Black 340 (26)
    Male 378 (28)

    • All values are denoted as n,% unless otherwise specified. Cohort is patients with DM and foot burns of n=1,338 (1% of NTDB adult admissions). Only covariates of significance are included in this table.%TBSA is the percentage of total body surface area affected by a burn and represents burn size.

  • Abstract #80 Table 1

    Comparison of Entresto vs. ACEi/ARB

    EndpointEntresto
    (n=65)    		ACEi/ARB control
    (n=65)    		p-value
    1-year survival 89.2% 90.8% 0.716
    1-year freedom from cardiac dysfunction 78.5% 72.3% 0.432
    1-year freedom from NF-MACE 95.3% 87.7% 0.139
    Development of severe PGD 4.6% 6.2% 1.000
    Development of vasoplegia 29.2% 33.9% 0.706
  • Abstract #81 Table 1
    Moderate Low Magnesium
    [1.4–1.7 mg/dL]
    (n=173)    		Mild Low Magnesium
    [1.7–1.8 mg/dL]
    (n=158)    		Normal Magnesium
    [>1.8 mg/dL]
    (n=625)    		P-Value
    6-Month Average Magnesium 1.66 ± 0.06 1.79 ± 0.02 2.05 ± 0.15 <0.001
    Incidence of Muscle Cramping within 6-Months Post-Transplant 12.1% 8.2% 11.5% 0.444
    Incidence of Cardiac Arrhythmias within 6-Months Post-Transplant 5.2% 10.8% 21.9% <0.001
    Rehospitalization within 6-Months Post-Transplant 17.3% 22.8% 25.1% 0.099
    6-Month Freedom from Any Treated Rejection 89.0% 88.6% 87.4% 0.634
    6-Month Survival 100.0% 99.4% 93.6% <0.001
    6-Month Average Creatinine 1.25 ± 0.46 1.28 ± 0.48 1.74 ± 0.78 <0.001
  • Abstract #82 Table 1
    Acute Abdomen within 30 Days Following Heart Transplantation
    (n=11)    		No Acute Abdomen
    (n=22)    		P-Value
    30-Day Survival 72.7% 100.0% 0.010
    1-Year Survival 45.5% 90.9% 0.002
    Infectious Complications 36.4% (4) 40.9% (9) 0.801
    3-Month Freedom from Infections 72.7% 77.3% 0.442
    Rejection Episodes 18.2% (2) 4.5% (1) 0.199
    3-Month Freedom from ATR 90.9% 100.0% 0.083
    3-Month Freedom from ACR 90.9% 100.0% 0.083
    3-Month Freedom from AMR 100.0% 100.0% 1.000
  • Abstract #84 Table 1
    Male (n=11)Female (n=38)P-Value
    Immunodominant Antibody MFI Pre-Treatment 12613 ± 3642 12779 ± 3498 0.891
    Immunodominant Antibody MFI Post-Treatment 12045 ± 3514 12055 ± 3925 0.994
    Change in Immunodominant Antibody MFI -568 ± 1687 -723 ± 1782 0.798
    Average Time on Waitlist (years) 0.61 ± 0.62 0.65 ± 0.82 0.896
    1-Year Survival 100.0% 89.5% 0.299
    1-Year Freedom from Acute Cellular Rejection (ACR) 81.8% 94.7% 0.106
    1-Year Freedom from Antibody-Mediated Rejection (AMR) 72.7% 78.9% 0.691
  • Abstract #88 Table 1

    COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and demographic factors

    Demographic Factor (N)Yes (%)Unsure (%)No (%)p-value
    Gender (171)
    Mother (143) 68 (47.6%) 51 (35.7%) 24 (16.8%) 0.119
    Father (28) 19 (67.9%) 5 (17.9%) 4 (14.3%)
    Marital Status (171)
    Unmarried (56) 17 (30.4%) 25 (44.6%) 14 (25.0%) 0.001
    Married (115) 70 (60.9%) 31 (27.0%) 14 (12.2%)
    Educational Level (171)
    College and Up (100) 52 (52.0%) 30 (30.0%) 18 (18.0%) 0.605
    Grade and High School (71) 35 (49.3%) 26 (36.6%) 10 (14.1%)
    Number of Household Members (168)
    1–2 people (102) 44 (43.1%) 35 (34.3%) 23 (22.5%) 0.015
    3–7 people (66) 51 (62.1%) 20 (30.3%) 5 (7.6%)
    Ethnicity (171)
    Non-Minority (White, Asian) (61) 32 (52.5%) 19 (31.1%) 10 (16.4%) 0.941
    Minority (Hispanic, Black, Pacific Islander) (110) 55 (50.0%) 37 (33.6%) 18 (16.4%)
    Income (171)
    High (>50K) (78) 46 (59.0%) 21 (26.9%) 11 (14.1%) 0.151
    Low (<50K) (93) 41 (44.1%) 35 (37.6%) 17 (18.3%)
  • Abstract #96 Table 1
  • Abstract #99 Table 1

    Clinical outcomes

    Median overall survival, all patients (months, range)
    Total 1 year survival     		n = 13
    14.3 (0.2 – 72.6)
    17 (56.7%)
    Median overall survival, patients treated with complete surgical resection (months, range)
    Total 1 year survival     		n = 13
    37.0 (12.1 – 72.6)
    13 (100%)
    Median overall survival, patients without resection or with uncomplete resection of tumor (months, range)
    Total 1 year survival     		n = 17
    2.2 (0.2 – 60.0)
    3 (17.6%)
    Median overall survival, patients treated with radiation (months, range)
    Total 1 year survival     		n = 7
    24.8 (7.1 – 35.8)
    6 (85.7%)
    Median overall survival, patients treated with immunotherapy (months, range)
    Total 1 year survival     		n = 18
    23.7 (0.6 – 66.2)
    16 (88.9%)
    Median overall survival, patients treated with complete surgical resection and immunotherapy (months, range)
    Total 1 year survival     		n = 11
    35.0 (12.1 – 66.2)
    11 (100%)
    Median overall survival, patients treated with complete surgical resection, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy (months, range)
    Total 1 year survival
    Median overall survival, by anatomic site of metastases (months, range)
    M1a - All lymph node/soft tissue/muscle (15 pts, 50%)
    M1b – Lung (1 pt, 3.3%)
    M1c – Visceral (8 pts, 26.7%)
    M1d – Brain (6 pts, 20%)     		Outcome by anatomic site
    32.0 (1.4 – 72.6)
    10.3 (10.3–10.3)
    1.5 (0.2 – 60.0)
    6.2 (1 – 35.8)
    Median overall survival, by # of metastases (months, range)
    1–3 (n = 18)
    Total 1 year survival
    4+ (n = 12)
    Total 1 year survival     		Outcome by # of mets
    26.1 (0.6 – 72.6)
    15 (83.3%)
    2.4 (0.2 – 60.0)
    3 (25%)
    Median overall survival, by # of organs involved (months, range)
    1 organ (n = 16)
    Total 1 year survival
    2+ organs (n = 14)
    Total 1 year survival     		Outcome by # of organs involved
    23.7 (1.4 – 72.6)
    14 (87.5%)
    2.2 (0.2 – 60.0)
    4 (28.6%)
    Median overall survival, by size of largest metastases (months, range)
    Total 1 year survival
    2–5 cm (n = 12)
    Total 1 year survival
    >5 cm (n = 12)
    Total 1 year survival     		Outcome by size of largest met
    11.4 (1.0 – 51.77)
    3 (50%)
    30.9 (0.3 – 66.2)
    7 (58.3%)
    10.9 (0.2 – 72.6)
    8 (66.7%)
  • Abstract #107 Table 1
    Historic Prospective
    Gestational Age (weeks) 37 (35–37) 36 (35–37)
    Birth Weight (grams) 2482 (2168–2881) 2330 (1948–2644)*
    Days Until Full Feeds 23 (18–41) 24 (17–33)
    Days of Antibiotics 4 (2–7) 3 (1–6)
    Length of Stay 32 (23–60) 34 (26–47)

    • Cohort characteristics. Continuous variables, median (IQR). *p<0.03

  • Abstract #108 Table 1
    No ROP (n=23)Type 1 ROP (n=11)Low Grade ROP (n=17)Not Treated (n=37)Treated (n=14)
    GA (weeks) 29.7 (2.2) 24.3 (1.5)* 26.8 (2.1)* 28.5 (2.5) 25 (2.5)#
    BW Z Scores 0.17 (1.86) -0.78 (1.16) -0.39 (1.28) -0.16 (1.53) -0.89 (1.45)
    Birth Length Z Scores -0.75 (1.67) -0.64 (1.44) -0.39 (1.28) -0.62 (1.35) -0.80 (1.71)
    Male 12 (55%) 6 (55%) 9 (53%) 18 (49%) 8 (57%)
    Day of Life of Full Feed 22 (17) 125 (37)* 27 (14) 24 (16) 44 (23)#
    Chronic Lung Disease 5 (22%) 8 (73%)* 14 (82%)* 5 (36%) 18 (49%)#
    Length of Stay (days) 76 (32) 125 (37)* 96 (23)* 82 (30) 121 (34)#

    • Data is represented as mean (SD). *p

  • Abstract #110 Table 1

    Neurologic outcomes of neonates exposed and unexposed to SSRI

    No SSRI exposure in 3rd trimester (N=297,403)SSRI exposure in 3rd trimester (N=8,024)Risk ratio (95%CI)Risk difference (95%CI)NNH (assuming causality)
    Encephalopathy 1.6/1,000 4.4/1,000 2.7 (1.9–3.8) 2.7/1,000 370
    Metabolic acidosis (BE<-16) 16/1,000 21/1,000 1.32 (0.81–2.1) NS NS
    Apgar 5min <5 5/1,000 15/1,000 3.3 (2.7–3.9) 10.5/1,000 95
    PPV in DR 30/1,000 92/1000 3.0 (2.8–3.2) 61/1,000 16
    Admission to neonatal unit 71/1,000 123/1,000 1.7 (1.6–1.8) 52/1,000 19

    • BE: Base excess; PPV: Positive pressure ventilation; DR: Delivery room; NNH: Number needed to harm.

  • Abstract #111 Table 1
    Infant Demographicsn (%) or median (Q1, Q3)
    Gestational age at delivery (weeks) 38 (37, 39)
    Female sex 41 (40.2)
    Male sex 61 (59.8)
    Birth weight (grams) 2958 (2724, 3240)
    SGA (BW ≤ 10%) 10 (9.8)
    Inborn 99 (97)
    Infants discharged to non-maternal guardianship 18 (17.6)
    Maternal Demographics n (%) or median (Q1, Q3)
    Maternal age (years) 31 (28, 34)
    COVID-19 tested 54 (52.9)
    COVID-19 positive 1 (1)
    Caucasian/White 69 (67.6)
    African American/Black 3 (2.9)
    American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 (2)
    Other/Unknown 26 (25.5)
    Primigravida 10 (9.8)
    Mothers receiving medication-assisted treatment 79 (77.5)
    Mode of Delivery n (%)
    Vaginal 65 (63.7)
    Cesarean section 37 (36.3)
    Breastfeeding n (%)
    Maternal milk eligible 65 (63.7)
    Any maternal milk provided 57 (55.9)
    Breastfeeding attempted 46 (45.1)
    Breastfeeding at discharge 37 (36.3)
    Prenatal Exposures n (%)
    Opioids alone 21 (20.6)
    Polysubstance (opioids + ≥ 1 nonopioid) 81 (79.4)
  • Abstract #114 Table 1
    Clinical OutcomePre-EHM 2016
    N=45    		Post-EHM 2020
    N=27    		Change Post vs PreEstimated cost per caseCost Avoidance
    Medical necrotizing enterocolitis, n 2 1 1 $74,004 $74,004
    Late-onset sepsis, n 4 5 -1 $10,055 -$10,055
    Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, n 9 5 4 $31,565 $126,260
    Severe retinopathy of prematurity, n 2 3 -1 $35,749 - $35,749
    Total parenteral nutrition, days* 34 27 7 $1,436 $271,404
    Length-of-stay, days* 87.2 74.3 12.9 $3,500 $1,219,050
    Cost Avoidance $1,644,914
    Product Acquisition 2020 - $313,784
    Net Financial Impact $1,331,130

    • *mean

  • Abstract #134 Table 1

    Bland-altman analysis of minimally-invasive CO monitors

    PRE-BYPASS:CCOCheetahClearSightFloTracCNAPLiDCO
    Number of values 192 178 183 204 43 42
    Percentage errors 54.5% 53.3% 68.1% 90.8% 110.2% 110.6%
    Bias -0.75 -0.51 -0.73 -1.2 -2.0 -2.0
    SD of bias 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.3
    95% Limits of Agreement
    From -3.0 -2.7 -3.5 -5.0 -6.7 -6.6
    To 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.6
    POST-BYPASS: CCO Cheetah Cheetah FloTrac CNAP LiDCO
    Number of values 176 155 169 178 23 36
    Percentage errors 46.8% 53.3% 60.2% 68.5% 102.7% 140.7%
    Bias -0.71 0.60 -0.39 -0.87 -1.57 -1.79
    SD of bias 1.10 1.24 1.41 1.6 2.4 3.3
    95% Limits of Agreement
    From -2.8 -1.8 -3.1 -4.0 -6.3 -8.2
    To 1.4 3.0 2.3 2.2 3.1 4.6
  • Abstract #143 Table 1
  • Abstract #150 Table 1
  • Abstract #170 Table 1

    Interventional studies to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among the minority population

    First author, year publishedControl and intervention definitionTotal number of subjects (intervention group)Total number of controls (standard or no intervention)% Minority: African-Americans and HispanicsCRC screening completion rate: Controls vs. Intervention, p-value
    Myers, 2007 Control: No intervention
    Group 1: Standard letter
    Group 2: Standard letter and tailored messages
    Group 3: Standard, tailored message and phone call     		Group 1: N=387
    Group 2: N=386
    Group 3: N=386     		N= 387 58% Controls: 32.56%
    Group 1: 45.74%
    Group 2: 43.78%
    Group 3: 48.45%, P < 0.05
    Horne, 2014 Control: Educational Material
    Intervention: Patient Navigator     		N=578 N=642 >50% Controls vs intervention: 91% vs 94%, P = 0.04
    Cole, 2017 Control: Patient Motivational Interview for Blood Pressure Intervention1: Patient Navigation
    Intervention 2: Patient Navigation and Motivational Interview     		N1=234
    N2=254     		N = 238 100% Control vs intervention 1 vs intervention 2: 8.4% vs 17.5% vs. 17.8, P < 0.01
    DeGroff, 2017 Control: Standard Care
    Intervention: Patient Navigation     		N=429 N=427 >50% Control vs Intervention: 53.2% vs 61.1%, P = 0.02
    Ford, 2006 Control: Patients did not receive monthly communication from case managers
    Intervention: Patients received monthly communications from case managers     		N= 352 N = 351 100% Control vs Intervention: 51.3% vs 68.9%, P = .10
    Basch, 2006 Control: patients were mailed printed materials
    Intervention: Patients received a tailored telephone outreach     		N = 226 N = 230 >50% Control vs Intervention: 6.1% vs 27.0%, 95% CI: 2.6, 7.7
    Khankari, 2007 Control: baseline screening rate
    Intervention: Mailing screening-eligible patients a physician letter. Physicians were also trained to review health literacy and ‘best practices.’’     		N = 154 N = 174 >95% Control vs Intervention: 11.5% vs 27.9%, P < .001
    Friedman, 2007 Medical residents received educational intervention
    Control = Rate of CRC screening by residents 6 months prior to education
    Intervention = Rate of CRC screening by residents 6 months post education     		N = 132 N = 116 100% Control vs Intervention: 26.7% vs 59.1%, P < 0.001
  • Abstract #191 Table 1
    Hypothermia on admissionNormothermia on admissionP value
    Birth weight (g) 942 991 0.116
    Gestational age (wks) 28 28 0.483
    Resuscitation in delivery room (%) 42.8 31 0.008
    Chest compressions (%) 19.6 10.3 0.006
    Epinephrine in delivery room (%) 15.1 8.1 0.018
    Median 5 min apgar score 6 7 0.013
    Metabolic acidosis on first gas (%) 11.6 3.4 0.001
    Lowest pH 7.21 7.25 0.015
  • Abstract #192 Table 1

    Maternal and neonatal demographics and characteristics

    Pre-SARS-CoV2During-SARS-CoV2
    Study Subjects
    Total Newborns Born 964 800
    Total Newborn Included In This Study 913 763
    Exclusion Criteria
    Drug Screen Positive% 1.5 2.0
    Maternal Incarceration% 2.4 1.9
    DCFS Case% 1.7 0.8
    Baby Demographics
    Hispanic or Latino% 81.6 83.2
    African American% 8.8 7.3
    Others% 9.6 9.4
    Maternal Characteristics
    Average Maternal Age 28.3 29.0
    Average Maternal Gravida 2.7 2.9
    Average Maternal Para 2.2 2.3
    Maternal Preeclampsia% 4.4 6.0
    Infant of Diabetic Mother% 10.5 13.1
    Baby Characteristics
    Average Baby Gestational Age 38.9 38.9
    Preterm Baby% 8 8.4
    Birthweight < 2.5 kg% 4.1 4.1
    Birthweight > 4kg% 7.1 6.2
    Baby Underwent Intensive Phototherapy% 10.3 10.5
    Breastfeeding Rate
    Exclusive Breastfeeding Rate% 73.2 62.4
    Any Breastfeeding Rate% 94.6 91.2
  • Abstract #194 Table 1

    Characteristics of GD and ELBW infants

    GD (n=31)ELBW (n=28)
    Mean (SD),% Mean (SD),%
    Maternal age (years) 30 (7) 34 (6)*
    Cesarean% 48 89*
    Maternal gravida 2 (2) 2 (2)
    Maternal parity 2 (1) 1.6 (0.8)
    Chorioamnionitis% 10 11
    Female% 39 50
    Gestational age (weeks) 36 (4) 26 (2)*
    Birth weight (kg) 2.5 (0.9) 0.7 (0.2)*
    Birth length (cm) 45 (7) 32 (3)*
    Birth head circumference (cm) 32 (4) 23 (2)*
    Small for gestational age% 29 36
    Maternal tobacco use 7 11
    Maternal illicit drug use 17 0*
    Length of stay (days) 44 (42) 106 (29)*
    Necrotizing enterocolitis 3 11
    Late onset sepsis 3 19
    Age of first feed (days) 11(12) 5 (8)*
    Total number of surgeries 1.5 (0.8) 1.7 (0.9)

    • *p

  • Abstract #195 Table 1
  • Abstract #196 Table 1

    Factors associated with intubation at 24 hours

    Invasive ventilation in the first 24 hours (%)Non invasive ventilation in the first 24 hours (%)P value
    Birth Weight 749.7 ± 279 g 1100 ± 253 g <0.001
    Gestational Age 25.9 ± 2.3 weeks 29.1 ± 2.3 weeks <0.001
    Histologic Chorioamnionitis 18.7 6.8 0.002
    Intubation in the delivery room 76.5 24.3 <0.001
    Chest compressions 33.8 4.5 <0.001
    Severe IVH 10.2 1.1 <0.001
    PDA 75.2 31.4 <0.001
    PDA requiring surgery 26.5 2.9 <0.001
    Abnormal brain MRI 61.0 33.7 <0.001
    BPD 63.3 25.1 <0.001
    Severe ROP 82.9 17.1 <0.001
  • Abstract #199 Table 1

    Perception of telemedicine and fellow telemedicine training

    DisagreeNeutralAgree
    Telemedicine is an important aspect of NICU practice 2 (11.1%) 7 (38.8%) 9 (50%)
    Fellows will encounter telemedicine in their future career 2 (11.1%) 4 (22.2%) 12 (66.7%)
    Fellows should learn about telemedicine during training 2 (11.1%) 5 (27.8%) 12 (66.7%)
    Fellows should participate in telemedicine during training 1 (5.6%) 6 (33.3%) 11 (61.1%)
  • Abstract #200 Table 1
  • Abstract #209 Table 1

    Themes of driving and restraining forces and representative quotes

    ThemesDriving ForcesRestraining Forces
    Fellow Characteristics
    * extremes of behavior; pattern/repetitive behavior
    * values feedback     		‘if they go like above and beyond’
    ‘if somethings like stuck out’
    ‘just knowing that that’s helpful for them or that they would appreciate the critique…just sensing someone’s openness or reception to wanting to learn and improve in different ways impacts my willingness’
    ‘if you have a really positive experience or a really negative experience then you may think to fill it out’     		‘I don’t think I’ve known that people want feedback necessarily’
    ‘most experiences are kind of like somewhere in the middle…doesn’t stick out to you in the same way’
    ‘what if they’re having a bad week, what if they’re having a bad service, what if they’re having a bad day’
    NNP-Fellow Relationship
    * continuity/exposure
    * perceived hierarch
    * fear of fellow reaction or repercussion     		‘if I worked more closely with one of you, then I try to share’
    ‘your relationship with the fellow, whether or not you have the same communication skills’     		‘I feel like there’s still a sense of hierarchy…it can feel like intimidating or strange to be critical of someone that you maybe see as your superior in some way or leader’
    ‘it’s very difficult to know where your boundaries are and where the line is in as far as giving negative feedback’
    Evaluation Characteristics
    * perceived feasibility
    * confidentiality/anonymity
    * type of feedback
    * degree of specificity
    * degree of timeliness     		‘if you’re giving positive feedback…you hope that the person that you are writing about actually sees it because you want them to know that they’re appreciated’ ‘questions where it’s like give me an example…then I have to rack through my memory of the past month that you’ve been on service’
    ‘I would be hesitant to give that exact situation because then they would know who gave that feedback’
    ‘you’re thinking of one specific scenario but I don’t know where that fits in these like 3 questions that they ask about…it’s like you’re trying to fit your feedback into a mold that didn’t really go together’
    ‘you are given a random evaluation and you haven’t worked with that person in like a month’
    NNP-Evaluation Relationship
    * knowledge of evaluator role and value (to trainee and to program)
    * knowledge of evaluation process and outcomes
    * time constraints, interruptions, unprotected time     		‘I just think that our feedback because we are in a different role is also invaluable because you will be working with other nurse practitioners in community hospitals, other nurses in community hospitals, rather than other attendings 24–7.’
    ‘it’s very important to have the bedside nurse and NNP…join in on that conversation because you’re not just communicating with consultants and you’re not just communicating with other attendings…you speak to an attending differently than how you speak to a NNP or bedside RN…so I feel like having a bedside RN and NNP weigh in on what you’re doing is important’     		‘I guess I’ve never been explicitly…told about it or that we do have a role in that’
    ‘in the case of constructive criticism, it’s helpful if it’s very explicit in where it goes and who’s name is on what so you at least do that in full awareness of what maybe could be the implications of the criticism you are giving’
    ‘the simplest answer is no, I do not know the process for giving feedback’
    ‘we get bombarded with evaluations all the time’
    ‘we are inundated with a bunch of evaluations with absolutely everything we do’
    ‘everybody thinks like if I give this negative feedback, something bad is going to happen’
    NNP Characteristics
    * preferred evaluation and feedback strategies
    * new to role, knowledge of own role, knowledge of culture/system     		‘if it were simplified and we can just…have a place where there is eval forms…like ok I really have something to say about this person, I don’t want to wait for an evaluation to come out, I can go online and I can click on this tab and I can fill [it] out’
    ‘more years into the role, like I can see the differences in where a fellow stands and where they are in their career and how well they do their job’     		‘I prefer to do it verbally, in person.’
    ‘I feel like verbal feedback is way easier, quicker, gets the point across.’
    ‘I…haven’t found a way to give…constructive criticism, partly because I am trying to figure things out myself’
    ‘it’s because I was a newer NNP…so I wasn’t comfortable, and didn’t really know the ropes, I guess, as far as what should be done…what should be expected’
  • Abstract #211 Table 1

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria for title and abstract review

    Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
    1. Papers from 1990 and later
    2. English language
    3. Published and peer reviewed
    4. Contains empirical data
    5. Human subjects study
    6. Infants born before 37 weeks gestation
    7. Postnatal GC exposure (exogenous)
    8. GCs administered systemically - enteral, intravenous, intramuscular, inhaled, nebulized, intranasally administered, sublingual, or subcutaneous
    9. GCs administered to infants during birth hospitalization
    10. Reports on at least one structural brain outcome measured after postnatal GC exposure     		1. Conference abstracts, case studies/reports if less than 10 subjects, dissertations; review papers; preprints; theoretical papers
    2. Endogenous GC exposure
    3. GCs only administered antenatally
    4. No structural brain outcomes reported
    6. Animal study with no human participants
    7. Topical GC application only
    8. GCs only after birth hospitalization discharge
  • Abstract #221 Table 1

    Univariate analysis

    Seizures Post-HTx
    (n=40)    		No Seizures Post-HTx
    (n=520)    		P-Value
    Male Gender 62.5% 70.8% 0.271
    History of Diabetes 37.5% 35.0% 0.750
    History of Hypertension 55.0% 35.2% 0.012
    History of Stroke 22.5% 17.1% 0.388
    History of Atherosclerosis 67.5% 50.2% 0.035
    History of Smoking 40.0% 39.6% 0.962
    History of Previous Seizures 10.0% 2.9% 0.017
  • Abstract #221 Table 2
  • Abstract #225 Table 1

    Cardiac characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C)

    Author, Location, YearMean/Median Age (years)Initial LV Dysfunction/Decreased LVEF (%)Initial Dilations (%)Initial Aneurysms (%)Elevated Troponin (%)Myocarditis, MR, PCE (%)Follow-up LV Dysfunction/Decreased LVEF (%)Follow-up Dilations (%)Follow-up Aneurysms (%)Follow-up Period
    Minocha et al., NYC, 2021 2.8 4/33 (13%) 2/33 (7%) 0/33 (0%) 7/32 (22%) 1/33 (5%), 5/33 (15%), 1/33 (3%) 0/33 (0%) 0/33 (0%) 0/33 (0%) 14 days
    Gaitonde et al., Georgia, 2020 8 8/12 (67%) 1/12 (8%) 0/12 (0%) - MR: 12/12 (100%), PCE: 5/12 (42%) 1/12 (8%) 2/12 (17%) 0/12 (0%) Median = 45 days
    Clouser et al., USA, 2021 7.3 7/18 (39%) 0/18 (0%) 0/18 (0%) - PCE: 2/18 (11%) 1/11 (9%) 1/11 (9%) 0/11
    (0%)     		Median = 29 days
    Dionne et al., USA, 2020 9.7 15/25 (60%) 3/25 (12%) 2/25 (8%) 2/25 (8%) - 2/15 (13%) - - Median = 51 days
    Penner et al., UK, 2021 10.2 15/46 (33%) 38/45 (84%) PCE: 1/46 (2%) 0/46 (0%) 1/46 (2%) 1/46 (2%) 6 months
    Kelly et al., Boston, 2020 3.5 7/12 (58%) 1/12 (8%) 1/12 (8%) 9/12 (75%) MR: 3/12 (25%), PCE: 4/12 (33%) 1/8 (13%) 2/8 (25%) 1/8 (13%) Median = 16.5 days
    Jhaveri et al., NYC, 2021 11.5 8/15 (53%) - 4/15 (33%) - MR: 8/15 (53%), PCE: 2/15 (13%) 3/13 (23%) - 1/13 (8%) Median = 28.1 days
    Feldstein et al., US, 2021 9.7 172/539 (34%) - 57/424 (13%) - PCE: 125/539 (25%) 1/172 (0.58%) - 12/172 (7%) 2–20 weeks
    Kobayashi et al., Canada, 2021 11.4 9/25 (36%) 2/25 (8%) 4/26 (16%) 9/23 (39%) MR: 1/25 (4%), PCE: 0/25 (0%) 2/9 (22%) - - 1–2 months
    Totals 2.8–11.5 13–60% 0–12% 0–33% 8–84% - 0–23% 0–25% 0–13% 2 weeks- 6 months
  • Abstract #229 Table 1

    Clinical and diagnostic summary of each case

    Case No.Age/SexPeak CRP* Peak Troponin-I* Peak BNP**Admission ECGRT-PCR testing for COVID19Admission CRP and troponinDischarge CRP and troponin
    1 16/Male CRP: 4.06 mg/dL; Troponin I: 4.76 ng/dL; BNP: 53 pg/mL Nonspecific ST and T wave abnormality and minimal ST elevation in the inferior leads V5 and V6 Not performed CRP: 4.06 mg/dL
    Troponin: 4.07 ng/mL     		CRP: 1.45 mg/dL
    Troponin: 1.45 ng/mL
    2 17/Male CRP: 6.10 mg/dL; Troponin I: 0.26 Right bundle branch block Negative CRP: 5.0 mg/dL
    Troponin: 1.05 ng/mL     		CRP: 4.06 mg/dL
    Troponin: 0.45 ng/mL
    3 14/Male CRP: 5.03 mg/dL; Troponin I: 7.61; BNP: 37 pg/mL T wave inversion in lateral leads and ST segment elevation in V2-V6 Negative CRP: 5.03 mg/dL
    Troponin: 5.52 ng/mL     		CRP: 4.04 mg/dL
    Troponin: 3.68 ng/mL

    • *Serum CRP (normal range

  • Abstract #243 Table 1

    Change in clinical parameters in the LDL-C ≤60 mg/dl group with Rx

    ParameterAvg. Prior to RxAvg. Post RxDifferenceSignificance
    Total-C mg/dl 187 ± 4.8 128 ± 3.1 -59 P < 0.01
    HDL-C mg/dl 54.8 ± 1.7 55.3 ± 1.7 +0.5 P = 0.43
    Triglycerides mg/dl 130 ± 5.9 100 ± 5.4 -30 P < 0.01
    LDL-C mg/dl 113 ± 3.6 49.0 ± 1.4 -64 P < 0.01
    BMI kg/m2 30.0 ± 0.71 29.0 ± 0.72 -1 P = 0.4
  • Abstract #245 Table 1

    Diagnostic property of intraoperative cholangiography for choledocholithiasis

    Choledocholithiasis with or without Sludge95% CICholedocholithiasis Alone95% CI
    Prevalence 79/259 (30.5%) 67/260 (25.9%)
    Accuracy 86.1% 81.3–90.1% 82.2% 77.0–87.0%
    Sensitivity 92.4% 84.2–97.2% 92.5% 83.4–97.5%
    Specificity 83.3% 77.1–88.5% 78.7% 72.2–84.2%
    PPV 70.9% 63.6–77.2% 60.2% 53.3–66.7%
    NPV 96.2% 92.0–98.2% 96.8% 92.8–98.6%
    Positive LR 5.4 4.0–7.7 4.3 3.3–5.7
    Negative LR 0.09 0.04–0.20 0.09 0.04–0.22
  • Abstract #260 Table 1
    Postnatal ageWeight (g)Foramen ovale size (mm)Left atrium:Aorta ratioShortening fraction (%)Ejection fraction (%)
    ECHO1 (days)ECHO2
    PMA (weeks)    		ECHO1
    birth weight    		ECHO2
    weight at discharge    		ECHO1ECHO2ECHO1ECHO2ECHO1ECHO2ECHO1 ECHO2
    Entire cohort (n=52) 2
    (1–3)     		36
    (35–40)     		733
    (633–835)     		2253
    (2000–2825)     		1.9
    (1.3–2.5)     		2.3
    (1.5–2.6)     		1.2
    (1.0–1.4)     		1.3
    (1.2–1.4)     		40
    (35–42)     		41
    (36–44)     		75
    (69–77)     		75
    (70–78)
    Stratified cohort (n=52) Small FO (n=48) 2
    (1–3)     		36
    (35–40)     		750
    (633–840)     		2253
    (1998–2730)     		1.9
    (1.2–2.3)     		2.2
    (1.3–2.6)     		1.2
    (1.0–1.4)     		1.3
    (1.2–1.4)     		39
    (35–42)     		41
    (37–44)     		75
    (69–77)     		75
    (70–78)
    Large FO (n=4) 2
    (1–2)     		38
    (36–42)     		700
    (615–748)     		2590
    (2118–3645)     		3.3
    (3.1–3.7)     		6.2
    (5.7–7.0)     		1.2
    (1.1–1.2)     		1.3
    (1.1–1.4)     		42
    (36–45)     		37
    (36–38)     		76
    (70–81)     		71
    (69–73)
  • Abstract #261 Table 1
    HR≤100HR>100
    MedianIQRMedianIQRDifferencep-value
    Heart Rate (beats per min) 91 88–94 102 100–106 11 <0.001
    Mean Blood Pressure (mmHg) 46 43–53 52 46–56 6 <0.001
    Cardiac Output (ml/kg/min) 153 140–165 168 159–183 15 <0.001
    Systemic Vascular Resistance (dyne*s/cm-5) 7.2 6.5–8.0 6.5 5.9–7.5 -0.6 <0.001
    CrSO2 (%) 83 81–88 82 80–86 -1 ns
    RrSO2 (%) 76 67–79 75 69–83 -1 ns

    • Comparison of hemodynamic parameters between bradycardic events and HR > 100 (p-value < 0.05). Comparative analysis was made using Mann-Whitney test.

  • Abstract #262 Table 1

    Short- and long-term outcomes for infants with very low 5-minute Apgar scores

    Baseline (n=66)Intervention (n=37)Post (n=35)P value
    Short-Term Outcomes Hypothermia (%) 7 (11) 6 (16) 7 (20) 0.42
    HIE (%) 16 (24) 11 (30) 7 (20) 0.16
    HIE mild (%) 6 (9) 1 (3) 0 **
    HIE moderate (%) 6 (9) 4 (11) 3 (9) **
    HIE severe (%) 4 (6) 5 (14) 4 (11) **
    HIE unknown (%) 4 (6) 5 (14) 4 (11) **
    Seizures (%) 4 (6) 5 (14) 7 (20) 0.10
    Gastrostomy tube (%) 2 (3) 2 (5) 3 (9) 0.48
    Conventional Ventilation (%) 36 (55) 27 (73) 22 (63) 0.18
    Long-term Outcomes Cerebral Palsy (%) 3 (5) 3 (8) 1 (3) **
    Developmental Delay (%) 11 (17) 10 (27) 14 (40) **
    Speech Delay (%) 17 (26) 12 (32) 10 (29) **

    • ** p-value not calculated due to missing data

  • Abstract #264 Table 1

    Demographics, clinical outcomes and echocardiographic parameters

    Exposure to Maternal Preeclampsia
    (Cases)
    n = 21    		Non-Exposure to Maternal Preeclampsia (Controls)
    n = 21    		P value
    Demographics
    Gestational age (weeks)* 27.9 (26.3–30.9) 26.9 (25.4–29) 0.09
    Birth weight (g)* 990 (665–1,255) 950 (710–1,240) 0.58
    Small for Gestational Age, n (%) 10 (48) 3 (14) 0.04
    Male sex, n (%) 12 (57) 12 (57) 1
    Cesarean section, n (%) 19 (90) 15 (71) 0.29
    Antenatal steroids, n (%) 18 (85.7) 21 (100) 0.25
    Clinical outcomes
    Cardiomegaly on admission Chest X-Ray, n (%) 6 (28.6) 1 (4.8) 0.13
    Vasopressor use within the first 24 hours, n (%) 1 (5) 7 (35) 0.03
    Lactate Day 0 (mmol/L)* 3.3 (1.8–9.3) 1.8 (1.5–3.3) 0.03
    Lactate Day 1 (mmol/L)* 2.9 (1.7–3.9) 1.7 (1.3–2.3) 0.11
    Lactate Day 2 (mmol/L)* 1.6 (1.4–2.2) 1.65 (1.4–2.4) 0.47
    Systolic blood Pressure Day 0* 49 (41–59) 42 (33–50) 0.04
    Systolic blood Pressure Day 1* 45 (39–51) 41 (31–43) 0.03
    Systolic blood Pressure Day 2* 49 (44–54) 43 (39–46) 0.02
    Echocardiographic Data
    Fractional Shortening (%)* 35.7 (31.8–41.9) 40.6 (36.8–44.6) 0.03
    Ejection Fraction (%)* 69.1 (64.3–77.2) 76.1 (71.1–79.6) 0.04
    Patent ductus arteriosus size (mm)* 2.2 (1.7–2.8) 1.57 (1.4–2.3) 0.21
    Patent ductus arteriosus Peak Flow (m/s)* 1.3 (1–2) 1.95 (1.3–2.4) 0.17

    • *median (interquartile range).

  • Abstract #265 Table 1
    Parameter Postnatal day 1 3 7 14 21 28
    Exploratory dataset for grid search
    Sensitivity 0.764 0.740 0.730 0.755 0.691 0.710
    Specificity 0.741 0.742 0.750 0.738 0.807 0.831
    Positive Predictive Value 0.750 0.720 0.720 0.717 0.755 0.793
    Negative Predictive Value 0.755 0.761 0.759 0.774 0.751 0.759
    Accuracy 0.752 0.741 0.741 0.746 0.753 0.774
    Validation dataset
    Sensitivity 0.805 0.825 0.833 0.884 0.810 0.744
    Specificity 0.641 0.675 0.800 0.700 0.800 0.800
    Positive Predictive Value 0.702 0.717 0.814 0.760 0.810 0.800
    Negative Predictive Value 0.758 0.794 0.821 0.848 0.800 0.744
    Accuracy 0.725 0.750 0.817 0.795 0.805 0.771

    • Performance of the NICHD Neonatal BPD Outcome Estimator using combined scores from the severe and death categories with a cutoff number of 21, above which predictive of a severe (positive) disease outcome and below which predictive or a non-severe (negative) disease outcome.

  • Abstract #274 Table 1

    Fusion with laminectomy by location of intradural extramedullary tumor

    Odds RatioP-ValueLower CI boundUpper CI bound
    Length of Stay > 5 days 2.73 <0.001 1.95 3.820
    Transfusion 3.15 <0.011 1.78 5.57
    Myocardial Infarction 5.62 0.241 0.31 101.00
  • Abstract #280 Table 1

    Comparisons of behavioral outcome measures among three ASD severity groups

    Behavioral Outcome MeasureNo/Mild Autism Avg (N=8)Moderate Autism Avg (N=15)Severe Autism Avg (N=18)1-way ANOVA, overall p-value
    PedsQL School Functioning Total 55 ± 14.392 50.667 ± 11.318 67.368 ± 16.446 0.005
    Leiter Non-Verbal IQ Score 65.5 ± 13.512 47.8 ± 15.667 44.167 ± 17.743 0.006
    Vineland Adaptive Behavior Composite Standard Score 69.5 ± 18.328 54.6 ± 15.810 45.421 ± 17.008 0.013
  • Abstract #292 Table 1

    Comparison of SSP users and PWID in King County, WA

    CharacteristicSSP Survey Participants 2019 N=432 N (%)NHBS-IDU Survey Participants 2018 N=555 N (%)χ2 test p-value
    Age <0.001
    18–29 101 (23.4) 100 (18.0)
    30–39 163 (37.8) 164 (29.6)
    40–49 94 (21.8) 127 (22.9)
    50+ 73 (16.9) 164 (29.6)
    Gendera 0.378
    Women 147 (34.0) 211 (38.0)
    Men 281 (65.1) 337 (60.7)
    Transgender 3 (0.7) 7 (1.3)
    Other Gender Identity 2 (0.5) --
    Raceb
    American Indian/Alaska Native 53 (12.3) 125 (22.5) <0.001
    Asian/South Asian 21 (4.9) 14 (2.5) 0.049
    Black/African American 26 (6.0) 110 (19.8) <0.001
    Latinx/Hispanic 33 (7.6) 69 (12.4) 0.014
    Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 9 (2.1) 25 (4.5) 0.039
    White 330 (76.4) 397 (71.5) 0.086
    Other 12 (2.8) --
    Missing 0 (0.0) 10 (1.8)
    MSM 0.409
    No MSM 236 (84.0) 297 (86.3)
    Yes MSM 45 (16.0) 47 (13.7)
    Housing Status <0.001
    Currently homeless 198 (45.8) 338 (60.9)
    Other housing status 234 (54.2) 217 (39.1)

    • a) SSP participants could select more than one gender, while NHBS-IDU participants could not. b) Both SSP and NHBS-IDU participants could select more than one race.

  • Abstract #299 Table 1
  • Abstract #307 Table 1

    Performance metrics on test set

    AUCF1
    LSTM-A 0.77 0.45
    DistillBERT 0.72 0.45
  • Abstract #309 Table 1

    Characteristics of cancer by location of coccidioidomycosis infection

    CharacteristicsPulmonary (n=9)Extrapulmonary Dissemination (n=2)Lymphatic Dissemination (n=1)
    Colorectal Cancer 3 0 0
    Prostate Cancer 2 0 0
    Renal Cell Carcinoma 1 2 0
    Melanoma 1 0 1
    Gynecologic Cancer 2 0 0
    Gastric Cancer 1 0 0
    Cancer preceded CM onset 5 0 1
    CM preceded cancer onset 3 2 0
    Simultaneous onset of CM and cancer 1 0 0
  • Abstract #321 Table 1

    Studies comparing short and long-course treatment of uncomplicated pneumonia in children

    First Author, Year of Publication, Location of studyPatient Types:Duration of Short and Long TreatmentNumber of Subjects in Short Term Group, Age RangeFollow Up PeriodOutcome in Short-Course vs Long-Course AntibioticsP-value
    Pernica 2021, Canada Emergency room patients 5 days vs 10 days 5-day course, N=126, 10-day course: N=126, Age range 6 m to 10 yrs 14–21 days Clinical Cure: 85.7% vs. 84.1% P=NS
    Greenberg 2013, Israel Hospitalized 3 vs 5 vs 10 days 3-day course: 10, 5-day course: N=56, 10 day course: N=42, Age: 6–59 months 30 days Failure rate: 3 day vs 5 days vs 10 days: 40% vs 0% vs 0% P value < 0.001 for 3 days vs 5 days and 10 days but p value NS for 5 vs 10 days
    Ginsburg 2020, Malawi Hospitalized and discharged 3 vs 5 days 3-day course: N=1497, 5 day course: N=1503, Age: 2 to 59 months 21 days Treatment failure on or before day 6: 5.9% vs 5.2%, Relapse before day 14: 6.9% vs 5.8% P=NS
    Same 2020, United States Hospitalized and discharged 5–7 days vs 8–14 days 5–7 day group: N=167, 8–14 day group: N=270, Age: 6 months-18 years 30 days Failure rate: 3% vs 6% P=NS

    • NS=Not significant

  • Abstract #333 Table 1

    Neurodevelopmental outcomes

    Immediate Cord Clamping n=34Delayed Cord Clamping n=28P-value
    9–12 Months of age: Communication* 60 (55, 60) 58 (50, 60) 0.46
    9–12 Months of age: Gross Motor* 55 (50, 60) 58 (48, 60) 0.82
    9–12 Months of age: Fine Motor* 60 (50, 60) 55 (50, 60) 0.41
    9–12 Months of age: Problem Solving* 55 (45, 60) 60 (50, 60) 0.45
    9–12 Months of age: Social* 55 (45, 60) 60 (45, 60) 0.40
    Immediate Cord Clamping n=16 Delayed Cord Clamping n=12 P-value
    18–24 Months of age: Communication* 50 (35, 58) 48 (40, 50) 0.71
    18–24 Months of age: Gross Motor* 60 (55, 60) 60 (55, 60) 0.76
    18–24 Months of age: Fine Motor* 58 (50, 60) 53 (40, 60) 0.41
    18–24 Months of age: Problem Solving* 53 (40, 60) 40 (38, 55) 0.22
    18–24 Months of age: Social* 55 (48, 60) 48 (35, 55) 0.16

    • *Median (25th, 75th percentile)

  • Abstract #333 Table 2
  • Abstract #336 Table 1

    Mean values

    WTRCP value
    HW/BW 0.47 0.53 ≤0.001
    IVS (μm) 1045 1286 ≤0.05
    LVW (μm) 956 1218 ≤0.01
    LV mass (mg/g) 1.2 1.5 ≤0.05
    E/A ratio 1.5 1.2 ≤0.05
    LV Diast Vol (μL) 71 57 ≤0.05
    Systolic/Diastolic/Mean BP (mm Hg) 116/88/97 109/84/92 NS

    • NS=not significant

  • Abstract #339 Table 1
    EndpointRSP initiation
    (n=18)    		RSP initiation 2–5 years after HTx
    (n=16)    		p-value
    CNI wean successful 88.9% 93.8% 1.000
    RSP discontinued early 50.0% 31.3% 0.315
    RSP discontinued due to ACR 16.7% 0.0% 0.230
    RSP discontinued due to BNR 0.0% 6.3% 0.471
    RSP discontinued due to death 16.7% 12.5% 1.000
    RSP discontinued due to medication intolerance 11.1% 0.0% 0.487
    RSP discontinued due to proteinuria 5.6% 12.5% 0.591
    Antihypertensive medications at baseline 1.1 ± 1.2 1.1 ± 1.0 0.899
    Antihypertensive medications 1 year after RSP initiation 1.3 ± 1.2 0.8 ± 0.8 0.174
    Hemoglobin A1c at baseline 5.9 ± 0.6 6.6 ± 1.1 0.146
    Hemoglobin A1c 1 year after RSP initiation 5.8 ± 0.7 5.8 ± 0.5 0.962
    GFR at baseline 36.9 ± 14.0 36.8 ± 15.6 0.982
    GFR 1 year after RSP initiation 63.7 ± 14.0 51.3 ± 20.4 0.293
  • Abstract #343 Table 1

    Significantly altered pathways after EP treatment 24 hours after TBI. Pathways with >1 metabolite hit and >0 impact score. Table sorted by Holm p value. A metabolite hit is defined as a significantly altered metabolite in the pathway of interest. The pathway impact is calculated as the sum of the importance measures of the matched metabolites normalized by the sum of the importance measures of all metabolites. Acetyl-CoA is seen as a key metabolite present in multiple pathways.

    Enriched PathwaysHolm pImpactMetabolite Hits
    Pyruvate metabolism 0.0056112 0.15397 Acetyl-CoA; Phosphoenolpyruvate
    Citrate cycle (TCA cycle) 0.0056112 0.03668 Acetyl-CoA; Phosphoenolpyruvate
    Fatty acid elongation 0.01706 0.03668 Acetyl-CoA
    Fatty acid degradation 0.01706 0.18092 Acetyl-CoA
    beta-Alanine metabolism 0.01706 0.05597 Acetyl-CoA
    Valine, leucine and isoleucine degradation 0.01706 0.02836 Acetyl-CoA
    Propanoate metabolism 0.01706 0.01269 Acetyl-CoA
    Fatty acid biosynthesis 0.01706 0.00213 Acetyl-CoA
    Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis 0.01706 0.24574 Acetyl-CoA; 2-Phospho-D-glycerate; Phosphoenolpyruvate
    Purine metabolism 0.017575 0.05989 Adenosine 5’-monophosphate; Adenosine
    Glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism 0.017575 0.00794 Acetyl-CoA; 2-Phospho-D-glycerate
    Cysteine and methionine metabolism 0.017586 0.09592 L-Cystine; L-Cysteine
    Glycine, serine and threonine metabolism 0.026461 0.00241 2-Phospho-D-glycerate; L-Cysteine
    Glutathione metabolism 0.051481 0.25939 2-Phospho-D-glycerate; L-Cysteine
    Nicotinate and nicotinamide metabolism 0.054464 0.03158 Nicotinamide D-ribonucleotide
  • Abstract #350 Table 1
  • Abstract #362 Table 1

    Study aims and related participant quotes

    Study AimQuestion/Prompt (Question Type)Participant Quotes (2-Week Survey)Participant Quotes (4-Week Survey)
    Aim 1: Assess feasibility, acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality Who did you talk to about the questions? (Multiple choice) ‘My partner’ (50%)
    ‘Alone’ (38%)
    ‘My family’ (13%)     		‘Alone’ (100%)
    When is the best time to give the guide to parents? (Multiple choice) ‘Soon after fetal diagnosis’ (33%)
    ‘At a follow-up appointment’ (33%)
    ‘At the delivery planning meeting’ (33%)     		This question was not asked on the 4-week survey.
    Aim 2: Evaluate and refine the booklet and its processes The guide helped me to… (Multiple choice) ‘Prepare for my baby’s hospital stay’ (71%)
    ‘Identify family strengths’ (71%)
    ‘Identify what is most important to us in our baby’s care’ (57%)
    ‘Have difficult but important conversations’ (43%)
    ‘Cope or lower stress’ (29%)
    ‘Talk to friends and family’ (29%)
    ‘Talk to the medical team’ (29%)
    ‘Understand my baby’s condition’ (14%)     		‘Identify family strengths’ (75%)
    ‘Understand by baby’s condition’ (25%)
    ‘Identify what is most important to us in our baby’s care’ (25%)
    ‘Talk to friends and family’ (25%)
    The problems of the guide are… (Multiple choice) ‘Topics are too stressful’ (60%)
    ‘Too long’ (20%)     		‘Too long’ (25%)
    What topics are missing? (Free response) None reported ‘None, each person is looking for different things’
    Aim 3: Evaluate preliminary responses of participants to the booklet Please give any comments about problems of the guide or how we can improve it (Free response) ‘I wish it talked more about what to expect during the birth and time in the CICU’
    ‘Topics or the way they are worded could be triggering to certain people’     		None reported
    Please give any other comments about the guide (Free response) ‘Helped to ask more informed questions to our care team’
    ‘There was good information to think about and address in the book’
    ‘Even though it makes her [the mother] nervous, it helps prepare her for the future’
    ‘The guide helped me come up with a plan and helped me understand the importance of being aware of any change’
    ‘Good for those that like to journal and write down their feelings’
    ‘I didn’t find any problems in the guide; it just really helps you think deeply’     		‘I got this really close to delivery, so I had already thought all this through. Would have been great to get this when we got the diagnosis’
    ‘We were pretty prepared, though I can see it may be helpful for families who are not’
    ‘It helped her [the mother] talk to her family and identify strengths and weaknesses’.

    • For multiple choice questions, the rate of endorsement is listed next to each response (%)

  • Abstract #377 Table 1

    Summary of results

    MoCA ScoreSensitivitySpecificityYouden Index
    <25 0.479 0.829 0.308
    <26 0.604 0.714 0.318
    <27 0.750 0.610 0.360
    <28 0.865 0.419 0.285
  • Abstract #401 Table 1

    Factors associated with brain MRI abnormalities

    Brain MRI normal (%)Brain MRI abnormal (%)P value
    Intubation in delivery room 40.7 59.3 0.034
    Vaginal delivery 32.3 67.7 0.008
    Highest pCO2 >50 in first 24 hours of life 36.3 63.7 0.033
    Invasive ventilation in first 24 hours 39 61 <0.001
    Invasive synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) 42 57.9 0.046
    High frequency oscillatory ventilation 30.9 69.1 0.003
    High frequency jet ventilation 23.4 76.6 <0.001
    Patent ductus arteriosus 40.9 59.1 0.004
  • Abstract #403 Table 1

    Demographics between groups

    EOS WorkupLOS Workup
    Non-infected Infants
    N=275    		Infants with Confirmed Infection
    N=12    		P-valueNon-infected Infants
    N=80    		Infected with Confirmed Infections
    N=21    		P-value
    Gestational Age*^ 34.9 (33.1, 37.6) 39.2 (37.3, 40.2) <0.01 37.1 (31.4, 39.4) 38.2 (31.1, 39.5) 0.86
    Birth Weight (g)*^ 2285 (1850, 3120) 2915 (2238, 3365) 0.24 2780 (1500, 3320) 2632 (1455, 3285) 0.74
    Small for Gestational Age+^ 32 (12) 1 (8) 1.0 6 (9) 2 (12) 0.67
    Male sex+ 142 (52) 10 (83) 0.04 41 (57) 12 (60) 1.0
    C-section+^ 174 (63) 4 (33) 0.06 28 (44) 8 (53) 0.58
    Length of stay (days)* 13 (6, 22) 14 (12, 19) 0.40 3 (2, 28) 14 (7, 31) <0.01
    Survival to Discharge+ 268 (97) 12 (100) 1.0 72 (100) 19 (75) 0.22

    • *Median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) +N(%) ^ Some missing data in LOS patients Note: Demographic for infants with multiple LOS admission were included only once in analysis

  • Abstract #403 Table 2
  • Abstract #408 Table 1

    Study demographics

    RaceGDM group
    (n,% of total GDM group)    		Control group
    (n,% of total control group)    		Total
    White, non-Hispanic 9 (41%) 81 (48%) 90
    Hispanic 4 (18%) 33 (20%) 37
    Asian 9 (41%) 42 (25%) 51
    Black or African American 0 12 (7%) 12
    American Indian or Alaska Native 0 1 (1%) 1
    Total 22 169 191
  • Abstract #432 Table 1

    Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) associated with silica exposure: multivariate logistic regression including smoking, race/ethnicity, and age

    RA Definition (models exclude RA by other definition only)Underground hard rock miningUnderground soft rock mining (including coal)Surface mining/ore processingSilica from non-mining sources
    RA + glucocorticoids (model n = 1165) 2.97 (1.40, 6.33) 8.80 (3.55, 21.83) 4.34 (2.27, 8.29) 3.15 (1.75, 5.68)
    RA + DMARDs (model n=1170) 1.42 (0.58, 3.49) 4.47 (1.59, 12.57) 2.46 (1.24, 4.89) 2.91 (1.73, 4.88)

    • Cells are odds ratios (95% confidence intervals). Referent=no silica exposure. DMARD = disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug.

  • Abstract #434 Table 1

    Patient population, N=23

    Sex
    Female19 (83%)
    Race
    Asian/Pacific Islander1 (4%)
    Black3 (13%)
    Hispanic11 (48%)
    White, Non-Hispanic6 (26%)
    Other2 (9%)
    Insurance
    Medicaid13 (56%)
    Military2 (9%)
    Commercial8 (35%)
    Rheumatology Diagnosis
    JIA13 (56%)
    Spondyloarthritis3 (13%)
    SLE3 (13%)
    Vasculitis2 (9%)
    JDM1 (4%)
    Other3 (13%)
    Rheumatology Medications
    Mean number at last pediatric visit2.5
    Biologics11 (48%)
    JAK2 (9%)
    MTX/LEF11 (48%)
    MMF/AZA5 (22%)
    HCQ3 (13%)
    Steroids6 (26%)
  • Abstract #439 Table 1

    Risk factors affecting biomarkers

    hsCRP (mg/L)PCT (ng/mL)
    Risk Factor PresentRisk Factor Not PresentP-valueRisk Factor PresentRisk Factor Not PresentP-Value
    Meconium Stained Amniotic Fluid^ N=22 N=250 N=22 N=250
    Time 0 Lab Draw 0.3
    (0.2, 0.7)     		0.2
    (0.2, 0.3)     		0.23 0.25
    (0.14, 0.44)     		0.19
    (0.15, 0.32)     		0.36
    Time 1 Lab Draw 5.1
    (0.7, 10.7)     		1.0
    (0.5, 2.4)     		0.01 2.23
    (0.99, 4.7)     		2.58
    (0.84, 7.86)     		0.72
    Time 2 Lab Draw 4.8
    (0.9, 9.8)     		1.2
    (0.5, 4.3)     		0.04 1.73
    (0.56, 2.96)     		2.05
    (0.83, 6.55)     		0.49
    Chorioamnioitis N=26 N=249 N=26 N=249
    Time 0 Lab Draw 0.3
    (0.3, 0.5)     		0.2
    (0.2, 0.3)     		<0.01 0.25
    (0.15, 0.84)     		0.19
    (0.15, 0.33)     		0.06
    Time 1 Lab Draw 9.0
    (0.9, 20.8)     		1.0
    (0.5, 2.1)     		<0.01 4.50
    (1.67, 15.15)     		2.46
    (0.84, 7.53)     		0.09
    Time 2 Lab Draw 8.0
    (1.7, 30)     		1.1
    (0.5, 3.9)     		<0.01 1.73
    (0.56, 2.96)     		2.03
    (0.81, 6.22)     		0.58
    Pre-Eclampsia^ N=71 N=203 N=71 N=203
    Time 0 Lab Draw 0.2
    (0.2, 0.3)     		0.2
    (0.2, 0.3)     		0.27 0.21
    (0.16, 0.31)     		0.19
    (0.14, 0.34)     		0.91
    Time 1 Lab Draw 1.0
    (0.5, 3.7)     		1.0
    (0.5, 2.8)     		0.87 1.88
    (0.67, 4.71)     		2.77
    (0.92, 9.6)     		0.05
    Time 2 Lab Draw 1.9
    (0.8, 5.8)     		1.3
    (0.5, 4.4)     		0.24 2.15 (0.66, 4.84) 1.99
    (0.84, 7.14)     		0.48
    Vaginal Delivery N=101 N=174 N=101 N=174
    Time 0 Lab Draw 0.2
    (0.2, 0.4)     		0.2
    (0.2, 0.3)     		<0.01 0.22 (0.15, 0.6) 0.19 (0.14, 0.27) 0.10
    Time 1 Lab Draw 1.3
    (0.7, 5.4)     		1.0
    (0.4, 1.6)     		<0.01 3.30 (1.25, 7.09) 2.24 (0.81, 8.18) 0.61
    Time 2 Lab Draw 1.8
    (0.7, 5.9)     		1.1
    (0.5, 3.7)     		0.12 2.50
    (0.87, 5.7)     		1.85 (0.74, 3.7) 0.90
    Use of Positive Pressure at Birth N=162 N=113 N=162 N=113
    Time 0 Lab Draw 0.2
    (0.2, 0.3)     		0.3
    (0.2, 0.4)     		<0.01 0.20
    (0.16, 0.31)     		0.18
    (0.14, 0.48)     		0.54
    Time 1 Lab Draw 1.0
    (0.5, 1.6)     		1.3
    (0.6, 5.8)     		0.02 2.53
    (0.84, 8.21)     		2.65
    (1.01, 7.11)     		0.64
    Time 2 Lab Draw 1.2
    (0.6, 4.1)     		1.7
    (0.5, 7.5)     		0.29 2.30
    (0.98, 6.87)     		1.55
    (0.59, 5.61)     		0.08

    • Data are shown as median (IQR) ^ Some missing data

  • Abstract #441 Table 1

    Demographics, short- and long-term outcomes between the two groups

    Immediate Cord Clamping n=50Immediate Cord Clamping n=50P Value
    DEMOGRAPHICS
    Birth Weight (g) * 2560 (2360, 2890) 2230 (2068, 2525) <0.001
    Gestational Age (wks) * 35.8 (35.1, 36.3) 34.7 (34.1, 35.1) <0.01
    Male gender, n (%) 29 (58) 25 (50) 0.42
    Hispanic Race, n (%) 29 (55) 24 (48 ) 0.09
    Cesarean Section, n (%) 38 (76) 33 (66) 0.27
    Maternal Preeclampsia, n (%) 7 (14) 11 (22) 0.30
    Maternal Gestational Diabetes, n (%) 11 (22) 13 (26) 0.64
    APGAR score 1 min * 7 (3, 8) 8 (7, 8) 0.03
    APGAR score 5 min * 8 (6, 9) 9 (8, 9) 0.03
    SHORT TERM OUTCOMES
    Hemoglobin at 24 Hours of Life (gm/dL) * 15.8 (14.3, 17.8) 16.3 (15, 18.1) 0.23
    Phototherapy, n (%) 16 (33) 17 (34) 0.89
    PRBC Transfusion within 24 hours of life, n (%) 3 (6) 0 (0) 0.08
    Temperature on admission to NICU (°C) * 36.8 (36.6, 37.1) 36.6 (36.4, 36.8) <0.01
    Hypothermia on admission to NICU, n (%) 2 (4.1) 13 (26) <0.01
    NEURODEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES AT 18–24 MONTHS OF AGE
    Communication * 40 (25, 50) 35 (30, 45) 0.93
    Gross Motor * 60 (60, 60) 57.5 (55, 60) 0.48
    Fine Motor * 55 (45, 60) 50 (50, 60) 0.93
    Problem Solving * 55 (45, 60) 52.5 (35, 55) 0.52
    Personal Social * 60 (55, 60) 55 (45, 60) 0.31

    • *median (25th percentile, 75th percentile)

  • Abstract #442 Table 1
    Weight/Length CategoryMean RSS-40 weeksSDP Value*
    0.09 0.27 0.01
    >50 percentile (N=11) 0.47 0.37
  • Abstract #442 Table 2
  • Abstract #443 Table 1

    Patient characteristics

    No.Antenatal steroidsAntenatal steroids indicatedMode of deliveryDelivery room interventionsGestational age (weeks)Birth weight (grams)GenderMode of ventilationFiO2 prior to surfactantIndication for Surfactant Replacement therapy
    1 No No NSVD PPV 41+1/7 2945 Female NIPPV 30% MAS
    2 Yes Yes C-section PPV 30+3/7 1415 Male NIPPV 30% RDS
    3 Yes Yes C-section PPV 32+1/7 1800 Female NIPPV 25% RDS
    4.a Yes Yes C-section PPV 32+2/7 1910 Male NIPPV 35% RDS
    4.b Yes Yes C-section PPV 32+2/7 1910 Male NIPPV 40% RDS
    5 Yes Yes C-section PPV 30+3/7 1455 Female NIPPV 45% RDS
    6 Yes Yes C-section PPV 30+3/7 1165 Female NIPPV 40% RDS
    7 Yes Yes C-section PPV 32+6/7 1360 Female NIPPV 40% RDS
    8 No No NSVD PPV 37+2/7 2900 Female NIPPV 25% IDM-related RDS vs TTN
    9 Yes Yes C-section PPV 27+4/7 980 Female NIPPV 50% RDS
    10 Yes Yes C-section PPV 27+0/7 957 Male NIPPV 30% RDS
  • Abstract #445 Table 1

    Neonatal factors associated with the requirement of PPV in the DR

    Gestational age (weeks)Birth weight (g)5 min APGARFirst blood pHFirst blood gas CO2Invasive ventilation at 24 hours (%)Need for surfactant (%)
    No respiratory support in DR 35.5 2585 8.9 7.16 44.8 0 0.4
    Respiratory support in DR 35.1 2716 7.6 7.27 52.4 6.7 10.4
    P-value <0.001 0.020 <0.001 0.464 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
  • Abstract #446 Table 1

    Percent of responses for preferred method of weaning off nCPAP

    Preferred Method to Wean off nCPAP% of Responses Favoring this Method
    Directly to room air 37%
    Wean to high or low flow nasal cannula and then room air 59%
    Increased time per day off CPAP until off 5%
  • Abstract #449 Table 1
    TractnWBT: FA mean (SD)ROI: FA mean (SD)WBT: MD mean (SD)ROI: MD mean (SD)FA t-test statisticFA t-test p-valueMD t-test statisticMD t-test p-value
    CC-Occipital 31 0.13 (0.06) 0.17 (0.07) 1.46 (0.21) 1.52 (0.19) -2.27 0.03 -1.19 0.23
    CC-Post. Parietal 31 0.11 (0.04) 0.14 (0.05) 1.48 (0.17) 1.57 (0.25) -2.12 0.04 -1.69 0.1
    CC-Sup. Parietal 28 0.12 (0.05) 0.15 (0.05) 1.56 (0.42) 1.56 (0.16) -2.55 0.01 -0.88 0.38
    CC-Motor 28 0.14 (0.04) 0.15 (0.03) 1.51 (0.26) 1.56 (0.16) -1.95 0.06 -0.86 0.39
    CC-Sup. Frontal 28 0.16 (0.03) 0.17 (0.04) 1.57 (0.28) 1.65 (0.22) -1.32 0.19 -1.11 0.27
    CC-Ant. Frontal 30 0.15 (0.04) 0.17 (0.04) 1.55 (0.24) 1.62 (0.20) -1.63 0.11 -1.23 0.22
Back to top
Email
Print
Alerts
Citation Tools
Cite This
Download PDF

2022 Western Medical Research Conference
Journal of Investigative Medicine Jan 2022, 70 (1) 112-337; DOI: 10.1136/jim-2022-WRMC
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Respond to this article

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles