4.4 Article

STEP improves long-term survival for pediatric short bowel syndrome patients: A Markov decision analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 1802-1808

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.03.017

关键词

Short bowel syndrome; Intestinal transplant; STEP; Markov

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Increasingly, for pediatric patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS), intestinal lengthening procedures such as serial transverse enteroplasty (STEP) are being offered with the hope of improving patients' chances for achieving enteral autonomy. However, it remains unclear to what extent STEP reduces the long-term need for intestinal transplant or improves survival. Methods: Based on existing literature, a decision analytic Markov state transition model was created to simulate the life of 1,000 pediatric SBS patients. Two simulations were modeled: 1) No STEP: patients were listed for transplant once medical management failed and 2) STEP: patients underwent STEP therapy and subsequent transplant listing if enteral autonomy was not achieved. Sensitivity analysis of small bowel length and anatomy was completed. Base case patients were defined as neonates with a small bowel length of 30cm. Results: For base case patients with an ostomy and a NEC SBS etiology, STEP was associated with increased rates of enteral autonomy after 10 years for patients with an ICV (53.9% [STEP] vs. 51.1% [No STEP]) and without an ICV (43.4% [STEP] vs. 36.3% [No STEP]). Transplantation rates were also reduced following STEP therapy for both ICV (17.5% [STEP] vs. 18.2% [No STEP]) and non-ICV patients (20.2% [STEP] vs. 22.1% [No STEP]). 10-year survival was the highest in the (+) STEP and (+) ICV group (85.4%) and lowest in the (-) STEP and (-) ICV group (83.3%). Conclusions: For SBS patients, according to our model, STEP increases rates of enteral autonomy, reduces need for intestinal transplantation, and improves long-term survival. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据