Updated Outcome Data for Necrotizing Enterocolitis

A recent systematic review (IH Jones, NJ Hall. J Pediatr 2020; 220: 86-92) provides contemporary outcomes for infants with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The authors analyzed from 38 articles (from 1375 abstracts); the authors excluded data from developing countries. This review included 21,349 infants with any stage of NEC and 7540 with Bell stage 2a+.

Key findings:

  • Overall mortality was 23.5% in all neonates with confirmed NEC (Bell stage 2a+), 34.5% for infants who underwent surgery
  • Mortality rates were higher for extremely low birthweight infants (<1000 g) at 40.5%; the rate was 50.9% for surgical NEC in this cohort
  • Neurodevelopmental disability was reported in only 4 studies and ranged between 24.8% and 61.1% (n=1209)
  • Intestinal failure was reported with an incidence of 15.2% to 35.0% (n=1370)

A limitation with this study is the lack of agreement on definitions/diagnosis for necrotizing enterocolitis and intestinal failure.

My take: This study shows that NEC still carries a high mortality.

Related blog posts:

Sandy Springs

“I’ve Got the Best Doctor”

In numerous conversations, I have had heard from friends and family that “I’ve Got the Best Doctor.”  For everyone who thinks that, here’s a good read by Ezekiel Emanuel in NY Times:

Are Good Doctors Bad for Your Health?

Here’s an excerpt:

One of the more surprising — and genuinely scary — research papers published recently appeared in JAMA Internal Medicine. It examined 10 years of data involving tens of thousands of hospital admissions. It found that patients with acute, life-threatening cardiac conditions didbetter when the senior cardiologists were out of town. And this was at the best hospitals in the United States, our academic teaching hospitals. As the article concludes, high-risk patients with heart failure and cardiac arrest, hospitalized in teaching hospitals, had lower 30-day mortality when cardiologists were away from the hospital attending national cardiology meetings. And the differences were not trivial — mortality decreased by about a third for some patients when those top doctors were away…

One possible explanation is that while senior cardiologists are great researchers, the junior physicians — recently out of training — may actually be more adept clinically. Another potential explanation suggested by the data is that senior cardiologists try more interventions…

One thing patients can do is ask four simple questions when doctors are proposing an intervention, whether an X-ray, genetic test or surgery. First, what difference will it make? Will the test results change our approach to treatment? Second, how much improvement in terms of prolongation of life, reduction in risk of a heart attack or other problem is the treatment actually going to make? Third, how likely and severe are the side effects? And fourth, is the hospital a teaching hospital?

My take: Perhaps some of the differences in outcome are related to severity of illness that more experienced physicians may manage.  Nevertheless, it is clear that the reputation of the physician does not correlate well with clinical outcomes.

Related blog posts: