Background

Esophageal atresia (EA) is one of the most common congenital digestive anomalies. With improvements in surgical techniques and intensive care treatments, the focus of care of these patients has shifted from mortality to morbidity and quality-of-life issues. These children face gastrointestinal (GI) problems not only in early childhood but also through adolescence and adulthood. There is, however, currently a lack of a systematic approach to the care of these patients. The GI working group of International Network on Esophageal Atresia comprises members from ESPGHAN/NASPGHAN and was charged with the task of developing uniform evidence-based guidelines for the management of GI complications in children with EA.

Methods

Thirty-six clinical questions addressing the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of the common GI complications in patients with EA were formulated. Questions on the diagnosis, and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux, management of "cyanotic spells," etiology, investigation and management of dysphagia, feeding difficulties, anastomotic strictures, congenital esophageal stenosis in EA patients were addressed. The importance of excluding eosinophilic esophagitis and associated GI anomalies in symptomatic patients with EA is discussed as is the quality of life of these patients and the importance of a systematic transition of care to adulthood. A systematic literature search was performed from inception to March 2014 using Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and PsychInfo databases. The approach of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied to evaluate outcomes. During 2 consensus meetings, all recommendations were discussed and finalized. The group members voted on each recommendation, using the nominal voting technique. Expert opinion was used where no randomized controlled trials were available to support the recommendation.

We conducted a randomized, non-inferiority field trial in urban Dhaka, Bangladesh among mothers to compare microbial efficacy of soapy water (30 g powdered detergent in 1.5 L water) with bar soap and water alone. Fieldworkers collected hand rinse samples before and after the following washing regimens: scrubbing with soapy water for 15 and 30 seconds; scrubbing with bar soap for 15 and 30 seconds; and scrubbing with water alone for 15 seconds. Soapy water and bar soap removed thermotolerant coliforms similarly after washing for 15 seconds (mean log10 reduction = 0.7 colony-forming units [CFU], P < 0.001 for soapy water; mean log10 reduction = 0.6 CFU, P = 0.001 for bar soap). Increasing scrubbing time to 30 seconds did not improve removal (P > 0.05). Scrubbing hands with water alone also reduced thermotolerant coliforms (mean log10 reduction = 0.3 CFU, P = 0.046) but was less efficacious than scrubbing hands with soapy water. Soapy water is an inexpensive and microbiologically effective cleansing agent to improve handwashing among households with vulnerable children.