Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Ann Intensive Care. 2019 Jun 28;9(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13613-019-0545-4.

Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective.

Author information

1
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Bicêtre University Hospital, AP-HP, South Paris University, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
2
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Beatrix Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
3
Critical Care, Anesthesiology, Peri-operative and Emergency Medicine (CAPE), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
4
Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
5
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
6
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Lyon University Hospitals, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Bron, France.
7
Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Saint-Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
8
Department of Pediatrics, Royal Children's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
9
Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
10
Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
11
Paediatric Critical Care Research Group, Mater Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
12
Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
13
Department of Pediatrics, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
14
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Bicêtre University Hospital, AP-HP, South Paris University, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. pierre.tissieres@aphp.fr.
15
Integrative Biology of the Cell, CNRS, CEA, Paris South University, Paris Saclay University, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. pierre.tissieres@aphp.fr.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines have provided recommendations for the management of pediatric septic shock patients. We conducted a survey among the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) members to assess variations to these recommendations.

METHODS:

A total of 114 pediatric intensive care physicians completed an electronic survey. The survey consisted of four standardized clinical cases exploring seven clinical scenarios.

RESULTS:

Among the seven different clinical scenarios, the types of fluids were preferentially non-synthetic colloids (albumin) and crystalloids (isotonic saline) and volume expansion was not limited to 60 ml/kg. Early intubation for mechanical ventilation was used by 70% of the participants. Norepinephrine was stated to be used in 94% of the PICU physicians surveyed, although dopamine or epinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressors in pediatric septic shock. When norepinephrine was used, the addition of another inotrope was frequent. Specific drugs such as vasopressin or enoximone were used in < 20%. Extracorporeal life support was used or considered by 91% of the physicians audited in certain specific situations, whereas the use of high-flow hemofiltration was considered for 44%.

CONCLUSIONS:

This pediatric septic shock management survey outlined variability in the current clinician-reported practice of pediatric septic shock management. As most recommendations are not supported by evidence, these findings outline some limitation of existing pediatric guidelines in regard to context and patient's specificity.

PMID:
31254125
DOI:
10.1186/s13613-019-0545-4

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center