Haemodynamic support for paediatric septic shock: a global perspective.

Septic shock is a leading cause of hospitalisation, morbidity, and mortality for children worldwide. In 2020, the paediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) issued evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children with septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction based on the evidence available at the time. There are now more trials from multiple settings, including low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), addressing optimal fluid choice and amount, selection and timing of vasoactive infusions, and optimal monitoring and therapeutic endpoints. In response to developments in adult critical care to trial personalised haemodynamic management algorithms, it is timely to critically reassess the current state of applying SSC guidelines in LMIC settings. In this Viewpoint, we briefly outline the challenges to improve sepsis care in LMICs and then discuss three key concepts that are relevant to management of children with septic shock around the world, especially in LMICs. These concepts include uncertainties surrounding the early recognition of paediatric septic shock, choices for initial haemodynamic support, and titration of ongoing resuscitation to therapeutic endpoints. Specifically, given the evolving understanding of clinical phenotypes, we focus on the controversies surrounding the concepts of early fluid resuscitation and vasoactive agent use, including insights gained from experience in LMICs and high-income countries. We outline the key components of sepsis management that are both globally relevant and translatable to low-resource settings, with a view to open the conversation to the large variety of treatment pathways, especially in LMICs. We emphasise the role of simple and easily available monitoring tools to apply the SSC guidelines and to tailor individualised support to the patient's cardiovascular physiology.

The epidemiology of sepsis in paediatric intensive care units in Brazil (the Sepsis PREvalence Assessment Database in Pediatric population, SPREAD PED): an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the prevalence and mortality of paediatric sepsis in resource-poor settings are scarce. We aimed to assess the prevalence and in-hospital mortality of severe sepsis and septic shock treated in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in Brazil, and risk factors for mortality. METHODS: We performed a nationwide, 1-day, prospective point prevalence study with follow-up of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, using a stratified random sample of all PICUs in Brazil. Patients were enrolled at each participating PICU on a single day between March 25 and 29, 2019. All patients occupying a bed at the PICU on the study day (either admitted previously or on that day) were included if they were aged 28 days to 18 years and met the criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock at any time during hospitalisation. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge or death, censored at 60 days. Risk factors for mortality were assessed using a Poisson regression model. We used prevalence to generate national estimates. FINDINGS: Of 241 PICUs invited to participate, 144 PICUs (capacity of 1242 beds) included patients in the study. On the day of the study, 1122 children were admitted to the participating PICUs, of whom 280 met the criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock during hospitalisation, resulting in a prevalence of 25·0% (95% CI 21·6-28·8), with a mortality rate of 19·8% (15·4-25·2; 50 of 252 patients with complete clinical data). Increased risk of mortality was associated with higher Pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (relative risk per point increase 1·21, 95% CI 1·14-1·29, p<0·0001), unknown vaccination status (2·57, 1·26-5·24; p=0·011), incomplete vaccination status (2·16, 1·19-3·92; p=0·012), health care-associated infection (2·12, 1·23-3·64, p=0·0073), and compliance with antibiotics (2·38, 1·46-3·86, p=0·0007). The estimated incidence of PICU-treated sepsis was 74·6 cases per 100 000 paediatric population (95% CI 61·5-90·5), which translates to 42 374 cases per year (34 940-51 443) in Brazil, with an estimated mortality of 8305 (6848-10 083). INTERPRETATION: In this representative sample of PICUs in a middle-income country, the prevalences of severe sepsis or septic shock and in-hospital mortality were high. Modifiable factors, such as incomplete vaccination and health care-associated infections, were associated with greater risk of in-hospital mortality. FUNDING: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN: A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS: The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS: The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-Associated Organ Dysfunction in Children.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN: A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS: The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS: The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Early goal-directed therapy in treatment of pediatric septic shock.

In the whole world, around 29,000 children younger than 5 years die every day, and sepsis is the most common cause of death. Whereas in adult patients vasomotor paralysis represents the predominant cause of mortality, death in pediatric sepsis is associated with severe hypovolemia and low cardiac output. The purpose of this article was to review the recent evidence on early treatment of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock. Although current American College of Critical Care Medicine-Pediatric Advanced Life Support guidelines represent best practice, stronger evidences are lacking to confirm the components of these recommendations. Retrospective studies showed, at the same time, the positive effects arising from the utilization of American College of Critical Care Medicine-Pediatric Advanced Life Support guidelines and the existing barriers to its implementation. And one randomized control trial paralleled the results observed in adult patients and revealed that early goal-directed therapy in children is one of the few therapeutic interventions that proved to be beneficial in septic shock treatment. Early goal-directed therapy in pediatric septic shock is a successful method to optimize and parameterize treatment, but there is still a long way to turn septic shock resuscitation simpler and more widely spread.