Epinephrine Plus Vasopressin vs Epinephrine Plus Placebo in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Double Blind Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of epinephrine plus vasopressin vs epinephrine plus placebo in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial. SETTING: PICU in a tertiary care institute from February, 2019 to May, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged one month to 13 years who required CPR during PICU stay. Patients in whom vascular access was not available or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved by defibrillation without epinephrine were excluded. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive vasopressin 0.1 mL per kg (=0.8 unit per kg) or placebo (0.1 mL per kg normal saline) in addition to epinephrine (1:10000) 0.1 mL per kg. The drugs were given as bolus doses every three minutes until the ROSC or up to a maximum of five doses, whichever was earlier. OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved ROSC. The secondary outcomes were survival rate and functional status (at 24-hour, PICU, hospital, and 90-day post-discharge), need for organ supports, length of stay (PICU and hospital), and adverse effect(s) of the study drugs. RESULTS: 90 patients (epinephrine plus vasopressin group, n=45 and epinephrine plus placebo group, n=45) were analyzed on intention-to-treat basis. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between epinephrine plus vasopressin (n=25, 55.5%) and epinephrine plus placebo groups (n=24, 53.3%) (Relative risk 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.52). There was no significant difference in survival rate at 24-hour (n=7, 15.6% vs. n=8, 17.8%), at PICU, hospital, and 90-day post-discharge (n=1, 2.2% vs n=1, 2.2%). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. No trial drug-related serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of epinephrine plus vasopressin did not improve the rate of return of spontaneous circulation in the pediatric intensive care unit cardiopulmonary resuscitation as compared with epinephrine plus placebo.

Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in prediction of pediatric coma.

BACKGROUND: This study was done to compare the admission Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) as predictors of outcome in children with impaired consciousness. METHODS: In this observational study, children (5-12 years) with impaired consciousness of <7 days were included. Children with traumatic brain injury, on sedatives or neuromuscular blockade; with pre-existing cerebral palsy, mental retardation, degenerative brain disease, vision/hearing impairment; and seizure within last 1 hour were excluded. Primary outcomes: comparison of area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes: comparison of AUC of ROC curve for mortality and poor outcome on Pediatric Overall Performance Category Scale at 3 months. RESULTS: Of the 63 children, 20 died during hospital stay. AUC for in-hospital mortality for GCS was 0.83 (CI 0.7 to 0.9) and FOUR score was 0.8 (CI 0.7 to 0.9) [difference between areas -0.0250 (95%CI 0.0192 to 0.0692), Z statistic 1.109, P=0.2674]. AUC for mortality at 3 months for GCS was 0.78 (CI 0.67 to 0.90) and FOUR score was 0.74 (CI 0.62 to 0.87) (P=0.1102) and AUC for poor functional outcome for GCS was 0.82 (CI 0.72 to 0.93) and FOUR score was 0.79 (CI 0.68 to 0.9) (P=0.2377), which were also comparable. Inter-rater reliability for GCS was 0.96 and for FOUR score 0.98. CONCLUSION: FOUR score was as good as GCS in prediction of in-hospital and 3-month mortality and functional outcome at 3 months. FOUR score had a good inter-rater reliability.

Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in prediction of pediatric coma / 世界急诊医学杂志（英文）

@#BACKGROUND: This study was done to compare the admission Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) as predictors of outcome in children with impaired consciousness. METHODS: In this observational study, children (5–12 years) with impaired consciousness of <7 days were included. Children with traumatic brain injury, on sedatives or neuromuscular blockade; with pre-existing cerebral palsy, mental retardation, degenerative brain disease, vision/hearing impairment; and seizure within last 1 hour were excluded. Primary outcomes: comparison of area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes: comparison of AUC of ROC curve for mortality and poor outcome on Pediatric Overall Performance Category Scale at 3 months. RESULTS: Of the 63 children, 20 died during hospital stay. AUC for in-hospital mortality for GCS was 0.83 (CI 0.7 to 0.9) and FOUR score was 0.8 (CI 0.7 to 0.9) [difference between areas –0.0250 (95%CI 0.0192 to 0.0692), Z statistic 1.109, P=0.2674]. AUC for mortality at 3 months for GCS was 0.78 (CI 0.67 to 0.90) and FOUR score was 0.74 (CI 0.62 to 0.87) (P=0.1102) and AUC for poor functional outcome for GCS was 0.82 (CI 0.72 to 0.93) and FOUR score was 0.79 (CI 0.68 to 0.9) (P=0.2377), which were also comparable. Inter-rater reliability for GCS was 0.96 and for FOUR score 0.98. CONCLUSION: FOUR score was as good as GCS in prediction of in-hospital and 3-month mortality and functional outcome at 3 months. FOUR score had a good inter-rater reliability.