Clinical Signs to Categorize Shock and Target Vasoactive Medications in Warm Versus Cold Pediatric Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: Determine level of agreement among clinical signs of shock type, identify which signs clinicians prioritize to determine shock type and select vasoactive medications, and test the association of shock type-vasoactive mismatch with prolonged organ dysfunction or death (complicated course). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Single large academic PICU. PATIENTS: Patients less than 18 years treated on a critical care sepsis pathway between 2012 and 2016. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Agreement among clinical signs (extremity temperature, capillary refill, pulse strength, pulse pressure, and diastolic blood pressure) was measured using Fleiss and Cohen's κ. Association of clinical signs with shock type and shock type-vasoactive mismatch (e.g., cold shock treated with vasopressor rather than inotrope) with complicated course was determined using multivariable logistic regression. Of 469 patients, clinicians determined 307 (65%) had warm and 162 (35%) had cold shock. Agreement across all clinical signs was low (κ, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20-0.30), although agreement between extremity temperature, capillary refill, and pulse strength was better than with pulse pressure and diastolic blood pressure. Only extremity temperature (adjusted odds ratio, 26.6; 95% CI, 15.5-45.8), capillary refill (adjusted odds ratio, 15.7; 95% CI, 7.9-31.3), and pulse strength (adjusted odds ratio, 21.3; 95% CI, 8.6-52.7) were associated with clinician-documented shock type. Of the 86 patients initiated on vasoactive medications during the pathway, shock type was discordant from vasoactive medication (κ, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.31) and shock type-vasoactive mismatch was not associated with complicated course (adjusted odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement was low among common clinical signs used to characterize shock type, with clinicians prioritizing extremity temperature, capillary refill, and pulse strength. Although clinician-assigned shock type was often discordant with vasoactive choice, shock type-vasoactive mismatch was not associated with complicated course. Categorizing shock based on clinical signs should be done cautiously.

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.