Point-of-Care Noninvasive Technology for Pediatric Dehydration Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Dehydration is a commonly encountered problem worldwide. Current clinical assessment is limited by subjectivity and limited provider training with children. The objective of this study is to investigate a new noninvasive, point-of-care technology that measures capillary refill combined with patient factors to accurately diagnose dehydration. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study at a tertiary care children's hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Patients were eligible if younger than 10 years who presented to the emergency department with vomiting and/or diarrhea whom the triage nurse deems to be potentially dehydrated. Patients had the digital capillary refill device done on presentation in addition to standard of care vital signs and weight. Patients had serial weights measured on hospital scales throughout their stay. The primary outcome was dehydration, which was calculated as a percent change in weight from admission to discharge. RESULTS: Seventy-six children were enrolled in the study with 56 included in the final analysis. A stepwise forward method selection chose malnutrition, temperature, and systolic blood pressure for the multivariable model. The area under the curve for the final model was fair (0.7431). To further look into the utility of such a device in the home setting where blood pressure is not available often, we reran the model without systolic blood pressure. The area under the curve for the final model was 0.7269. CONCLUSIONS: The digital capillary refill point-of-care device combined with readily available patient-specific factors may improve the ability to detect pediatric dehydration and facilitate earlier treatment or transfer to higher levels of care.

How Are Clinicians Treating Children With Sepsis in Emergency Departments in Latin America?: An International Multicenter Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines adherence in emergency departments (EDs) relies partly on the availability of resources to improve sepsis care and outcomes. Our objective was to assess the management of pediatric septic shock (PSS) in Latin America's EDs and to determine the impact of treatment coordinated by a pediatric emergency specialist (PEMS) versus nonpediatric emergency specialists (NPEMS) on guidelines adherence. METHODS: Prospective, descriptive, and multicenter study using an electronic survey administered to PEMS and NPEMS who treat PSS in EDs in 14 Latin American countries. RESULTS: We distributed 2164 surveys with a response rate of 41.5%, of which 22.5% were PEMS. Overall American College of Critical Care Medicine reported guidelines adherence was as follows: vascular access obtained in 5 minutes, 76%; fluid infusion technique, 60%; administering 40 to 60 mL/kg within 30 minutes, 32%; inotropic infusion by peripheral route, 61%; dopamine or epinephrine in cold shock, 80%; norepinephrine in warm shock, 57%; and antibiotics within 60 minutes, 82%. Between PEMS and NPEMS, the following differences were found: vascular access in 5 minutes, 87.1% versus 72.7% (P < 0.01); fluid infusion technique, 72.3% versus 55.9% (P < 0.01); administering 40 to 60 mL/kg within 30 minutes, 42% versus 29% (P < 0.01); inotropic infusion by peripheral route, 75.7% versus 56.3% (P < 0.01); dopamine or epinephrine in cold shock, 87.1% versus 77.3% (P < 0.05); norepinephrine in warm shock, 67.8% versus 54% (P < 0.01); and antibiotic administration within first 60 minutes, 90.1% versus 79.3% (P < 0.01), respectively. Good adherence criteria were followed by 24%. The main referred barrier for sepsis care was a failure in its recognition, including the lack of triage tools. CONCLUSIONS: In some Latin American countries, there is variability in self-reported adherence to the evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of PSS during the first hour. The coordination by PEMS support greater adherence to these recommendations.

Detection and management of Anaphylaxis in children. / Reconocimiento y manejo de la Anafilaxia en pediatría.

INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is an emergency condition. According to the latest international guide lines, early recognition and treatment with intramuscular epinephrine are associated with increased survival. OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of knowledge of pediatricians in a tertiary Pediatric Hos pital about the diagnostic criteria and treatment of anaphylaxis. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sec tional descriptive study was conducted, designing, applying, and validating an anonymous survey to physicians with complete residency in pediatrics who are on call at a third level hospital. The statisti cal analysis was made using the SPSS v.21 software, presenting measures of central tendency (median, range, and frequency table) and Chi-square test for comparison. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 71 physicians completed the survey with a median of three years after the end of residency.35% of them identified all clinical criteria, 99% (70) indicated epinephrine, 73% chose the intramuscular route, and 55% indicated the correct dose. Only 48% of responders chose the dose and administration route correctly. In general, 21% recognized anaphylaxis and used epinephrine correctly. Physicians with less than five years of experience performed better in the intramuscular administration of epinephrine (83% vs 52% p = 0.005) and in the detection of gastrointestinal symp toms (60% vs 35% p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: There are difficulties in the identification and proper management of anaphylaxis by pediatricians of a tertiary Pediatric Hospital in a theoretical clinical setting. Although most of pediatricians chose epinephrine as a first-line drug, half of them did not indicate it correctly, and only one-third recognized anaphylaxis in all scenarios.

Reconocimiento y manejo de la anafilaxia en pediatría / Detection and management of anaphylaxis in children

INTRODUCCIÓN: La anafilaxia es una emergencia. De acuerdo con las últimas recomendaciones internacionales el reconocimiento de los criterios clínicos y el tratamiento temprano con adrenalina intramuscular se asocian a mayor sobrevida. OBJETIVO: Determinar el conocimiento de los médicos pediatras de un Hospital Pediátrico de tercer nivel sobre los criterios diagnósticos y el tratamiento de la anafilaxia. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: Estudio descriptivo transversal que considera diseño, aplicación y validación de una encuesta anónima a médicos con residencia completa en pediatría que realizan guardias en un hospital de tercer nivel. Los ítems de la Encuesta comprendieron tres dimensiones, experiencia del operador (2 ítems), manejo farmacológico (3 ítems) e identificación del cuadro (4 ítems). El análisis estadístico utilizó el programa SPSS v.21, presentando medidas de tendencia central (mediana, rango y tabla de frecuencias) y para su comparación prueba de Chi cuadrado. Se consideró significativo un valor de p < 0,05. RESULTADOS: Se encuestaron 71 médicos con una mediana de 3 años transcurridos desde el fin de la residencia. 35% identificó todos los criterios clínicos; 99% (70) indicó adrenalina, 73% por vía intramuscular y 55% a dosis correcta (solo el 48% contestó la dosis y vía correctamente). En forma global la adecuación para identificación más manejo correcto fue del 21%. Los médicos con menos de 5 años de experiencia tuvieron mejor desempeño en la administración de adrenalina intramuscular (83% vs 52% p = 0,005) y en la detección de síntomas gastrointestinales (60%vs35% p = 0,043). CONCLUSIONES: Existen dificultades para la identificación y el manejo apropiado de la anafilaxia por pediatras de un Hospital de tercer nivel en un escenario teórico. Aunque la mayoría eligió la adrenalina como droga de primera línea, la mitad no la indicó de forma correcta y solo un tercio reconoció el cuadro en todos sus escenarios.

INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is an emergency condition. According to the latest international guide lines, early recognition and treatment with intramuscular epinephrine are associated with increased survival. OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of knowledge of pediatricians in a tertiary Pediatric Hos pital about the diagnostic criteria and treatment of anaphylaxis. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sec tional descriptive study was conducted, designing, applying, and validating an anonymous survey to physicians with complete residency in pediatrics who are on call at a third level hospital. The statisti cal analysis was made using the SPSS v.21 software, presenting measures of central tendency (median, range, and frequency table) and Chi-square test for comparison. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 71 physicians completed the survey with a median of three years after the end of residency.35% of them identified all clinical criteria, 99% (70) indicated epinephrine, 73% chose the intramuscular route, and 55% indicated the correct dose. Only 48% of responders chose the dose and administration route correctly. In general, 21% recognized anaphylaxis and used epinephrine correctly. Physicians with less than five years of experience performed better in the intramuscular administration of epinephrine (83% vs 52% p = 0.005) and in the detection of gastrointestinal symp toms (60% vs 35% p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: There are difficulties in the identification and proper management of anaphylaxis by pediatricians of a tertiary Pediatric Hospital in a theoretical clinical setting. Although most of pediatricians chose epinephrine as a first-line drug, half of them did not indicate it correctly, and only one-third recognized anaphylaxis in all scenarios.