Background The Institute of Medicine calls for the use of clinical guidelines and practice parameters to promote “best practices” and to improve patient outcomes. Objective 2007 update of the 2002 American College of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Guidelines for Hemodynamic Support of Neonates and Children with Septic Shock. Participants Society of Critical Care Medicine members with special interest in neonatal and pediatric septic shock were identified from general solicitation at the Society of Critical Care Medicine Educational and Scientific Symposia (2001–2006). Methods The Pubmed/MEDLINE literature database (1966–2006) was searched using the keywords and phrases: sepsis, septicemia, septic shock, endotoxemia, persistent pulmonary hypertension, nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines. Best practice centers that reported best outcomes were identified and their practices examined as models of care. Using a modified Delphi method, 30 experts graded new literature. Over 30 additional experts then reviewed the updated recommendations. The document was subsequently modified until there was greater than 90% expert consensus. Results The 2002 guidelines were widely disseminated, translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and incorporated into Society of Critical Care Medicine and AHA sanctioned recommendations. Centers that implemented the 2002 guidelines reported best practice outcomes (hospital mortality 1%–3% in previously healthy, and 7%– 10% in chronically ill children). Early use of 2002 guidelines was associated with improved outcome in the community hospital emergency department (number needed to treat = 3.3) and tertiary pediatric intensive care setting (number needed to treat = 3.6); every hour that went by without guideline adherence was associated with a 1.4-fold increased mortality risk. The updated 2007 guidelines continue to recognize an increased likelihood that children with septic shock, compared with adults, require 1) proportionally larger quantities of fluid, 2) inotrope and vasodilator therapies, 3) hydrocortisone for absolute adrenal insufficiency, and 4) ECMO for refractory shock. The major new recommendation in the 2007 update is earlier use of inotrope support through peripheral access until central access is attained. Conclusion The 2007 update continues to emphasize early use of age-specific therapies to attain time-sensitive goals, specifically recommending 1) first hour fluid resuscitation and inotrope therapy directed to goals of threshold heart rates, normal blood pressure, and capillary refill ≤2 secs, and 2) subsequent intensive care unit hemodynamic support directed to goals of central venous oxygen saturation >70% and cardiac index 3.3–6.0 L/min/m2.

Cardiac arrest occurs at a higher rate in children with heart disease than in healthy children. Pediatric basic life support and advanced life support guidelines focus on delivering high-quality resuscitation in children with normal hearts. The complexity and variability in pediatric heart disease pose unique challenges during resuscitation. A writing group appointed by the American Heart Association reviewed the literature addressing resuscitation in children with heart disease. MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases were searched from 1966 to 2015, cross-referencing pediatric heart disease with pertinent resuscitation search terms. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification of recommendations and levels of evidence for practice guidelines were used. The recommendations in this statement concur with the critical components of the 2015 American Heart Association pediatric basic life support and pediatric advanced life support guidelines and are meant to serve as a resuscitation supplement. This statement is meant for caregivers of children with heart disease in the prehospital and in-hospital settings. Understanding the anatomy and physiology of the high-risk pediatric cardiac population will promote early recognition and treatment of decompensation to prevent cardiac arrest, increase survival from cardiac arrest by providing high-quality resuscitations, and improve outcomes with postresuscitation care.

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been "worked out" and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule. We first present a description of the process of DCD and the standard ethical rationale for the practice. We then present our concerns with DCD, including the following: irreversibility of absent circulation has not occurred and the many attempts to claim it has have all failed; conflicts of interest at all steps in the DCD process, including the decision to withdraw life support before DCD, are simply unavoidable; potentially harmful premortem interventions to preserve organ utility are not justifiable, even with the help of the principle of double effect; claims that DCD conforms with the intent of the law and current accepted medical standards are misleading and inaccurate; and consensus statements by respected medical groups do not change these arguments due to their low quality including being plagued by conflict of interest. Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are "straw-man arguments," such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate. Until this debate occurs, we call for a moratorium on the practice of DCD.