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.

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 The Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines are intended for general information only, are not medical advice, and do not replace professional advice, which should be sought for any medical condition. The full disclaimer for guidelines can be accessed at https ://www.sccm.org/Resea rch/Guide lines /Guide lines . 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. S14 the group heads, panel members, and methodologists. Searches utilized ...

In children who suffer out of hospital cardiac arrest, targeted hypothermia at 33.0 C confers no benefit when compared to targeted normothermia at 36.8 C. Level of evidence: 2B (RCT with wide CIs)Appraised by: Andrew Claxton Citation: Moler FW, Silverstein FS, Holubkov R and the THAPCA Trial Investigators. Therapeutic hypothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in children. N Eng

Objective To create a functional status outcome measure for large outcome studies that is well defined, quantitative, sufficiently rapid, reliable, minimally dependent on subjective assessments, and applicable to hospitalized pediatric patients across a wide spectrum of ages and inpatient environments. Patients and Methods The Functional Status Scale (FSS) was developed by a multidisciplinary consensus process. Domains of functioning included mental status, sensory, communication, motor, feeding, and respiratory categorized from normal (1) to very severe dysfunction (5). The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS) II established construct validity and calibration within domains. Seven institutions provided pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients within 24 hours of PICU discharge, high-risk non-PICU patients within 24 hours of admission, and technology-dependent children. Primary care nurses completed the ABAS II based on patient’s functioning when the FSS was completed. Patients from 10% of the study days were used to evaluate inter-rater reliability. Data were randomly split into estimation and validation sets. Statistical analyses included Pearson correlations, construct validity, linear regression analysis, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for discriminant validity, and the intraclass correlation for inter-rater reliability. Results A total of 836 children with a mean FSS of 10.3 (standard deviation 4.4) were studied. Eighteen percent had the minimum possible FSS = 6, 44% had FSS ≥ 10, 14% had a FSS ≥ 15, and 6% had FSS scores ≥ 20. Each FSS domain was associated with mean ABAS II (p<.0001). Cells in each domain were collapsed and reweighted, which improved correlations with ABAS II from −0.58 to −0.62 in the estimation sample, and −0.60 to −0.63 in the validation sample (p<0.001 for improvements). Discrimination was very good for moderate and severe dysfunction (ABAS II categories) and improved with FSS weighting (area under the ROC curve > 0.8). Intraclass correlations of original and weighted total FSS were 0.95 and 0.94 respectively. Conclusions The FSS met our objectives and is well suited for large outcome studies.