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 ...

The major new recommendation in the 2014 update is consideration of institution-specific use of 1) a "recognition bundle" containing a trigger tool for rapid identification of patients with septic shock, 2) a "resuscitation and stabilization bundle" to help adherence to best practice principles, and 3) a "performance bundle" to identify and overcome perceived barriers to the pursuit of best practice principles.

Background: The American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) provided 2002 and 2007 guidelines for hemodynamic support of newborn and pediatric septic shock.

Objective-To compare the prevalence, resource utilization, and mortality for pediatric severe sepsis identified using two established identification strategies. Design-Observational cohort study from 2004-2012.Setting-Forty-four pediatric hospitals contributing data to the Pediatric Health Information Systems database.Patients-Children ≤18 years of age.Measurements and Main Results-We identified patients with severe sepsis or septic shock by using two International Classification of Diseases, 9 th edition-Clinical Modification (ICD9-CM) based coding strategies: 1) combinations of ICD9-CM codes for infection plus organ dysfunction (combination code cohort); 2) ICD9-CM codes for severe sepsis and septic shock (sepsis code cohort). Outcomes included prevalence of severe sepsis, as well as hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Outcomes were compared between the two cohorts examining aggregate differences over the study period and trends over time. The combination code cohort identified, 176,124 hospitalizations (3.1% of all hospitalizations), while the sepsis code cohort identified 25,236 hospitalizations (0.45%), a 7-fold difference. Between 2004 and 2012, the prevalence of sepsis increased from 3.7% to 4.4% using the combination code cohort and from 0.4% to 0.7% using the sepsis code cohort (p<0.001 for trend in each cohort). LOS (hospital and ICU) and costs decreased in both cohorts over the study period (p<0.001). Overall hospital mortality was higher in the sepsis code cohort than the combination code cohort (21.2%,. Over the 9 year study period, there was an absolute reduction in mortality of 10.9% (p<0.001) in the sepsis code cohort and 3.8% (p<0.001) in the combination code cohort.Conclusions-Prevalence of pediatric severe sepsis increased in the studied US children's hospitals over the past 9 years, though resource utilization and mortality decreased. Epidemiologic estimates of pediatric severe sepsis varied up to 7-fold depending on the strategy used for case ascertainment.

No abstract

Objective To assess the validity of vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) as a scoring system for cardiovascular support and surrogate outcome in pediatric sepsis. Design Secondary retrospective analysis of a single-center sepsis registry. Setting Free-standing children’s hospital and tertiary referral center. Patients Children >60 days and <18 years with sepsis identified in the emergency department between 1/2012 and 6/2015 treated with at least one vasoactive medication within 48 hours of admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (ICU). Interventions none Measurements VIS was abstracted at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours post ICU admission. Primary outcomes were ventilator days and ICU length of stay (LOS). The secondary outcome was a composite outcome of cardiac arrest/ECMO/in-hospital mortality. Main Results 138 patients met inclusion criteria. Most common infectious sources were pneumonia (32%) and bacteremia (23%). Thirty-three percent were intubated and mortality was 6%. Of the time points assessed, VIS at 48 hours (VIS48) showed the strongest correlation with ICU LOS (r=0.53; p<0.0001) and ventilator days (r=0.52; p<0.0001). On multivariable analysis, VIS48 was a strong independent predictor of primary outcomes and intubation. For every unit increase in VIS48, there was a 13% increase in ICU LOS (p<0.001) and 8% increase in ventilator days (p<0.01). For every unit increase in VIS at 12 hours, there was a 14% increase in odds of having the composite outcome (p<0.01). Conclusions VIS in pediatric sepsis patients is independently associated with important clinically relevant outcomes including ICU LOS, ventilator days, and cardiac arrest/ECMO/mortality. VIS may be a useful surrogate outcome in pediatric sepsis.

No abstract