Epinephrine is more effective than dopamine in achieving resolution of fluid-refractory hypotensive cold shock within the first hour of resuscitation and improving organ functions.
The global growth of electronic media usage among children has caused concerns regarding screen time (ST) impact on child development. No previous population-based studies have evaluated ST and child development in India. This study aimed to determine the burden of ST, associated sociodemographic factors, and its impact on domains of child development. A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted in the field practice area of rural and urban health centers in Tamil Nadu, India. A total of 718 children (396 rural and 322 urban) were selected, using a cluster random sampling method. ST estimates were obtained from parents/guardian after a 7-day observation period. The Communication DEALL Developmental Checklist was used to assess child development. The mean ST was 2.39 hours/day (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.23–2.54), and the prevalence of excessive ST was 73% (95% CI: 69.2–76.8). Excessive ST was significantly associated with the mothers’ ST, screen usage at bedtime, birth order (in children < 2 years), and attending school (in children ≥ 2 years). Increased ST was significantly associated with developmental delay, in particular, in the domains of language acquisition and communication. In children aged ≥ 2 years, a delay in ≥ 3 domains was associated with ST (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 17.75, 95% CI: 5.04–62.49, p < 0.001), as was language delay (AOR = 52.92, 95% CI: 12.33–227.21, p < 0.001). In children aged < 2 years, a delay in ≥ 2 domains was associated with ST (AOR = 16.79, 95% CI: 2.26–124.4, p < 0.001), as was language delay (AOR = 20.93, 95% CI: 2.68–163.32, p < 0.01). A very high prevalence of excessive ST was identified, with a significant association with developmental delay in children. There is an urgent need to include education on ST limits at the primary healthcare level.
Background
The European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) developed and validated a definition of pediatric refractory septic shock (RSS), based on two septic shock scores (SSS). Both bedside SSS (bSSS) and computed SSS (cSSS) were found to be strongly associated with mortality. We aimed at assessing the accuracy of the RSS definition on a prospective cohort from India.
Methods
Post hoc analysis of a cohort issued from a double-blind randomized trial that compared first-line vasoactive drugs in children with septic shock. Sequential bSSS and cSSS from 60 children (single-center study, 53% mortality) were analyzed. The prognostic value of the ESPNIC RSS definition was tested for 28-day all-cause mortality.
Results
In this septic shock cohort, RSS was diagnosed in 35 patients (58.3%) during the first 24 h. Death occurred in 30 RSS patients (85.7% mortality) and in 2 non-RSS patients (8% mortality), OR = 60.9 [95% CI: 10.5–676.2], p < 0.001 with a median delay from sepsis onset of 3 days [1.0–6.7]. Among patients diagnosed with RSS, the mortality was not significantly different according to vasopressors randomization. Diagnosis of RSS with bSSS and cSSS had a high discrimination for death with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.916 [95% CI: 0.843–0.990] and 0.925 [95% CI: 0.845–1.000], respectively. High prognostic accuracy of the bSSS was found in the first hours following intensive care admission. The best interval of prognostication occurs after the 12th hour following treatment initiation (AUC 0.973 [95% CI: 0.925–1.000]).
Conclusions
The ESPNIC refractory septic shock definition accurately identifies, within the first 6 h of septic shock management, children with lethal outcome.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.