Background Cardiovascular instability is common in critically ill children. There is a scarcity of published high-quality studies to develop meaningful evidence-based hemodynamic monitoring guidelines and hence, with the exception of management of shock, currently there are no published guidelines for hemodynamic monitoring in children. The European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) Cardiovascular Dynamics section aimed to provide expert consensus recommendations on hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill children. Methods Creation of a panel of experts in cardiovascular hemodynamic assessment and hemodynamic monitoring and review of relevant literature—a literature search was performed, and recommendations were developed through discussions managed following a Quaker-based consensus technique and evaluating appropriateness using a modified blind RAND/UCLA voting method. The AGREE statement was followed to prepare this document. Results Of 100 suggested recommendations across 12 subgroups concerning hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill children, 72 reached “strong agreement,” 20 “weak agreement,” and 2 had “no agreement.” Six statements were considered as redundant after rephrasing of statements following the first round of voting. The agreed 72 recommendations were then coalesced into 36 detailing four key areas of hemodynamic monitoring in the main manuscript. Due to a lack of published evidence to develop evidence-based guidelines, most of the recommendations are based upon expert consensus. Conclusions These expert consensus-based recommendations may be used to guide clinical practice for hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill children, and they may serve as a basis for highlighting gaps in the knowledge base to guide further research in hemodynamic monitoring.

No abstract

There is an unacceptably poor agreement between UD and PRAM. We do not recommend the use of PRAM for measuring CO in critically ill children with the current algorithm.

Aspirin and Clopidogrel are used in prophylaxis of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Clopidogrel resistance has been attributed to P2Y1 and P2Y12 adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor polymorphisms. This study enrolled 100 patients of coronary artery disease (CAD) who were on the maintenance dose of clopidogrel (75 mg OD) with or without aspirin. In addition, 10 received loading dose (300 mg) prior to percutaneous coronary intervention. Relevant clinical and drug history were elicited. ADP-induced platelet aggregation study and PCR-RFLP for P2Y1 (1622A > G) and P2Y12 (i-T744C) polymorphisms were performed. Two groups of controls were used for defining cut-off for platelet aggregation response. Follow-up data, wherever available was recorded. The most common pattern of aggregation response was disaggregation, either complete (46.4%) or partial (53.6%). A frequency of 13% clopidogrel non-responders and 19% semi-responders was found. All the cases were H1/H1 haplotype for P2Y12 gene polymorphism and 28 (29.2%) patients carried P2Y1 1622A > G (21(21.9%) AG and 7(7.3%) GG) gene polymorphism, the frequency being greater in clopidogrel responders compared to semi/non-responders but difference was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference between responders and semi/non-responders in terms of the history of risk factor for CAD, concurrent atorvastatin use or past history of an acute vascular event. On follow up, the two patients who developed myocardial infarction/acute coronary syndromes (MI/ACS) were clopidogrel semi- and non-responder, respectively. Variability in clopidogrel response with 13% non-responders and 19% semi-responders was seen in this study with adverse outcome (MI/ACS) on follow up seen in two patients. Hence, poor response to clopidogrel may be related to increased likelihood of adverse long-term coronary event that may benefit from additional or alternative anti-platelet therapy. Clopidogrel resistance was not associated with ADP receptor P2Y1 and P2Y12 gene polymorphisms. Hence, it is postulated that clopidogrel resistance in CAD patients is multifactorial and not caused by single-gene polymorphisms.

Current paediatric predictors of volume response perform poorly; prediction may be improved if baseline contractility is taken into account.