Cargando…

Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective

BACKGROUND: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines have provided recommendations for the management of pediatric septic shock patients. We conducted a survey among the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) members to a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morin, Luc, Kneyber, Martin, Jansen, Nicolaas J. G., Peters, Mark J., Javouhey, Etienne, Nadel, Simon, Maclaren, Graeme, Schlapbach, Luregn Jan, Tissieres, Pierre
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31254125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0545-4
_version_ 1783430854267109376
author Morin, Luc
Kneyber, Martin
Jansen, Nicolaas J. G.
Peters, Mark J.
Javouhey, Etienne
Nadel, Simon
Maclaren, Graeme
Schlapbach, Luregn Jan
Tissieres, Pierre
author_facet Morin, Luc
Kneyber, Martin
Jansen, Nicolaas J. G.
Peters, Mark J.
Javouhey, Etienne
Nadel, Simon
Maclaren, Graeme
Schlapbach, Luregn Jan
Tissieres, Pierre
author_sort Morin, Luc
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines have provided recommendations for the management of pediatric septic shock patients. We conducted a survey among the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) members to assess variations to these recommendations. METHODS: A total of 114 pediatric intensive care physicians completed an electronic survey. The survey consisted of four standardized clinical cases exploring seven clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Among the seven different clinical scenarios, the types of fluids were preferentially non-synthetic colloids (albumin) and crystalloids (isotonic saline) and volume expansion was not limited to 60 ml/kg. Early intubation for mechanical ventilation was used by 70% of the participants. Norepinephrine was stated to be used in 94% of the PICU physicians surveyed, although dopamine or epinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressors in pediatric septic shock. When norepinephrine was used, the addition of another inotrope was frequent. Specific drugs such as vasopressin or enoximone were used in < 20%. Extracorporeal life support was used or considered by 91% of the physicians audited in certain specific situations, whereas the use of high-flow hemofiltration was considered for 44%. CONCLUSIONS: This pediatric septic shock management survey outlined variability in the current clinician-reported practice of pediatric septic shock management. As most recommendations are not supported by evidence, these findings outline some limitation of existing pediatric guidelines in regard to context and patient’s specificity. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-019-0545-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6598895
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65988952019-07-18 Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective Morin, Luc Kneyber, Martin Jansen, Nicolaas J. G. Peters, Mark J. Javouhey, Etienne Nadel, Simon Maclaren, Graeme Schlapbach, Luregn Jan Tissieres, Pierre Ann Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines have provided recommendations for the management of pediatric septic shock patients. We conducted a survey among the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) members to assess variations to these recommendations. METHODS: A total of 114 pediatric intensive care physicians completed an electronic survey. The survey consisted of four standardized clinical cases exploring seven clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Among the seven different clinical scenarios, the types of fluids were preferentially non-synthetic colloids (albumin) and crystalloids (isotonic saline) and volume expansion was not limited to 60 ml/kg. Early intubation for mechanical ventilation was used by 70% of the participants. Norepinephrine was stated to be used in 94% of the PICU physicians surveyed, although dopamine or epinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressors in pediatric septic shock. When norepinephrine was used, the addition of another inotrope was frequent. Specific drugs such as vasopressin or enoximone were used in < 20%. Extracorporeal life support was used or considered by 91% of the physicians audited in certain specific situations, whereas the use of high-flow hemofiltration was considered for 44%. CONCLUSIONS: This pediatric septic shock management survey outlined variability in the current clinician-reported practice of pediatric septic shock management. As most recommendations are not supported by evidence, these findings outline some limitation of existing pediatric guidelines in regard to context and patient’s specificity. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-019-0545-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2019-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6598895/ /pubmed/31254125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0545-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Morin, Luc
Kneyber, Martin
Jansen, Nicolaas J. G.
Peters, Mark J.
Javouhey, Etienne
Nadel, Simon
Maclaren, Graeme
Schlapbach, Luregn Jan
Tissieres, Pierre
Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective
title Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective
title_full Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective
title_fullStr Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective
title_full_unstemmed Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective
title_short Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective
title_sort translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an espnic perspective
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31254125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0545-4
work_keys_str_mv AT morinluc translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT kneybermartin translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT jansennicolaasjg translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT petersmarkj translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT javouheyetienne translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT nadelsimon translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT maclarengraeme translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT schlapbachluregnjan translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT tissierespierre translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective
AT translationalgapinpediatricsepticshockmanagementanespnicperspective