Search

Sepsis is a worldwide public health problem due to its high incidence and accompanying mortality, morbidity, and financial burden. It is a major cause of admission to paediatric intensive care units; despite advances in the diagnosis and treatment, both incidence and mortality are high in low-income and middle-income countries. There are several barriers in addressing the enormous burden of paediatric sepsis in these countries, which include: lack of data of incidence and mortality; unfamiliarity of sepsis by the lay public, leading to failure to seek care early, and by health professionals, leading to failure to treat emergently; and insufficient government funding for sepsis care programmes leading to inadequate staffing, material, and financial resources, and therefore, poor health systems. Socioeconomic inequalities, such as inequity and marked variation in income and education, high rates of malnutrition, high percentage of young population, and health systems that do not meet the population's demands also represent barriers in the care of children with sepsis in Latin America. In this Viewpoint, we draw attention to the problem of paediatric sepsis in Latin America and call for action to reduce the disease burden by proposing some solutions.

This article reviews the many factors that have to be taken into account as we consider the advancement of pediatric critical care (PCC) in multiple settings across the world. The extent of PCC and the range of patients who are cared for in this environment are considered. Along with a review of the ongoing treatment and technology advances in the PCC setting, the structures and systems required to support these services are also considered. Finally the question of how PCC can be made sustainable in a volatile world with the impacts of global crises such as climate change is addressed.

BackgroundIn this review, we discuss some important aspects of paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19 (PIMS-TS), a new syndrome that is temporally related to previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This virus has a broad spectrum of presentation that may overlap with Kawasaki disease in terms of presenting symptoms and laboratory and cardiac findings. Our objective was to review and summarise published evidence regarding the most important aspects of PIMS-TS, with special emphasis on the treatment strategies suggested for middle-income and low-income countries.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed in the principal medical databases including PubMed, Embase (OVID) and Google Scholar between December 2019 and August 2020.ResultsA total of 69 articles were identified in the described databases. Altogether, 13 articles met the inclusion criteria and were eligible. The most frequently described symptoms of PIMS-TS include fever (82%), shock (67%) and gastrointestinal (87%), skin (71%) and cardiac disorders (75%). In most series, it has been observed between 4 and 6 weeks after the pandemic appears in the general population. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children is presented as a great systemic inflammatory response syndrome, which sometimes presents as shock requiring fluid resuscitation and vasoactive drug support (26%). Several treatment strategies have been used, including immunoglobulin, steroids, aspirin, anakinra and anticoagulation among others. These general and specific interventions should be guided by an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary team, especially in settings with limited resources.ConclusionsPIMS-TS COVID-19 is a new type of presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an exaggerated inflammatory response and frequent—but not exclusive—digestive and myocardial involvement. It is important to describe the clinical course and outcomes in countries with limited resources as well as establish the role of biomarkers for early diagnosis, effective therapeutic strategies and outpatient follow-up schemes.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally related to COVID-19 in children and adolescents is a clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It shares some features with Kawasaki disease, toxic shock, sepsis, macrophage activation syndrome, and myocarditis. Few publications have addressed its initial management, which is similar to that proposed for septic shock. This review analyzes such approach based on the characteristics typical of multisystem inflammatory syndrome related to COVID-19 in accordance with the paradigm of an "institutional practice guideline" and suggests therapeutic approach strategies, including early detection, stabilization, referral, specific treatment, and process analysis.El síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico en niños y adolescentes temporalmente relacionado con COVID-19 es una presentación clínica de la infección por SARS-CoV-2. Comparte algunas características con la enfermedad de Kawasaki, el shock tóxico, la sepsis, el síndrome de activación macrofágica y la miocarditis. Son escasas las publicaciones que abordan su manejo inicial, que tiene semejanzas con el propuesto para el shock séptico. Esta revisión analiza dicho abordaje basado en las características propias del síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico relacionado con COVID-19, de acuerdo con el paradigma de construcción de una “guía de práctica institucional”, y sugiere estrategias de aproximación terapéutica, que incluyen detección temprana, estabilización, referencia, tratamiento específico y análisis de procesos.

Las Guías Internacionales de la Campaña Sobreviviendo a la Sepsis para el Manejo del Shock Séptico y la Disfunción de Órganos Asociada a la Sepsis en Niños, fueron publicadas en 2020 y están desti- nadas a ser utilizadas en todos los lugares que atienden a niños. Sin embargo, los profesionales que atienden a los niños con sepsis en entornos con recursos limitados se enfrentan a una serie de desafíos y perfiles de enfermedad distintos a los que se encuentran en entornos ricos en recursos. Basándonos en nuestra experiencia colectiva en entornos con recursos limitados, nos propusimos reflexionar so- bre las dificultades de aplicar las directrices internacionales. Creemos que hay una necesidad urgente de más evidencia de entornos con recursos limitados en enfoques factibles y eficaces para el trata- miento de la sepsis y el shock séptico que podrían incluirse en las futuras directrices para situaciones y contextos específicos.

Severe sepsis (SS) is one of the leading causes of pediatric mortality in Argentina. The objective was to describe the epidemiological characteristics and to analyze risk factors associated with mortality from SS among patients hospitalized in pediatric intensive care units (PICU) in Argentina.Observational, prospective cohort study among patients with SS hospitalized in PICUs in Argentina from 8/1/2008 to 9/30/2008.Two thousand five hundred and fifty nine patients were admitted at 59 PICUs. A total of 315 patients (335 events) were included. Patients' median age was 8 months (1-182). The frequency was 13.8 %, and 28-day mortality was 31.6 %. Patients with a higher mortality were those who were coming from rural areas, had comorbidities at the time of admission or a history of cancer, had shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), were administered low-dose corticosteroids or vasoactive drugs or more than 60 ml/kg of fluid in the first hour and in the first 6hours, and had severe malnutrition. Following adjustment by severity using a multivariate logistic regression model, only coming from a rural area, having shock or ARDS remained associated with 28-day mortality. Forty per cent of patients received antibiotics 60 minutes after diagnosis.SS is an event with a high frequency and mortality in Argentina. In the severity adjusted multivariate analysis, only coming from a rural area, having ARDS and/or shock were associated with higher mortality.Introducción. La sepsis grave (SG) es una de las principales causas de mortalidad pediátrica en Argentina. El objetivo fue describir las características epidemiológicas y analizar los factores asociados a la mortalidad de la SG en pacientes internados en unidades de cuidados intensivos pediátricos (UCIP) de Argentina. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio observacional, de cohorte prospectiva en pacientes con SG internados en UCIP de Argentina del 1/8/2008 al 30/9/2008. Resultados. En 59 UCIP, ingresaron 2559 pacientes. Se incluyeron 315 pacientes, que tuvieron 335 eventos. La mediana de edad fue 8 meses (1-182). La frecuencia fue del 13,8 % y la mortalidad a los 28 días, del 31,6 %. Tuvieron mayor mortalidad quienes procedían del ámbito rural, presentaban una comorbilidad al ingresar o antecedentes oncológicos, tenían shock o síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA), recibieron corticoides en bajas dosis o drogas vasoactivas o más de 60 ml/kg de fluidos en la primera hora y en las 6 primeras horas, y los desnutridos graves. Al ajustarse por gravedad en un modelo de regresión logística multivariado, solo mantuvieron la asociación con mortalidad a los 28 días el provenir del ámbito rural, tener shock o SDRA. El 40 % de los pacientes recibieron antibióticos después de los 60 minutos del diagnóstico. Conclusiones. La SG es un evento de elevada frecuencia y mortalidad en Argentina. En el análisis multivariado ajustado por gravedad, solo provenir del área rural, la presencia de SDRA y/o de shock se asociaron a mayor mortalidad.

OBJECTIVE Guidelines adherence in emergency departments (EDs) relies partly on the availability of resources to improve sepsis care and outcomes. Our objective was to assess the management of pediatric septic shock (PSS) in Latin America's EDs and to determine the impact of treatment coordinated by a pediatric emergency specialist (PEMS) versus nonpediatric emergency specialists (NPEMS) on guidelines adherence. METHODS Prospective, descriptive, and multicenter study using an electronic survey administered to PEMS and NPEMS who treat PSS in EDs in 14 Latin American countries. RESULTS We distributed 2164 surveys with a response rate of 41.5%, of which 22.5% were PEMS. Overall American College of Critical Care Medicine reported guidelines adherence was as follows: vascular access obtained in 5 minutes, 76%; fluid infusion technique, 60%; administering 40 to 60 mL/kg within 30 minutes, 32%; inotropic infusion by peripheral route, 61%; dopamine or epinephrine in cold shock, 80%; norepinephrine in warm shock, 57%; and antibiotics within 60 minutes, 82%. Between PEMS and NPEMS, the following differences were found: vascular access in 5 minutes, 87.1% versus 72.7% (P < 0.01); fluid infusion technique, 72.3% versus 55.9% (P < 0.01); administering 40 to 60 mL/kg within 30 minutes, 42% versus 29% (P < 0.01); inotropic infusion by peripheral route, 75.7% versus 56.3% (P < 0.01); dopamine or epinephrine in cold shock, 87.1% versus 77.3% (P < 0.05); norepinephrine in warm shock, 67.8% versus 54% (P < 0.01); and antibiotic administration within first 60 minutes, 90.1% versus 79.3% (P < 0.01), respectively. Good adherence criteria were followed by 24%. The main referred barrier for sepsis care was a failure in its recognition, including the lack of triage tools. CONCLUSIONS In some Latin American countries, there is variability in self-reported adherence to the evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of PSS during the first hour. The coordination by PEMS support greater adherence to these recommendations.

In the past two years, different organizations have updated their clinical practice guidelines for hemodynamic support in pediatric septic shock. The studies conducted in adults have questioned the initial management of sepsis in accordance to protocols based on achieving various goals. However, the usefulness of these protocols in children has been demonstrated. The possibility of adhering to guidelines may vary depending on patients and facilities, so it is necessary to update the general aspects of initial care for children with sepsis. The proposal is to shift the paradigm from an "individual practice guideline," which is universal for all, to an "institutional practice guideline" and to assess the factors that should be improved at each facility. This manuscript is divided into two parts. The first part analyzes the bundles for the early detection of septic shock. Part two addresses treatment, stabilization, referral, and process analysis.En los últimos dos años, diferentes entidades han actualizado las guías de práctica clínica para el soporte hemodinámico en el shock séptico pediátrico. Estudios en adultos han cuestionado el manejo inicial de la sepsis siguiendo protocolos basados en lograr diversas metas. Sin embargo, en niños, la utilidad de estos protocolos ha sido demostrada. Las posibilidades de cumplir las guías pueden diferir entre pacientes e instituciones, por lo que es necesario actualizar los aspectos generales de atención inicial del niño con sepsis. Se propone analizar el cambio de paradigma de "guía de práctica individual", universal para todos, hacia uno de "práctica institucional" y evaluar los factores por mejorar en cada institución. Se divide el manuscrito en dos secciones. La primera analiza los paquetes para la detección temprana de la entidad. La segunda aborda el tratamiento, la estabilización, la referencia y el análisis de procesos.

In 2016, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of pediatric septic shock. In 2017, the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) updated its recommendations for hemodynamic support of pediatric shock. Recognizing septic shock is critical, as well as an optimal, time-sensitive treatment. An adequate consultation with a pediatric specialist and/or a timely referral to a facility with a higher level of care are also critical for an appropriate outcome in the management of this condition. Here we analyze the bundles used in the management of these patients, which are essential to improve the quality of care.En 2016, la Campaña Sobrevivir a la Sepsis y el Instituto Nacional de Salud y Cuidados de Excelencia del Reino Unido (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE) elaboraron guías de práctica clínica para el manejo del shock séptico pediátrico. En 2017, el Colegio Americano de Medicina de Cuidados Críticos (ACCM) actualizó sus recomendaciones para el soporte hemodinámico del shock en niños. El reconocimiento de la entidad es esencial, así como un tratamiento óptimo sensible al tiempo de aplicación. La consulta adecuada con un especialista en pediatría y/o la referencia en tiempo y forma a una unidad de mayor complejidad también son esenciales para un resultado adecuado en el manejo de la entidad. Se analizan los paquetes de medidas intervinientes en el manejo de pacientes, fundamentales para mejorar su calidad de atención.

Describe modes of death and factors involved in decision-making together with life support limitation (LSL) procedures.Prospective, descriptive, longitudinal, and noninterventional study.Sixteen pediatric intensive care units in Argentina.Every patient who died during a 1-yr period was included.Age, sex, length of stay (LOS), primary and admission diagnosis, underlying chronic disease (CD), postoperative condition (PO). Deaths were classified in four groups: a) failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); b) do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status; c) withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WH/WD); and d) brain death (BD). Justifications were classified as a) imminent death; b) poor long-term prognosis; c) poor quality of life; and d) family request. Data were collected from medical records and interviews with the attending physicians. Descriptive statistics were performed. Differences among groups were analyzed through contingency tables and analysis of variance when required. Relative risks and confidence intervals of variables potentially related to LSL were analyzed, and logistic regression was performed. There were 6358 admissions and 457 deaths. CPR was performed in 52%, DNR in 16%, WH/WD in 20%, and BD in 11% of dead patients. BD patients were older, LOS and CD prevalence were higher in the WH/WD group. Inotropic drugs were the most frequently limited treatment in 110 patients (55%), CPR in 72 (35.6%), and mechanical ventilation in 63 (31%). Imminent death was the most frequently reported justification for LSL. CD and more staff were associated with a higher probability of LSL.Most of the patients in Argentina underwent CPR before their death. We have a high proportion of patients with CD (65%) and low BD diagnosis. PO condition decreased LSL probability in chronically ill patients. Do-not-resuscitate orders and withholding new treatments were the most common LSL. Active withdrawal was exceptional. The Ethics Committee was consulted in 5% of the LSL population.