Search

Background and Objectives: Definitions for pediatric sepsis were established in 2005 without data-driven criteria. It is unknown whether the more recent adult Sepsis-3 definitions meet the needs of providers caring for children. We aimed to explore the use and applicability of criteria to diagnose sepsis and septic shock in children across the world., Methods: This is an international electronic survey of clinicians distributed across international and national societies representing pediatric intensive care, emergency medicine, pediatrics, and pediatric infectious diseases. Respondents stated their preferences on a 5-point Likert scale., Results: There were 2835 survey responses analyzed, of which 48% originated from upper-middle income countries, followed by high income countries (38%) and low or lower-middle income countries (14%). Abnormal vital signs, laboratory evidence of inflammation, and microbiologic diagnoses were the criteria most used for the diagnosis of "sepsis." The 2005 consensus definitions were perceived to be the most useful for sepsis recognition, while Sepsis-3 definitions were stated as more useful for benchmarking, disease classification, enrollment into trials, and prognostication. The World Health Organization definitions were perceived as least useful across all domains. Seventy one percent of respondents agreed that the term sepsis should be restricted to children with infection-associated organ dysfunction., Conclusions: Clinicians around the world apply a myriad of signs, symptoms, laboratory studies, and treatment factors when diagnosing sepsis. The concept of sepsis as infection with associated organ dysfunction is broadly supported. Currently available sepsis definitions fall short of the perceived needs. Future diagnostic algorithms should be pragmatic and sensitive to the clinical settings., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objective: To characterize sedation weaning patterns in typical practice settings among children recovering from critical illness. Design: A descriptive secondary analysis of data that were prospectively collected during the prerandomization phase (January to July 2009) of a clinical trial of sedation management. Setting: Twenty-two PICUs across the United States. Patients: The sample included 145 patients, aged 2 weeks to 17 years, mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure who received at least five consecutive days of opioid exposure. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Group comparisons were made between patients with an intermittent weaning pattern, defined as a 20% or greater increase in daily opioid dose after the start of weaning, and the remaining patients defined as having a steady weaning pattern. Demographic and clinical characteristics, tolerance to sedatives, and iatrogenic withdrawal symptoms were evaluated. Sixty-six patients (46%) were intermittently weaned; 79 patients were steadily weaned. Prior to weaning, intermittently weaned patients received higher peak and cumulative doses and longer exposures to opioids and benzodiazepines, demonstrated more sedative tolerance (58% vs 41%), and received more chloral hydrate and barbiturates compared with steadily weaned patients. During weaning, intermittently weaned patients assessed for withdrawal had a higher incidence of Withdrawal Assessment Tool-version 1 scores of greater than or equal to 3 (85% vs 46%) and received more sedative classes compared with steadily weaned patients. Conclusions: This study characterizes sedative administration practices for pediatric patients prior to and during weaning from sedation after critical illness. It provides a novel methodology for describing weaning in an at-risk pediatric population that may be helpful in future research on weaning strategies to prevent iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome.