Search

Sepsis is one of the most urgent health care issues worldwide. Guidelines for early identification and treatment are essential to decrease sepsis-related mortality. Our aim was to collect data on the epidemiology of pediatric septic shock (PSS) from the emergency department (PED) and to assess adherence to recommendations for its management in the first hour.A multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted evaluating children with PSS seen at the PED of 10 tertiary-care centers in Latin America. Adherence to guidelines was evaluated.We included 219 patients (median age, 3.7 years); 43% had comorbidities, 31% risk factors for developing sepsis, 74% clinical signs of "cold shock," and 13% of "warm shock," 22% had hypotension on admission. Consciousness was impaired in 55%. A peripheral line was used as initial access in 78% (median placement time, 10 minutes). Fluid and antibiotics infusion was achieved within a median time of 30 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 20-60 minutes) and 40 minutes (IQR, 20-60 minutes), respectively; 40% responded inadequately to fluids requiring vasoactive drugs (median time at initiation, 60 minutes; IQR, 30-135 minutes). Delay to vasoactive drug infusion was significantly longer when a central line was placed compared to a peripheral line (median time, 133 minutes [59-278 minutes] vs 42 minutes [30-70 minutes], respectively [ P0.001]). Adherence to all treatment goals was achieved in 13%. Mortality was 10%. An association between mortality and hypotension on admission was found (26.1% with hypotension vs 4.9% without; P0.001).We found poor adherence to the international recommendations for the treatment of PSS in the first hour at the PED in third-level hospitals in Latin America.Sepsis is one of the most urgent health care issues worldwide. Guidelines for early identification and treatment are essential to decrease sepsis-related mortality. Our aim was to collect data on the epidemiology of pediatric septic shock (PSS) from the emergency department (PED) and to assess adherence to recommendations for its management in the first hour.A multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted evaluating children with PSS seen at the PED of 10 tertiary-care centers in Latin America. Adherence to guidelines was evaluated.We included 219 patients (median age, 3.7 years); 43% had comorbidities, 31% risk factors for developing sepsis, 74% clinical signs of “cold shock,” and 13% of “warm shock,” 22% had hypotension on admission. Consciousness was impaired in 55%. A peripheral line was used as initial access in 78% (median placement time, 10 minutes). Fluid and antibiotics infusion was achieved within a median time of 30 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 20–60 minutes) and 40 minutes (IQR, 20–60 minutes), respectively; 40% responded inadequately to fluids requiring vasoactive drugs (median time at initiation, 60 minutes; IQR, 30–135 minutes). Delay to vasoactive drug infusion was significantly longer when a central line was placed compared to a peripheral line (median time, 133 minutes [59–278 minutes] vs 42 minutes [30–70 minutes], respectively [ P0.001]). Adherence to all treatment goals was achieved in 13%. Mortality was 10%. An association between mortality and hypotension on admission was found (26.1% with hypotension vs 4.9% without; P0.001).We found poor adherence to the international recommendations for the treatment of PSS in the first hour at the PED in third-level hospitals in Latin America.

Introduction. Status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency. Although mortality in children is low, morbidity may exceed 20%. Objective. To evaluate the management of status epilepticus by pediatricians who usually treat this condition. Population and methods. Descriptive, cross-sectional study based on a survey administered to physicians from 3 pediatric hospitals in the City of Buenos Aires. Results. A total of 292 surveys were administered (complete response rate as high as 86%); 77% were administered to pediatricians and 16% to intensive care specialists. Forty-seven percent of the participants reported that they administer the first dose of a benzodiazepine within the correct timeframe; 56% use intrarectal diazepam when intravenous access is not available; 95% choose lorazepam as the initial benzodiazepine if an intravenous line is available; 58% initiate the administration of a second-line drug within the correct timeframe; 84% administer phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line drug; and 33% do not measure treatment time. Overall adherence to international recommendations was 17%. Conclusions. Our study highlights poor adherence of pediatricians to international guidelines, particularly in time-dependent decisions. Greater heterogeneity was observed in treatment approaches as the treatment algorithm progressed.Introducción. El estado epiléptico constituye la emergencia neurológica más frecuente. Si bien la mortalidad en niños es baja, su morbilidad puede superar el 20 %. Objetivo. Conocer las pautas de manejo del estado epiléptico referidas por médicos pediatras que atienden esta patología en forma habitual. Población y métodos. Estudio descriptivo, transversal, basado en una encuesta a médicos de tres hospitales pediátricos monovalentes de gestión pública de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Resultados. Se administraron 292 encuestas (la tasa de respuesta completa alcanzó el 86 %); el 77 % se administró a pediatras y el 16 %, a especialistas en cuidados intensivos. Un 47 % de los participantes refiere indicar la primera benzodiacepina en el tiempo correcto; el 56 % utilizar diazepam intrarrectal en ausencia de un acceso intravenoso; el 95 % elige lorazepam como benzodiacepina inicial en caso de contar con acceso intravenoso; el 58 % refiere iniciar la etapa de fármacos de segunda línea en tiempo adecuado; el 84 % opta por fenitoína como fármaco inicial de segunda línea, un 33 % no cronometra el tiempo durante el tratamiento. La adherencia global a las recomendaciones internacionales fue del 17 %. Conclusiones. Nuestro estudio advierte una baja adherencia referida de los pediatras a las guías internacionales, en particular en las decisiones tiempo-dependientes. También se observó mayor heterogeneidad en las conductas terapéuticas a medida que se avanza en el algoritmo de tratamiento.

Objective Mortality in pediatric septic shock remains unacceptably high. Delays in vasopressor administration have been associated with an increased risk of mortality. Current treatment guidelines suggest the use of a peripheral vascular line (PVL) for inotropic administration in fluid-refractory septic shock when a central vascular line is not already in place. The aim of this study was to report local adverse effects associated with inotropic drug administration through a PVL at a pediatric emergency department setting in the first hour of treatment of septic shock. Methods A prospective, descriptive, observational cohort study of patients with septic shock requiring PVL inotropic administration was conducted at the pediatric emergency department of a tertiary care pediatric hospital. For the infusion and postplacement care of the PVL for vasoactive drugs, an institutional nursing protocol was used. Results We included 49 patients; 51% had an underlying disease. Eighty-four percent of the children included had a clinical "cold shock." The most frequently used vasoactive drug was epinephrine (72%). One patient presented with local complications. Conclusions At our center, infusion of vasoactive drugs through a PVL was shown to be safe and allowed for adherence to the current guidelines for pediatric septic shock.

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.

RESUMEN Objetivo: Analizar la evolución clínica de niños con shock séptico refractario a volumen tratados inicialmente con dopamina o adrenalina. Métodos: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo con ámbito en un servicio de urgencias pediátrico de un hospital de tercer nivel. Población: niños ingresados con shock séptico refractario a volumen. Se comparó la evolución clínica entre 2 grupos: Grupo Dopamina y Grupo Adrenalina. Las variables de interés fueron: uso de ventilación mecánica invasiva, días de inotrópicos, estancia hospitalaria, estancia en cuidados intensivos y mortalidad. Para variables numéricas y categóricas utilizamos medidas de tendencia central y para comparación las pruebas de U Mann Whitney y χ2 test. Resultados: Incluimos 118 pacientes. El 58,5% recibió dopamina y 41,5% adrenalina. El uso de ventilación mecánica invasiva fue 38,8% para adrenalina versus 40,6% para dopamina (p = 0,84) con una mediana de 4 días para adrenalina y 5,5 para dopamina (p = 0,104). La mediana para días de inotrópicos fue de 2 días para ambos grupos (p = 0,714). La mediana de estancia hospitalaria fue de 11 para adrenalina y 13 para dopamina (p = 0,554) y de estancia en cuidados intensivos se registró una mediana de 4 días (0 - 81 días) siendo igual en ambos grupos (p = 0,748). La mortalidad fue de 5% para el Grupo Adrenalina versus 9% para el Grupo Dopamina (p = 0,64). Conclusiones: En nuestro centro, no observamos diferencias en uso de ventilación mecánica invasiva y tiempo de inotrópicos, estancia hospitalaria y cuidados intensivos y mortalidad entre niños ingresados al servicio de urgencias pediátrico con diagnóstico de shock séptico refractario a volumen tratados inicialmente con dopamina o adrenalina. Abstract Objective: To analyze the clinical outcome of children with fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine or epinephrine. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a pediatric emergency department of a tertiary hospital. Population: children admitted because of fluid-refractory septic shock. Clinical outcome was compared between two groups: Dopamine and Epinephrine. Variables evaluated were use of invasive mechanical ventilation, days of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, intensive care stay, and mortality. For numerical and categorical variables, we used measures of central tendency. They were compared by the Mann-Whitney U-test and the (2 test. Results: We included 118 patients. A total of 58.5% received dopamine and 41.5% received epinephrine. The rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was 38.8% for epinephrine versus 40.6% for dopamine (p = 0.84), with a median of 4 days for the Epinephrine Group and 5.5 for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.104). Median time of inotropic therapy was 2 days for both groups (p = 0.714). Median hospital stay was 11 and 13 days for the Epinephrine and Dopamine groups, respectively (p = 0.554), and median stay in intensive care was 4 days (0 - 81 days) in both groups (p = 0.748). Mortality was 5% for the Epinephrine Group versus 9% for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.64). Conclusions: At our center, no differences in use of invasive mechanical ventilation, time of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, or mortality were observed in children admitted to the pediatric emergency department with a diagnosis of fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine versus epinephrine.

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.

To analyze the clinical outcome of children with fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine or epinephrine.A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a pediatric emergency department of a tertiary hospital. Population: children admitted because of fluid-refractory septic shock. Clinical outcome was compared between two groups: Dopamine and Epinephrine. Variables evaluated were use of invasive mechanical ventilation, days of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, intensive care stay, and mortality. For numerical and categorical variables, we used measures of central tendency. They were compared by the Mann-Whitney U-test and the (2 test.We included 118 patients. A total of 58.5% received dopamine and 41.5% received epinephrine. The rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was 38.8% for epinephrine versus 40.6% for dopamine (p = 0.84), with a median of 4 days for the Epinephrine Group and 5.5 for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.104). Median time of inotropic therapy was 2 days for both groups (p = 0.714). Median hospital stay was 11 and 13 days for the Epinephrine and Dopamine groups, respectively (p = 0.554), and median stay in intensive care was 4 days (0 - 81 days) in both groups (p = 0.748). Mortality was 5% for the Epinephrine Group versus 9% for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.64).At our center, no differences in use of invasive mechanical ventilation, time of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, or mortality were observed in children admitted to the pediatric emergency department with a diagnosis of fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine versus epinephrine.Analizar la evolución clínica de niños con shock séptico refractario a volumen tratados inicialmente con dopamina o adrenalina.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo con ámbito en un servicio de urgencias pediátrico de un hospital de tercer nivel. Población: niños ingresados con shock séptico refractario a volumen. Se comparó la evolución clínica entre 2 grupos: Grupo Dopamina y Grupo Adrenalina. Las variables de interés fueron: uso de ventilación mecánica invasiva, días de inotrópicos, estancia hospitalaria, estancia en cuidados intensivos y mortalidad. Para variables numéricas y categóricas utilizamos medidas de tendencia central y para comparación las pruebas de U Mann Whitney y χ2 test.Incluimos 118 pacientes. El 58,5% recibió dopamina y 41,5% adrenalina. El uso de ventilación mecánica invasiva fue 38,8% para adrenalina versus 40,6% para dopamina (p = 0,84) con una mediana de 4 días para adrenalina y 5,5 para dopamina (p = 0,104). La mediana para días de inotrópicos fue de 2 días para ambos grupos (p = 0,714). La mediana de estancia hospitalaria fue de 11 para adrenalina y 13 para dopamina (p = 0,554) y de estancia en cuidados intensivos se registró una mediana de 4 días (0 - 81 días) siendo igual en ambos grupos (p = 0,748). La mortalidad fue de 5% para el Grupo Adrenalina versus 9% para el Grupo Dopamina (p = 0,64).En nuestro centro, no observamos diferencias en uso de ventilación mecánica invasiva y tiempo de inotrópicos, estancia hospitalaria y cuidados intensivos y mortalidad entre niños ingresados al servicio de urgencias pediátrico con diagnóstico de shock séptico refractario a volumen tratados inicialmente con dopamina o adrenalina.

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.

The purpose of reporting this series of patients is to illustrate the role of ascorbic acid in the treatment of severe acquired methemoglobinemia (metHb), especially when methylene blue is not available. Medical records of affected patients were reviewed to collect history of exposures, food ingestion, physical examination, pulse oximetry, blood gas, and co-oximetry results, and outcomes. Five cases of acquired metHb are presented here, all of whom received treatment with ascorbic acid and fully recovered after 24 hours of treatment. Our series emphasizes that ascorbic acid is an effective alternative in the management of acquired metHb if methylene blue is unavailable and suggests that ascorbic acid infusion may be indicated in patients with glucose-6-phosphatase dehydrogenase deficiency.

Introducción: La anafilaxia es una emergencia. De acuerdo con las últimas recomendaciones internacionales el reconocimiento de los criterios clínicos y el tratamiento temprano con adrenalina intramuscular se asocian a mayor sobrevida. Objetivo: Determinar el conocimiento de los médicos pediatras de un Hospital Pediátrico de tercer nivel sobre los criterios diagnósticos y el tratamiento de la anafilaxia. Material y Método: Estudio descriptivo transversal que considera diseño, aplicación y validación de una encuesta anónima a médicos con residencia completa en pediatría que realizan guardias en un hospital de tercer nivel. Los ítems de la Encuesta comprendieron tres dimensiones, experiencia del operador (2 ítems), manejo farmacológico (3 ítems) e identificación del cuadro (4 ítems). El análisis estadístico utilizó el programa SPSS v.21, presentando medidas de tendencia central (mediana, rango y tabla de frecuencias) y para su comparación prueba de Chi cuadrado. Se consideró significativo un valor de p < 0,05. Resultados: Se encuestaron 71 médicos con una mediana de 3 años transcurridos desde el fin de la residencia. 35% identificó todos los criterios clínicos; 99% (70) indicó adrenalina, 73% por vía intramuscular y 55% a dosis correcta (solo el 48% contestó la dosis y vía correctamente). En forma global la adecuación para identificación más manejo correcto fue del 21%. Los médicos con menos de 5 años de experiencia tuvieron mejor desempeño en la administración de adrenalina intramuscular (83% vs 52% p = 0,005) y en la detección de síntomas gastrointestinales (60%vs35% p = 0,043). Conclusiones: Existen dificultades para la identificación y el manejo apropiado de la anafilaxia por pediatras de un Hospital de tercer nivel en un escenario teórico. Aunque la mayoría eligió la adrenalina como droga de primera línea, la mitad no la indicó de forma correcta y solo un tercio reconoció el cuadro en todos sus escenarios