Search

Purpose Data on childhood intensive care unit (ICU) deaths are needed to identify changing patterns of intensive care resource utilization. We sought to determine the epidemiology and mode of pediatric ICU deaths in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). Methods This was a retrospective, descriptive study of multicenter data from pediatric and mixed ICUs reported to the ANZ Pediatric Intensive Care Registry and binational Government census. All patients < 16 years admitted to an ICU between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2016 were included. Primary outcome was ICU mortality. Subject characteristics and trends over time were evaluated. Results Of 103,367 ICU admissions, there were 2672 (2.6%) deaths, with 87.6% of deaths occurring in specialized pediatric ICUs. The proportion of ANZ childhood deaths occurring in ICU was 12%, increasing by 43% over the study period. Unadjusted (0.1% per year, 95% CI 0.096-0.104; p < 0.001) and risk-adjusted (0.1%/year, 95% CI 0.07-0.13; p < 0.001) ICU mortality rates fell. Across all admission sources and diagnostic groups, mortality declined except following pre-ICU cardiopulmonary arrest where increased mortality was observed. Half of the deaths followed withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (51%), remaining constant throughout the study. Deaths despite maximal resuscitation declined (0.92%/year, 95% CI 0.89-0.95%; p < 0.001) and brain death diagnoses increased (0.72%/year, 95% CI 0.69-0.75%; p = 0.001). Conclusions Unadjusted and risk-adjusted mortality for children admitted to ANZ ICUs is declining. Half of pediatric ICU deaths follow withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Epidemiology and mode of pediatric ICU death are changing. Further investigation at an international level will inform benchmarking, resource allocation and training requirements for pediatric critical care., Author(s): Katie M. Moynihan [sup.1] [sup.2] [sup.3] [sup.4], Peta M. A. Alexander [sup.1] [sup.2], Luregn J. Schlapbach [sup.3] [sup.4] [sup.5], Johnny Millar [sup.6], Stephen Jacobe [sup.7], Hari Ravindranathan [sup.8], Elizabeth [...]

OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this work was to compare the efficacy of propofol, a hypnotic agent, to the regimen of morphine, atropine, and suxamethonium as an induction agent for nonemergency neonatal endotracheal intubation. We hypothesized that propofol aids intubation by allowing the continuation of spontaneous breathing. PATIENTS AND METHODS. We conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled trial of infants who required nonemergency endotracheal intubation. Primary outcome was successful intubation confirmed by chest auscultation and clinical examination of the infant. RESULTS. Infants randomly assigned to propofol (n = 33) and the morphine, atropine, and suxamethonium regimen (n = 30) were comparable in median gestational age (27 vs 28 weeks), birth weight (1020 vs 1095 g), weight at intubation (1068 vs 1275 g), and age at intubation (4 vs 3 days). Sleep or muscle relaxation were achieved within 60 seconds in both groups, but time to achieve successful intubation was more than twice as fast with propofol (120 vs 260 seconds). Blood pressure and heart rates were not different, but intraprocedural oxygen saturations were significantly lower in infants on the morphine, atropine, and suxamethonium regimen (trough arterial oxygen saturation: 60% vs 80%). Nasal/ oral trauma was less common, and recovery time was shorter (780 vs 1425 seconds) in the propofol group. No significant adverse effects were seen in either group. CONCLUSIONS. Propofol is more effective than the morphine, atropine, and suxamethonium regimen as an induction agent to facilitate neonatal nasal endotracheal intubation. Importantly, hypoxemia was less severe, probably because of the maintenance of spontaneous breathing. A controlled environment may have promoted the ease of intubation, resulting in less trauma. The shorter duration of action would be advantageous in a compromised infant. KEYWORDS. propofol, endotracheal intubation, suxamethonium, neonatal, randomized control trial. PEDIATRICS 2007;119:e1248-e1255. URL: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2006-2708