Annals of Intensive Care (Jun 2019)

Translational gap in pediatric septic shock management: an ESPNIC perspective

  • Luc Morin,
  • Martin Kneyber,
  • Nicolaas J. G. Jansen,
  • Mark J. Peters,
  • Etienne Javouhey,
  • Simon Nadel,
  • Graeme Maclaren,
  • Luregn Jan Schlapbach,
  • Pierre Tissieres,
  • the ESPNIC Refractory Septic Shock Definition taskforce and the Infection, Systemic Inflammation and Sepsis ESPNIC section

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0545-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 1
pp. 1 – 6

Abstract

Read online

Abstract 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.