Manejo del estado epiléptico en niños: encuesta en hospitales pediátricos de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires / Management of status epilepticus in childhood: a survey conducted at pediatric hospitals in the City of Buenos Aires

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.

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 access 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.

Point-of-Care Noninvasive Technology for Pediatric Dehydration Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Dehydration is a commonly encountered problem worldwide. Current clinical assessment is limited by subjectivity and limited provider training with children. The objective of this study is to investigate a new noninvasive, point-of-care technology that measures capillary refill combined with patient factors to accurately diagnose dehydration. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study at a tertiary care children's hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Patients were eligible if younger than 10 years who presented to the emergency department with vomiting and/or diarrhea whom the triage nurse deems to be potentially dehydrated. Patients had the digital capillary refill device done on presentation in addition to standard of care vital signs and weight. Patients had serial weights measured on hospital scales throughout their stay. The primary outcome was dehydration, which was calculated as a percent change in weight from admission to discharge. RESULTS: Seventy-six children were enrolled in the study with 56 included in the final analysis. A stepwise forward method selection chose malnutrition, temperature, and systolic blood pressure for the multivariable model. The area under the curve for the final model was fair (0.7431). To further look into the utility of such a device in the home setting where blood pressure is not available often, we reran the model without systolic blood pressure. The area under the curve for the final model was 0.7269. CONCLUSIONS: The digital capillary refill point-of-care device combined with readily available patient-specific factors may improve the ability to detect pediatric dehydration and facilitate earlier treatment or transfer to higher levels of care.

Management of status epilepticus in childhood: a survey conducted at pediatric hospitals in the City of Buenos Aires. / Manejo del estado epiléptico en niños: encuesta en hospitales pediátricos de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires.

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.

Adherence to Pediatric Sepsis Treatment Recommendations at Emergency Departments: A Multicenter Study in Latin America.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 [ P < 0.001]). 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; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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], 20­60 minutes) and 40 minutes (IQR, 20­60 minutes), respectively; 40% responded inadequately to fluids requiring vasoactive drugs (median time at initiation, 60 minutes; IQR, 30­135 minutes). Delay to vasoactive drug infusion was significantly longer when a central line was placed compared to a peripheral line (median time, 133 minutes [59­278 minutes] vs 42 minutes [30­70 minutes], respectively [ P < 0.001]). 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; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Use of Inotropics by Peripheral Vascular Line in the First Hour of Treatment of Pediatric Septic Shock: Experience at an Emergency Department.

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.

Consenso sobre el tratamiento del síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico asociado a COVID-19 / Consensus on treatment of multisystemic inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19

La pandemia ocasionada por el nuevo coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), declarada por la Organización Mundial de la Salud OMS) en marzo de 2020, afecta a un reducido número de pacientes pediátricos, quienes presentan, en su mayoría, compromiso respiratorio leve y evolución favorable. Sin embargo, en niños previamente sanos, comenzó a observarse un aumento de casos definidos como síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico (SIM-C) o similar a Kawasaki (Kawasaki-like) asociado a la enfermedad por el nuevo coronavirus (COVID-19) (KL-C) que evolucionan al shock y requieren internación en la unidad de cuidados intensivos.Los cuadros de SIM-C y los KL-C se caracterizan por fiebre, signos de inflamación, síntomas gastrointestinales y disfunción cardiovascular; las formas graves de presentación tienen mayor incidencia de hipotensión y/o shock. En el laboratorio se observan marcadores de inflamación, hipercoagulabilidad y daño miocárdico. El tratamiento farmacológico de primera línea consiste en la administración de inmunoglobulina por vía intravenosa más ácido acetilsalicílico por vía oral.Se recomienda un abordaje multidisciplinario para un diagnóstico certero y un tratamiento temprano y eficaz para disminuir la morbimortalidad.

The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus declared by the WHO in March 11th 2020, affects a small number of pediatric patients, who mostly present mild respiratory compromise and favorable evolution.However began to be observed in previously healthy children, an increase in cases defined as "Multisystemic Inflammatory Syndrome" (MIS-C) or "Kawasaki-like" post-COVID 19 (KL-C) that evolve to shock and require hospitalization in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.MIS-C and KL-C are characterized by fever; signs of inflammation, gastrointestinal symptoms, and cardiovascular dysfunction, associated with sever forms of presentation with higher incidence of hypotension and/or shock. In the laboratory, markers of inflammation, hypercoagulability and myocardial damage are observed. First-line drug treatment consists of intravenous immunoglobulin plus oral acetylsalicylic acid.A multidisciplinary approach is recommended for an accurate diagnosis and an early and effective treatment, in order to reduce morbidity and mortality.

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN): A decade of global research cooperation in paediatric emergency care.

OBJECTIVES: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in paediatric emergency care to organise globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks. METHODS: PERN has grown from five to eight member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children. RESULTS: Beginning as a pandemic response studying H1N1 influenza risk factors in children, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomised controlled trials (RCTs). As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Following its success with developing global research, the PERN goal now is to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice by: (i) expanding the capacity for global RCTs; (ii) deepening the focus on implementation science; (iii) increasing attention to healthcare disparities; and (iv) expanding PERN's reach into resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN aims to meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world.

[Consensus on treatment of multisystemic inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19]. / Consenso sobre el tratamiento del síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico asociado a COVID-19.

The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus declared by the WHO in March 11th 2020, affects a small number of pediatric patients, who mostly present mild respiratory compromise and favorable evolution. However began to be observed in previously healthy children, an increase in cases defined as "Multisystemic Inflammatory Syndrome" (MIS-C) or "Kawasaki-like" post-COVID 19 (KLC) that evolve to shock and require hospitalization in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. MIS-C and KL-C are characterized by fever; signs of inflammation, gastrointestinal symptoms, and cardiovascular dysfunction, associated with sever forms of presentation with higher incidence of hypotension and/or shock. In the laboratory, markers of inflammation, hypercoagulability and myocardial damage are observed. Firstline drug treatment consists of intravenous immunoglobulin plus oral acetylsalicylic acid. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended for an accurate diagnosis and an early and effective treatment, in order to reduce morbidity and mortality.

La pandemia ocasionada por el nuevo coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), declarada por la Organización Mundial de la Salud OMS) en marzo de 2020, afecta a un reducido número de pacientes pediátricos, quienes presentan, en su mayoría, compromiso respiratorio leve y evolución favorable. Sin embargo, en niños previamente sanos, comenzó a observarse un aumento de casos definidos como síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico (SIM-C) o similar a Kawasaki (Kawasaki-like) asociado a la enfermedad por el nuevo coronavirus (COVID-19) (KL-C) que evolucionan al shock y requieren internación en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Los cuadros de SIM-C y los KL-C se caracterizan por fiebre, signos de inflamación, síntomas gastrointestinales y disfunción cardiovascular; las formas graves de presentación tienen mayor incidencia de hipotensión y/o shock. En el laboratorio se observan marcadores de inflamación, hipercoagulabilidad y daño miocárdico. El tratamiento farmacológico de primera línea consiste en la administración de inmunoglobulina por vía intravenosa más ácido acetilsalicílico por vía oral. Se recomienda un abordaje multidisciplinario para un diagnóstico certero y un tratamiento temprano y eficaz para disminuir la morbimortalidad.

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network: A Decade of Global Research Cooperation in Pediatric Emergency Care.

OBJECTIVES: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in pediatric emergency care to organize globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks. METHODS: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network has grown from 5- to 8-member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed, and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children. RESULTS: Beginning as a pandemic response with a high-quality retrospective case-controlled study of H1N1 influenza risk factors, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomized controlled trials. As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In light of the ongoing need for translation of research knowledge into equitable clinical practice and to promote health equity, PERN is committed to a coordinated international effort to increase the uptake of evidence-based management of common and treatable acute conditions in all emergency department settings. CONCLUSIONS: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network's successes with global research, measured by prospective observational and interventional studies, mean that the network can now move to improve its ability to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice. Achieving this goal will involve focus in 4 areas: (1) expanding the capacity for global randomized controlled trials; (2) deepening the focus on implementation science; (3) increasing attention to healthcare disparities and their origins, with growing momentum toward equity; and (4) expanding PERN's global reach through addition of sites and networks from resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN will be able to build on successes to face the challenges ahead and meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world.

Exposure and confidence across critical airway procedures in pediatric emergency medicine: An international survey study.

BACKGROUND: Airway management procedures are critical for emergency medicine (EM) physicians, but rarely performed skills in pediatric patients. Worldwide experience with respect to frequency and confidence in performing airway management skills has not been previously described. OBJECTIVES: Our aims were 1) to determine the frequency with which emergency medicine physicians perform airway procedures including: bag-mask ventilation (BMV), endotracheal intubation (ETI), laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion, tracheostomy tube change (TTC), and surgical airways, and 2) to investigate predictors of procedural confidence regarding advanced airway management in children. METHODS: A web-based survey of senior emergency physicians was distributed through the six research networks associated with Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN). Senior physician was defined as anyone working without direct supervision at any point in a 24-h cycle. Physicians were queried regarding their most recent clinical experience performing or supervising airway procedures, as well as with hands on practice time or procedural teaching. Reponses were dichotomized to within the last year, or ≥ 1 year. Confidence was assessed using a Likert scale for each procedure, with results for ETI and LMA stratified by age. Response levels were dichotomized to "not confident" or "confident." Multivariate regression models were used to assess relevant associations. RESULTS: 1602 of 2446 (65%) eligible clinicians at 96 PERN sites responded. In the previous year, 1297 (85%) physicians reported having performed bag-mask ventilation, 900 (59%) had performed intubation, 248 (17%) had placed a laryngeal mask airway, 348 (23%) had changed a tracheostomy tube, and 18 (1%) had performed a surgical airway. Of respondents, 13% of physicians reported the opportunity to supervise but not provide ETI, 5% for LMA and 5% for BMV. The percentage of physicians reporting "confidence" in performing each procedure was: BMV (95%) TTC (43%), and surgical airway (16%). Clinician confidence in ETT and LMA varied by patient age. Supervision of an airway procedure was the strongest predictor of procedural confidence across airway procedures. CONCLUSION: BMV and ETI were the most commonly performed pediatric airway procedures by emergency medicine physicians, and surgical airways are very infrequent. Supervising airway procedures may serve to maintain procedural confidence for physicians despite infrequent opportunities as the primary proceduralist.

Exposure and Confidence With Critical Nonairway Procedures: A Global Survey of Pediatric Emergency Medicine Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Children rarely experience critical illness, resulting in low exposure of emergency physicians (EPs) to critical procedures. Our primary objective was to describe senior EP confidence, most recent performance, and/or supervision of critical nonairway procedures. Secondary objectives were to compare responses between those who work exclusively in PEM and those who do not and to determine whether confidence changed for selected procedures according to increasing patient age. METHODS: Survey of senior EPs working in 96 emergency departments (EDs) affiliated with the Pediatric Emergency Research Networks. Questions assessed training, performance, supervision, and confidence in 11 nonairway critical procedures, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), vascular access, chest decompression, and cardiac procedures. RESULTS: Of 2446 physicians, 1503 (61%) responded to the survey. Within the previous year, only CPR and insertion of an intraosseous needle had been performed by at least 50% of respondents: over 20% had performed defibrillation/direct current cardioversion. More than 50% of respondents had never performed or supervised ED thoracotomy, pericardiocentesis, venous cutdown, or transcutaneous pacing. Self-reported confidence was high for all patient age groups for CPR, needle thoracocentesis, tube thoracostomy, intraosseous needle insertion, and defibrillation/DC cardioversion. Confidence levels increased with increasing patient age for central venous and arterial line insertion. Respondents working exclusively in PEM were more likely to report being at least somewhat confident in defibrillation/DC cardioversion, intraosseous needle insertion, and central venous line insertion in particular age groups; however, they were less likely to be at least somewhat confident in ED thoracotomy and transcutaneous pacing. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intraosseous needle insertion were the only critical nonairway procedures performed by at least half of EPs within the previous year. Confidence was higher for these procedures, and needle and tube thoracostomy. These data may inform the development of continuing medical education activities to maintain pediatric procedural skills for emergency physicians.

How Are Clinicians Treating Children With Sepsis in Emergency Departments in Latin America?: An International Multicenter Survey.

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.

Recomendaciones para el manejo inicial del síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico relacionado temporalmente con COVID-19, en niños y adolescentes / Recommendations for the initial management of multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally related to COVID-19, in children and adolescents

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 proceso

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.

Evolución clínica de niños con shock séptico refractario a fluidos tratados con dopamina o adrenalina. Estudio retrospectivo en un servicio de emergencias pediátrico de Argentina / Clinical outcome of children with fluid-refractory septic shock treated with dopamine or epinephrine. A retrospective study at a pediatric emergency department in Argentina

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.

Recommendations for the initial management of multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally related to COVID-19, in children and adolescents. / Recomendaciones para el manejo inicial del síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico relacionado temporalmente con COVID-19, en niños y adolescentes.

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.

Clinical outcome of children with fluid-refractory septic shock treated with dopamine or epinephrine. A retrospective study at a pediatric emergency department in Argentina. / Evolución clínica de niños con shock séptico refractario a fluidos tratados con dopamina o adrenalina. Estudio retrospectivo en un servicio de emergencias pediátrico de Argentina.

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.

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.

Detection and management of Anaphylaxis in children. / Reconocimiento y manejo de la Anafilaxia en pediatría.

INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is an emergency condition. According to the latest international guide lines, early recognition and treatment with intramuscular epinephrine are associated with increased survival. OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of knowledge of pediatricians in a tertiary Pediatric Hos pital about the diagnostic criteria and treatment of anaphylaxis. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sec tional descriptive study was conducted, designing, applying, and validating an anonymous survey to physicians with complete residency in pediatrics who are on call at a third level hospital. The statisti cal analysis was made using the SPSS v.21 software, presenting measures of central tendency (median, range, and frequency table) and Chi-square test for comparison. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 71 physicians completed the survey with a median of three years after the end of residency.35% of them identified all clinical criteria, 99% (70) indicated epinephrine, 73% chose the intramuscular route, and 55% indicated the correct dose. Only 48% of responders chose the dose and administration route correctly. In general, 21% recognized anaphylaxis and used epinephrine correctly. Physicians with less than five years of experience performed better in the intramuscular administration of epinephrine (83% vs 52% p = 0.005) and in the detection of gastrointestinal symp toms (60% vs 35% p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: There are difficulties in the identification and proper management of anaphylaxis by pediatricians of a tertiary Pediatric Hospital in a theoretical clinical setting. Although most of pediatricians chose epinephrine as a first-line drug, half of them did not indicate it correctly, and only one-third recognized anaphylaxis in all scenarios.

Recommendations for the management of pediatric septic shock in the first hour (part one). / Recomendaciones para el manejo del shock séptico en niños durante la primera hora (primera parte).

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.

[Recommendations for the management of pediatric septic shock in the first hour (part two)]. / Recomendaciones para el manejo del shock séptico en niños durante la primera hora (segunda parte).

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.