Delays to Antibiotics in the Emergency Department and Risk of Mortality in Children With Sepsis.

Importance: Pediatric consensus guidelines recommend antibiotic administration within 1 hour for septic shock and within 3 hours for sepsis without shock. Limited studies exist identifying a specific time past which delays in antibiotic administration are associated with worse outcomes. Objective: To determine a time point for antibiotic administration that is associated with increased risk of mortality among pediatric patients with sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from 51 US children's hospitals in the Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes collaborative. Participants included patients aged 29 days to less than 18 years with sepsis recognized within 1 hour of emergency department arrival, from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. Piecewise regression was used to identify the inflection point for sepsis-attributable 3-day mortality, and logistic regression was used to evaluate odds of sepsis-attributable mortality after adjustment for potential confounders. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to February 2024. Exposure: The number of minutes from emergency department arrival to antibiotic administration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sepsis-attributable 3-day mortality. Sepsis-attributable 30-day mortality was a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 19 515 cases (median [IQR] age, 6 [2-12] years) were included. The median (IQR) time to antibiotic administration was 69 (47-116) minutes. The estimated time to antibiotic administration at which 3-day sepsis-attributable mortality increased was 330 minutes. Patients who received an antibiotic in less than 330 minutes (19 164 patients) had sepsis-attributable 3-day mortality of 0.5% (93 patients) and 30-day mortality of 0.9% (163 patients). Patients who received antibiotics at 330 minutes or later (351 patients) had 3-day sepsis-attributable mortality of 1.2% (4 patients), 30-day mortality of 2.0% (7 patients), and increased adjusted odds of mortality at both 3 days (odds ratio, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.20-9.93; P = .02) and 30 days (odds ratio, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.59-8.30; P = .002) compared with those who received antibiotics within 330 minutes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of pediatric patients with sepsis, 3-day and 30-day sepsis-attributable mortality increased with delays in antibiotic administration 330 minutes or longer from emergency department arrival. These findings are consistent with the literature demonstrating increased pediatric sepsis mortality associated with antibiotic administration delay. To guide the balance of appropriate resource allocation with time for adequate diagnostic evaluation, further research is needed into whether there are subpopulations, such as those with shock or bacteremia, that may benefit from earlier antibiotics.

Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN: A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS: The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS: The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-Associated Organ Dysfunction in Children.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN: A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS: The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS: The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.