A Core Outcome Measurement Set for Pediatric Critical Care.

OBJECTIVES: To identify a PICU Core Outcome Measurement Set (PICU COMS), a set of measures that can be used to evaluate the PICU Core Outcome Set (PICU COS) domains in PICU patients and their families. DESIGN: A modified Delphi consensus process. SETTING: Four webinars attended by PICU physicians and nurses, pediatric surgeons, rehabilitation physicians, and scientists with expertise in PICU clinical care or research ( n = 35). Attendees were from eight countries and convened from the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators Pediatric Outcomes STudies after PICU Investigators and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network PICU COS Investigators. SUBJECTS: Measures to assess outcome domains of the PICU COS are as follows: cognitive, emotional, overall (including health-related quality of life), physical, and family health. Measures evaluating social health were also considered. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measures were classified as general or additional based on generalizability across PICU populations, feasibility, and relevance to specific COS domains. Measures with high consensus, defined as 80% agreement for inclusion, were selected for the PICU COMS. Among 140 candidate measures, 24 were delineated as general (broadly applicable) and, of these, 10 achieved consensus for inclusion in the COMS (7 patient-oriented and 3 family-oriented). Six of the seven patient measures were applicable to the broadest range of patients, diagnoses, and developmental abilities. All were validated in pediatric populations and have normative pediatric data. Twenty additional measures focusing on specific populations or in-depth evaluation of a COS subdomain also met consensus for inclusion as COMS additional measures. CONCLUSIONS: The PICU COMS delineates measures to evaluate domains in the PICU COS and facilitates comparability across future research studies to characterize PICU survivorship and enable interventional studies to target long-term outcomes after critical illness.

Endothelial Damage in Sepsis: The Importance of Systems Biology.

The early diagnosis and appropriate stratification of sepsis continues to be one of the most important challenges in modern medicine. Single isolated biomarkers have not been enough to improve diagnostic and prognostic strategies and to progress toward therapeutic goals. The information generated by the human genome project has allowed a more holistic approach to the problem. The integration of genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics in sepsis has allowed us to progress in the knowledge of new pathways which are pathophysiologically involved in this disease. Thus, we have understood the importance of and complex interaction between the inflammatory response and the endothelium. Understanding the role of important parts of the microcirculation, such as the endothelial glycocalyx and its interaction with the inflammatory response, has provided early recognition elements for clinical practice that allow the rational use of traditional medical interventions in sepsis. This comprehensive approach, which differs from the classical mechanistic approach, uses systems biology to increase the diagnostic and prognostic spectrum of endothelial damage biomarkers in sepsis, and to provide information on new pathways involved in the pathophysiology of the disease. This, in turn, provides tools for perfecting traditional medical interventions, using them at the appropriate times according to the disease's pathophysiological context, while at the same time discovering new and improved therapeutic alternatives. We have the challenge of transferring this ideal scenario to our daily clinical practice to improve our patients' care. The purpose of this article is to provide a general description of the importance of systems biology in integrating the complex interaction between the endothelium and the inflammatory response in sepsis.

Perspective of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign on the Management of Pediatric Sepsis in the Era of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a novel cause of organ dysfunction in children, presenting as either coronavirus disease 2019 with sepsis and/or respiratory failure or a hyperinflammatory shock syndrome. Clinicians must now consider these diagnoses when evaluating children for septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-associated Organ Dysfunction in Children provide an appropriate framework for the early recognition and initial resuscitation of children with sepsis or septic shock caused by all pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the potential benefits of select adjunctive therapies may differ from non-coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis.

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.

Neonatal Sepsis of Early Onset, and Hospital-Acquired and Community-Acquired Late Onset: A Prospective Population-Based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the epidemiology of blood culture-proven early- (EOS) and late-onset neonatal sepsis (LOS). STUDY DESIGN: All newborn infants admitted to tertiary care neonatal intensive care units in Switzerland and presenting with blood culture-proven sepsis between September 2011 and December 2015 were included in the study. We defined EOS as infection occurring <3 days after birth, and LOS as infection ≥3 days after birth. Infants with LOS were classified as having community-acquired LOS if onset of infection was ≤48 hours after admission, and hospital-acquired LOS, if onset was >48 hours after admission. Incidence was estimated based on the number of livebirths in Switzerland and adjusted for the proportion of admissions at centers participating in the study. RESULTS: We identified 444 episodes of blood culture-proven sepsis in 429 infants; 20% of cases were EOS, 62% hospital-acquired LOS, and 18% community-acquired LOS. The estimated national incidence of EOS, hospital-acquired LOS, and community-acquired LOS was 0.28 (95% CI 0.23-0.35), 0.86 (0.76-0.97), and 0.28 (0.23-0.34) per 1000 livebirths. Compared with EOS, hospital-acquired LOS occurred in infants of lower gestational age and was more frequently associated with comorbidities. Community-acquired LOS was more common in term infants and in male infants. Mortality was 18%, 12%, and 0% in EOS, hospital-acquired LOS, and community-acquired LOS, and was higher in preterm infants, in infants with septic shock, and in those requiring mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: We report a high burden of sepsis in neonates with considerable mortality and morbidity. EOS, hospital-acquired LOS, and community-acquired LOS affect specific patient subgroups and have distinct clinical presentation, pathogens and outcomes.