COVID-19 PICU guidelines: for high- and limited-resource settings

BACKGROUND: Fewer children than adults have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the clinical manifestations are distinct from those of adults. Some children particularly those with acute or chronic co-morbidities are likely to develop critical illness. Recently, a multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) has been described in children with some of these patients requiring care in the pediatric ICU. METHODS: An international collaboration was formed to review the available evidence and develop evidence-based guidelines for the care of critically ill children with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Where the evidence was lacking, those gaps were replaced with consensus-based guidelines. RESULTS: This process has generated 44 recommendations related to pediatric COVID-19 patients presenting with respiratory distress or failure, sepsis or septic shock, cardiopulmonary arrest, MIS-C, those requiring adjuvant therapies, or ECMO. Evidence to explain the milder disease patterns in children and the potential to use repurposed anti-viral drugs, anti-inflammatory or antithrombotic therapies are also described. CONCLUSION: Brief summaries of pediatric SARS-CoV-2 infection in different regions of the world are included since few registries are capturing this data globally. These guidelines seek to harmonize the standards and strategies for intensive care that critically ill children with COVID-19 receive across the worl

Unadjusted and adjusted ORs for mortality and secondary clinical outcomes stratified by volume and type fluid (crystalloid and blood).

<p>Unadjusted and adjusted ORs for mortality and secondary clinical outcomes stratified by volume and type fluid (crystalloid and blood).</p

Clinical outcomes and mortality before and after implementation of a pediatric sepsis protocol in a limited resource setting: A retrospective cohort study in Bangladesh

<div><p>Background</p><p>Pediatric sepsis has a high mortality rate in limited resource settings. Sepsis protocols have been shown to be a cost-effective strategy to improve morbidity and mortality in a variety of populations and settings. At Dhaka Hospital in Bangladesh, mortality from pediatric sepsis in high-risk children previously approached 60%, which prompted the implementation of an evidenced-based protocol in 2010. The clinical effectiveness of this protocol had not been measured. We hypothesized that implementation of a pediatric sepsis protocol improved clinical outcomes, including reducing mortality and length of hospital stay.</p><p>Materials and methods</p><p>This was a retrospective cohort study of children 1–59 months old with a diagnosis of sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock admitted to Dhaka Hospital from 10/25/2009-10/25/2011. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality pre- and post-protocol implementation. Secondary outcomes included fluid overload, heart failure, respiratory insufficiency, length of hospital stay, and protocol compliance, as measured by antibiotic and fluid bolus administration within 60 minutes of hospital presentation.</p><p>Results</p><p>404 patients were identified by a key-word search of the electronic medical record; 328 patients with a primary diagnosis of sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock were included (143 pre- and185 post-protocol) in the analysis. Pre- and post-protocol mortality were similar and not statistically significant (32.17% vs. 34.59%, p = 0.72). The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for post-protocol mortality was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.88–2.71). The odds for developing fluid overload were significantly higher post-protocol (AOR 3.45, 95% CI, 2.04–5.85), as were the odds of developing heart failure (AOR 4.52, 95% CI, 1.43–14.29) and having a longer median length of stay (AOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.10–2.96). There was no statistically significant difference in respiratory insufficiency (pre- 65.7% vs. post- 70.3%, p = 0.4) or antibiotic administration between the cohorts (pre- 16.08% vs. post- 12.43%, p = 0.42).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Implementation of a pediatric sepsis protocol did not improve all-cause mortality or length of stay and may have been associated with increased fluid overload and heart failure during the study period in a large, non-governmental hospital in Bangladesh. Similar rates of early antibiotic administration may indicate poor protocol compliance. Though evidenced-based protocols are a potential cost-effective strategy to improve outcomes, future studies should focus on optimal implementation of context-relevant sepsis protocols in limited resource settings.</p></div

Mortality pre- and post-protocol by fluid type (crystalloid vs. blood) received.

<p>Mortality pre- and post-protocol by fluid type (crystalloid vs. blood) received.</p

Median volume of fluid received pre- and post-protocol by fluid type (crystalloid vs. blood).

<p>Median volume of fluid received pre- and post-protocol by fluid type (crystalloid vs. blood).</p

Baseline patient characteristics.

<p>Baseline patient characteristics.</p

Challenges to code status discussions for pediatric patients

<div><p>Objectives</p><p>In the context of serious or life-limiting illness, pediatric patients and their families are faced with difficult decisions surrounding appropriate resuscitation efforts in the event of a cardiopulmonary arrest. Code status orders are one way to inform end-of-life medical decision making. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the extent to which pediatric providers have knowledge of code status options and explore the association of provider role with (1) knowledge of code status options, (2) perception of timing of code status discussions, (3) perception of family receptivity to code status discussions, and (4) comfort carrying out code status discussions.</p><p>Design</p><p>Nurses, trainees (residents and fellows), and attending physicians from pediatric units where code status discussions typically occur completed a short survey questionnaire regarding their knowledge of code status options and perceptions surrounding code status discussions.</p><p>Setting</p><p>Single center, quaternary care children’s hospital.</p><p>Measurements and main results</p><p>203 nurses, 31 trainees, and 29 attending physicians in 4 high-acuity pediatric units responded to the survey (N = 263, 90% response rate). Based on an objective knowledge measure, providers demonstrate poor understanding of available code status options, with only 22% of providers able to enumerate more than two of four available code status options. In contrast, provider groups self-report high levels of familiarity with available code status options, with attending physicians reporting significantly higher levels than nurses and trainees (p = 0.0125). Nurses and attending physicians show significantly different perception of code status discussion timing, with majority of nurses (63.4%) perceiving discussions as occurring “too late” or “much too late” and majority of attending physicians (55.6%) perceiving the timing as “about right” (p<0.0001). Attending physicians report significantly higher comfort having code status discussions with families than do nurses or trainees (p≤0.0001). Attending physicians and trainees perceive families as more receptive to code status discussions than nurses (p<0.0001 and p = 0.0018, respectively).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Providers have poor understanding of code status options and differ significantly in their comfort having code status discussions and their perceptions of these discussions. These findings may reflect inherent differences among providers, but may also reflect discordant visions of appropriate care and function as a potential source of moral distress. Lack of knowledge of code status options and differences in provider perceptions are likely barriers to quality communication surrounding end-of-life options.</p></div

Secondary clinical outcomes.

<p>Secondary clinical outcomes.</p

Mortality rate pre- and post-protocol implementation.

<p>Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals and the p-value for mortality pre- and post-protocol implementation is shown.</p

Key protocol time points and events.

<p>Bar graph shows the proportion of patients pre- and post-protocol implementation that received antibiotics within 60 minutes, the first fluid bolus received within 60 minutes, a blood transfusion, and an admission to the ICU. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals and p-values for each comparison pre- and post-protocol are shown.</p