Considerations for nutrition support in critically ill children with COVID-19 and paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19

The aim of this editorial is to provide an adaptation of nutrition support recommendations for the overall population of critically ill children, to provide further refined recommendations for critically ill children presenting with COVID-19 or paediatric hyper-inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19. They are based on the ESPNIC-MEN section recommendations published in January 2020 (6) and Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations from February 2020 (7). These recommendations cover the acute, stable and rehabilitation phases (Table 1, Table 2)

Practical strategies to implement the ESPNIC nutrition clinical recommendations into PICU practice

Background: The European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) published 32 clinical recommendations around supporting nutrition in critically ill children following an extensive review of the literature online in January 2020. The challenge now is to engage with paediatric intensive care unit teams to implement these into their practice. Objective: This practical implementation guide uses a recognised implementation model to guide pediatric intensive care professionals to implement these evidence-based clinical recommendations into clinical practice. Results and conclusions: We use the Pronovost implementation of evidence into practice model to provide a practical framework with associated documents to facilitate PICU healthcare professional's implementation of these clinical recommendations into PICU practice. The paper is structured around the four steps in this model: summarising the evidence, identifying local barriers to implementation, measuring performance and ensuring all patients receive the intervention and useful checklists for implementation and compliance monitoring are provided, in addition to tables outlining key professional roles and responsibilities around nutrition in the paediatric intensive care unit

Frequency of alterations in qSOFA, SIRS, MEWS and NEWS scores during the emergency department stay in infectious patients:a prospective study

BACKGROUND: For emergency department (ED) patients with suspected infection, a vital sign-based clinical rule is often calculated shortly after the patient arrives. The clinical rule score (normal or abnormal) provides information about diagnosis and/or prognosis. Since vital signs vary over time, the clinical rule scores can change as well. In this prospective multicentre study, we investigate how often the scores of four frequently used clinical rules change during the ED stay of patients with suspected infection. METHODS: Adult (≥ 18 years) patients with suspected infection were prospectively included in three Dutch EDs between March 2016 and December 2019. Vital signs were measured in 30-min intervals and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the Modified Early Warning Score and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) score were calculated. Using the established cut-off points, we analysed how often alterations in clinical rule scores occurred (i.e. switched from normal to abnormal or vice versa). In addition, we investigated which vital signs caused most alterations. RESULTS: We included 1433 patients, of whom a clinical rule score changed once or more in 637 (44.5%) patients. In 6.7–17.5% (depending on the clinical rule) of patients with an initial negative clinical rule score, a positive score occurred later during ED stay. In over half (54.3–65.0%) of patients with an initial positive clinical rule score, the score became negative later on. The respiratory rate caused most (51.2%) alterations. CONCLUSION: After ED arrival, alterations in qSOFA, SIRS, MEWS and/or NEWS score are present in almost half of patients with suspected infection. The most contributing vital sign to these alterations was the respiratory rate. One in 6–15 patients displayed an abnormal clinical rule score after a normal initial score. Clinicians should be aware of the frequency of these alterations in clinical rule scores, as clinical rules are widely used for diagnosis and/or prognosis and the optimal moment of assessing them is unknown

Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children : the GASTRIC feasibility study

Background The routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding, is widespread in paediatric intensive care and neonatal units, but has little underlying evidence to support it. Objective(s) To answer the question: Is it feasible to conduct a trial of not measuring gastric residual volume on clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated infants and children in the UK? Design A mixed methods study involving five linked work packages in two parallel arms, neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. 1. A survey of units to establish current UK practice. 2. qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals and caregivers of children admitted to either setting. 3. A modified two-round e-Delphi survey to investigate health care professionals’ opinions on trial design issues and to obtain consensus on outcomes. 4. National databases were examined to determine the potential eligible populations. 5. Two consensus meetings, of health care professionals and parents to review the data and agreed consensus on outcomes that had not reached consensus in the e-Delphi. Participants and setting Parents of children with experience of ventilation and tube feeding in both neonatal units and in paediatric intensive care units, and health care professionals working in neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. Results Baseline surveys showed the practice of gastric residual volume measurement was very common: 96% PICUs and 65% in neonatal units. Ninety percent of parents both from neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units supported a future trial, whilst highlighting concerns around possible delays in detecting complications. Health care professionals also indicated a trial was feasible, with 84% of staff willing to participate in a trial. Concerns expressed by junior nurses about the intervention arm of not measuring gastric residual volumes were addressed by developing a simple flowchart and education package. The trial design survey and e-Delphi study gained consensus on trial 12 PICU and 9 neonatal unit outcome measures and identified acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given the differences in physiology, disease processes, environments, staffing and outcomes of interest, two different trials are required in the two settings. Database analyses subsequently showed trials were feasible in both settings in terms of patient numbers. Of 16222 children who met the inclusion criteria in PICU 12 629 stayed > 3 days. In neonatal units, 15 375 neonates <32 weeks age. Finally, the two consensus meetings demonstrated ‘buy in’ from the wider UK neonatal communities and paediatric intensive care units and enabled us to discuss and vote on the outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the e-Delphi study. Conclusions and future work Two separate UK trials (one in neonatal units and one in paediatric intensive care units) are feasible to conduct, but they cannot be combined due to differences in outcome measures and treatment protocols, reflecting the distinctness of the two specialties

Routine gastric residual volume measurement and energy target achievement in the PICU: A comparison study

Critically ill children frequently fail to achieve adequate energy intake and some care practices, such as the measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) may contribute to this problem. We compared outcomes in two similar European Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs): one which routinely measures GRV (PICU-GRV) to one unit that does not (PICU-noGRV). An observational pilot comparison study was undertaken. 87 children were included in the study, 42 (PICU-GRV) and 45 (PICU-noGRV). There were no significant differences in the percentage of energy targets achieved in the first four days of PICU admission although PICU-noGRV showed more consistent delivery of median (and IQR) energy targets, and less under and over feeding for PICU-GRV and PICU-noGRV Day 1 37 (14-72) vs 44 (0-100); Day 2 97 (53-126) vs 100 (100-100), Day 3 84 (45-112) vs 100 (100-100) , Day 4 101 (63-124) vs 100 (100-100). The incidence of vomiting was higher in PICU-GRV. No necrotising enterocolitis was confirmed in either unit and ventilator acquired pneumonia rates were not significantly different (7.01 vs 12 5.31 per 1000 ventilator days; p=0.70) between PICU-GRV and PICU-noGRV units. Conclusions: The practice of routine gastric residual measurement did not significantly impair energy targets in the first four days of PICU admission. However, not measuring GRV did not increase vomiting, ventilator acquired pneumonia or necrotising enterocolitis, which is the main reason clinicians cite for measuring GRV. What is known?•The practice of routinely measuring gastric residual volume is widespread in critical care units•This practice is increasingly being questioned in critically ill patients, both as a practice that increases •the likelihood of delivering inadequate enteral nutrition amounts and as a tool to assess feeding tolerance What is new? •Not routinely measuring gastric residual volume did not increase adverse events of ventilator acquired pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis or vomiting •In the first four days of PICU stay, energy target achievement was not significantly different, but the rates of under and over feeding were higher in the routine GRV measurement uni