Multicenter validation of PIM3 and PIM2 in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units

ObjectiveTo validate the PIM3 score in Brazilian PICUs and compare its performance with the PIM2.MethodsObservational, retrospective, multicenter study, including patients younger than 16 years old admitted consecutively from October 2013 to September 2019. We assessed the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), the discrimination capability (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve – AUROC), and the calibration. To assess the calibration, we used the calibration belt, which is a curve that represents the correlation of predicted and observed values and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) through all the risk ranges. We also analyzed the performance of both scores in three periods: 2013–2015, 2015–2017, and 2017–2019.Results41,541 patients from 22 PICUs were included. Most patients aged less than 24 months (58.4%) and were admitted for medical conditions (88.6%) (respiratory conditions = 53.8%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 5.8%. The median PICU length of stay was three days (IQR, 2–5), and the observed mortality was 1.8% (763 deaths). The predicted mortality by PIM3 was 1.8% (SMR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94–1.08) and by PIM2 was 2.1% (SMR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83–0.96). Both scores had good discrimination (PIM3 AUROC = 0.88 and PIM2 AUROC = 0.89). In calibration analysis, both scores overestimated mortality in the 0%–3% risk range, PIM3 tended to underestimate mortality in medium-risk patients (9%–46% risk range), and PIM2 also overestimated mortality in high-risk patients (70%–100% mortality risk).ConclusionsBoth scores had a good discrimination ability but poor calibration in different ranges, which deteriorated over time in the population studied

Statement of Second Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Ventilarion : part I

Resumo não disponíve

Tratamento atual de crianças com asma crítica e quase fatal

RESUMO A asma é a mais comum das doenças da infância. Embora a maioria das crianças com exacerbações agudas de asma não demanda cuidados críticos, algumas delas não respondem ao tratamento padrão e necessitam de cuidados mais intensos. Crianças com asma crítica ou quase fatal precisam de monitoramento estrito quanto à deterioração e podem requerer estratégias terapêuticas agressivas. Esta revisão examinou as evidências disponíveis que dão suporte a terapias para asma crítica e quase fatal, e resumiu o cuidado clínico atual para essas crianças. O tratamento típico inclui uso parenteral de corticosteroides e fármacos beta-agonistas, por via inalatória ou intravenosa. Para crianças com resposta inadequada ao tratamento padrão, pode-se lançar mão do uso inalatório de brometo de ipratrópio ou intravenoso de sulfato de magnésio, metilxantinas e misturas gasosas com hélio, além de suporte ventilatório mecânico não invasivo. Pacientes com insuficiência respiratória progressiva se beneficiam de ventilação mecânica com uma estratégia que emprega grandes volumes correntes e baixas frequências do ventilador, para minimizar a hiperinsuflação dinâmica, o barotrauma e a hipotensão. Sedativos, analgésicos e bloqueadores neuromusculares são frequentemente necessários na fase inicial do tratamento para facilitar um estado de hipoventilação controlada e hipercapnia permissiva. Pacientes que não conseguem melhorar com a ventilação mecânica podem ser considerados para abordagens menos comuns, como inalação de anestésicos, broncoscopia e suporte extracorpóreo à vida. Esta abordagem atual resultou em taxas de mortalidade extremamente baixas, mesmo em crianças com necessidade de suporte mecânico

Datasheet1_Multicenter validation of PIM3 and PIM2 in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units.pdf

ObjectiveTo validate the PIM3 score in Brazilian PICUs and compare its performance with the PIM2.MethodsObservational, retrospective, multicenter study, including patients younger than 16 years old admitted consecutively from October 2013 to September 2019. We assessed the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), the discrimination capability (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve – AUROC), and the calibration. To assess the calibration, we used the calibration belt, which is a curve that represents the correlation of predicted and observed values and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) through all the risk ranges. We also analyzed the performance of both scores in three periods: 2013–2015, 2015–2017, and 2017–2019.Results41,541 patients from 22 PICUs were included. Most patients aged less than 24 months (58.4%) and were admitted for medical conditions (88.6%) (respiratory conditions = 53.8%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 5.8%. The median PICU length of stay was three days (IQR, 2–5), and the observed mortality was 1.8% (763 deaths). The predicted mortality by PIM3 was 1.8% (SMR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94–1.08) and by PIM2 was 2.1% (SMR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83–0.96). Both scores had good discrimination (PIM3 AUROC = 0.88 and PIM2 AUROC = 0.89). In calibration analysis, both scores overestimated mortality in the 0%–3% risk range, PIM3 tended to underestimate mortality in medium-risk patients (9%–46% risk range), and PIM2 also overestimated mortality in high-risk patients (70%–100% mortality risk).ConclusionsBoth scores had a good discrimination ability but poor calibration in different ranges, which deteriorated over time in the population studied.</p