Unlike adults, children with fluid-refractory shock are frequently hypodynamic and respond to inotrope and vasodilator therapy. Because hemodynamic states are heterogeneous and change with time, an incorrect cardiovascular therapeutic regimen should be suspected in any child with persistent shock. Outcome can be improved compared with historical literature.

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been "worked out" and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule. We first present a description of the process of DCD and the standard ethical rationale for the practice. We then present our concerns with DCD, including the following: irreversibility of absent circulation has not occurred and the many attempts to claim it has have all failed; conflicts of interest at all steps in the DCD process, including the decision to withdraw life support before DCD, are simply unavoidable; potentially harmful premortem interventions to preserve organ utility are not justifiable, even with the help of the principle of double effect; claims that DCD conforms with the intent of the law and current accepted medical standards are misleading and inaccurate; and consensus statements by respected medical groups do not change these arguments due to their low quality including being plagued by conflict of interest. Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are "straw-man arguments," such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate. Until this debate occurs, we call for a moratorium on the practice of DCD.

IntroductionConsensus criteria for pediatric severe sepsis have standardized enrollment for research studies. However, the extent to which critically ill children identified by consensus criteria reflect physician diagnosis of severe sepsis, which underlies external validity for pediatric sepsis research, is not known. We sought to determine the agreement between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria to identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis across a network of international pediatric intensive care units (PICUs).MethodsWe conducted a point prevalence study involving 128 PICUs in 26 countries across 6 continents. Over the course of 5 study days, 6925 PICU patients <18 years of age were screened, and 706 with severe sepsis defined either by physician diagnosis or on the basis of 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference consensus criteria were enrolled. The primary endpoint was agreement of pediatric severe sepsis between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria as measured using Cohen’s κ. Secondary endpoints included characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients identified using physician diagnosis versus consensus criteria.ResultsOf the 706 patients, 301 (42.6 %) met both definitions. The inter-rater agreement (κ ± SE) between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria was 0.57 ± 0.02. Of the 438 patients with a physician’s diagnosis of severe sepsis, only 69 % (301 of 438) would have been eligible to participate in a clinical trial of pediatric severe sepsis that enrolled patients based on consensus criteria. Patients with physician-diagnosed severe sepsis who did not meet consensus criteria were younger and had lower severity of illness and lower PICU mortality than those meeting consensus criteria or both definitions. After controlling for age, severity of illness, number of comorbid conditions, and treatment in developed versus resource-limited regions, patients identified with severe sepsis by physician diagnosis alone or by consensus criteria alone did not have PICU mortality significantly different from that of patients identified by both physician diagnosis and consensus criteria.ConclusionsPhysician diagnosis of pediatric severe sepsis achieved only moderate agreement with consensus criteria, with physicians diagnosing severe sepsis more broadly. Consequently, the results of a research study based on consensus criteria may have limited generalizability to nearly one-third of PICU patients diagnosed with severe sepsis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1055-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Possible synergistic effects of the combination of EDTA-tromethamine (EDTA-Tris) and three antimicrobial agents (cephaloridine, kanendomycin and enrofloxacin) against resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria are reported. Bacteria were isolated from eight cases of chronic otitis externa, five cases of chronic dermatitis and four cases of recurrent cystitis in dogs which had previously been treated with one of the three antibiotics without success. Animals exposed to EDTA-tromethamine plus the antibiotic recovered completely within 10 days, and were controlled clinically and bacteriologically for 180 days. Local irrigation with EDTA-tromethamine solution was well tolerated and no side effects were recorded.

RH was detected in 1 (1.4%) of 73 patients in our population of infants with ALTEs and 1 of 3 patients who were victims of CA and presented with an ALTE. CA was detected in 2.3% of patients who presented with an ALTE. The diagnosis of CA should be seriously considered in patients who present with an ALTE. The evaluation of ALTEs should include funduscopic examination as ALTEs and RHs are associated with CA.