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.

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 The Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines are intended for general information only, are not medical advice, and do not replace professional advice, which should be sought for any medical condition. The full disclaimer for guidelines can be accessed at https ://www.sccm.org/Resea rch/Guide lines /Guide lines . 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, 49 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, 52 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. S14 the group heads, panel members, and methodologists. Searches utilized ...

The major new recommendation in the 2014 update is consideration of institution-specific use of 1) a "recognition bundle" containing a trigger tool for rapid identification of patients with septic shock, 2) a "resuscitation and stabilization bundle" to help adherence to best practice principles, and 3) a "performance bundle" to identify and overcome perceived barriers to the pursuit of best practice principles.

Background: The American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) provided 2002 and 2007 guidelines for hemodynamic support of newborn and pediatric septic shock.

Importance Protocolized sedation improves clinical outcomes in critically-ill adults, but its effect in children is unknown. Objective To determine whether critically-ill children managed with a nurse-implemented, goal-directed sedation protocol (RESTORE) would experience fewer days of mechanical ventilation than patients receiving usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants Cluster-randomized trial conducted in 31 U.S. Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs). Children (n=2449; mean age 4.7 years, range 2 weeks to 17 years) mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure were enrolled 2009–2013 and followed until 72 hours after opioids were discontinued, 28 days, or hospital discharge. Interventions Intervention PICUs (17 sites, n=1225 patients) managed sedation using a protocol that included targeted sedation, arousal assessments, extubation readiness testing, sedation adjustment every 8 hours, and sedation weaning. Control PICUs (14 sites, n=1224 patients) managed sedation per usual care without a protocol. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included time to recovery from acute respiratory failure, duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation, neurological testing, PICU and hospital lengths of stay, in-hospital mortality, sedation-related adverse events, sedative exposure including measures of wakefulness, pain, and agitation, and occurrence of iatrogenic withdrawal. Results Duration of mechanical ventilation was not statistically significantly different between the two groups (median; interquartile range: intervention: 6.5 days; 4.1–11.2 vs. control: 6.5; 3.7–12.1). Sedation-related adverse events including inadequate pain and sedation management, clinically significant iatrogenic withdrawal, and unplanned endotracheal tube/invasive line removal were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Intervention patients experienced more post-extubation stridor (7% vs. 4%; P=0.03) and fewer stage 2+ immobility-related pressure ulcers (<1% vs. 2%; P=0.001). In exploratory analyses, intervention patients had fewer days of opioid administration (median; interquartile range: 9; 5–15 vs. 10; 4–21; P=0.01), were exposed to fewer sedative classes (2; 2–3 vs. 3; 2–4; P<0.001), and were awake and calm for a greater percentage of study days while intubated (86%; 67–100% vs. 75%; 50–100%; P=0.004), than control patients. However, patients in the intervention group had a greater percentage of days with any report of a pain score ≥4 (50%; 27%-67% vs. 23%; 0–46%; P<0.001) and any report of agitation with a State Behavior Scale score of +1/+2 (60%; 33–80% vs. 40%; 13–67%, P=0.003), than control patients. Conclusions and Relevance Among children undergoing mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure, the use of a nurse-implemented, goal-directed sedation protocol compared with usual care did not reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. Exploratory analyses of secondary outcomes suggest a complex relatio...