Objectives: To evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a new clinical asthma score, the Pediatric Asthma Severity Score (PASS), in children aged 1 through 18 years in an acute clinical setting. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of children treated for acute asthma at two urban pediatric emergency departments (EDs). A total of 852 patients were enrolled at one site and 369 at the second site. Clinical findings were assessed at the start of the ED visit, after one hour of treatment, and at the time of disposition. Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (for patients aged 6 years and older) and pulse oximetry were also measured. Results: Composite scores including three, four, or five clinical findings were evaluated, and the threeitem score (wheezing, prolonged expiration, and work of breathing) was selected as the PASS. Interobserver reliability for the PASS was good to excellent (kappa ¼ 0.72 to 0.83).There was a significant correlation between PASS and PEFR (r ¼ 0.27 to 0.37) and pulse oximetry (r ¼ 0.29 to 0.41) at various time points. The PASS was able to discriminate between those patients who did and did not require hospitalization, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82. Finally, the PASS was shown to be responsive, with a 48% relative increase in score from start to end of treatment and an overall effect size of 0.62, indicating a moderate to large effect. Conclusions: This clinical score, the PASS, based on three clinical findings, is a reliable and valid measure of asthma severity in children and shows both discriminative and responsive properties. The PASS may be a useful tool to assess acute asthma severity for clinical and research purposes.

Adequate PEFR measurements are difficult to obtain in children with acute asthma. Treatment and research protocols cannot rely exclusively on PEFR for evaluation of severity.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of airway pressure release ventilation in children. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover clinical trial. SETTING: This study was conducted in our 33-bed pediatric intensive care unit at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. PATIENTS: Patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support and weighing >8 kg were considered for enrollment. Patients were excluded if they required mechanical ventilatory support for >7 days or required >.50 Fio(2) for >7 days before enrollment. Patients with documented obstructive airway disease and congenital or acquired heart disease were excluded as well. INTERVENTIONS: Each patient received both volume-controlled synchronized intermittent mechanical ventilation (SIMV) and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) via the Drager Evita ventilator (Drager, Lubeck, Germany). Measurements were obtained after the patient was stabilized on each ventilation mode. Stabilization was defined as oxygenation, ventilation, hemodynamic variables, and patient comfort within the acceptable range for each patient as determined by the bedside physician. After measurements were obtained on the initial mode of ventilation, the subjects crossed over to the alternative study mode. Stabilization was again achieved, and measurements were repeated. After completion of the second study measurements, patients were placed on the ventilation modality preferred by the bedside clinician and were followed through weaning and extubation. Measurements: Vital signs, airway pressures, minute ventilation, Spo(2), and E(T)CO(2) were recorded at enrollment and at each study condition. MAIN RESULTS: APRV provided similar ventilation, oxygenation, mean airway pressure, hemodynamics, and patient comfort as SIMV. Inspiratory airway pressures were lower with APRV when compared with SIMV. CONCLUSIONS: Using APRV in children with mild to moderate lung disease resulted in comparable levels of ventilation and oxygenation at significantly lower inspiratory peak and plateau pressures. Based on these findings, we plan to evaluate APRV in children with significant lung disease.

Successful discharge from the ED for children with acute asthma can be predicted accurately using a simple clinical model, potentially improving disposition decisions. However, predicting correct placement of patients requiring extended care is problematic.