H Duncan

Multicentre validation of the bedside paediatric early warning system score: a severity of illness score to detect evolving critical illness in hospitalised children

IntroductionThe timely provision of critical care to hospitalised patients at risk for cardiopulmonary arrest is contingent upon identification and referral by frontline providers. Current approaches require improvement. In a single-centre study, we developed the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System (Bedside PEWS) score to identify patients at risk. The objective of this study was to validate the Bedside PEWS score in a large patient population at multiple hospitals.MethodsWe performed an international, multicentre, case-control study of children admitted to hospital inpatient units with no limitations on care. Case patients had experienced a clinical deterioration event involving either an immediate call to a resuscitation team or urgent admission to a paediatric intensive care unit. Control patients had no events. The scores ranged from 0 to 26 and were assessed in the 24 hours prior to the clinical deterioration event. Score performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUCROC) curve by comparison with the retrospective rating of nurses and the temporal progression of scores in case patients.ResultsA total of 2,074 patients were evaluated at 4 participating hospitals. The median (interquartile range) maximum Bedside PEWS scores for the 12 hours ending 1 hour before the clinical deterioration event were 8 (5 to 12) in case patients and 2 (1 to 4) in control patients (P < 0.0001). The AUCROC curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.87 (0.85 to 0.89). In case patients, mean scores were 5.3 at 20 to 24 hours and 8.4 at 0 to 4 hours before the event (P < 0.0001). The AUCROC curve (95% CI) of the retrospective nurse ratings was 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86). This was significantly lower than that of the Bedside PEWS score (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe Bedside PEWS score identified children at risk for cardiopulmonary arrest. Scores were elevated and continued to increase in the 24 hours before the clinical deterioration event. Prospective clinical evaluation is needed to determine whether this score will improve the quality of care and patient outcomes.

Survey of the use of therapeutic hypothermia post cardiac arrest

Objectives Therapeutic hypothermia improves neurological outcome in adults after ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest and neonates with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. There is currently no clinical research to support its use in the paediatric population. This survey aims to ascertain current practice in the UK, and attitudes and opinions to guide the feasibility of a UK multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest in children (The Cold-PACK Post Arrest Cooling in Kids study). Methods Anonymous survey of UK paediatric intensive care consultants (n=149). Results A total of 113 (76%) of 149 surveys were returned; 65% responded that they do not know if therapeutic hypothermia improves survival after cardiac arrest. Despite this, 48% ‘always’ or ‘often’ use therapeutic hypothermia after return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest in children. Among those who never use therapeutic hypothermia (33%) the commonest explanation given was ‘not enough research evidence’ (91%). With respect to the dose of therapeutic hypothermia the median duration of cooling used is 24–48 h (range 4–72 h) and median target temperature 34°C to 35°C (range 32°C to 37°C); 68% target a temperature range higher than that applied in the published adult and neonatal studies (33±1°C). There was strong support for a trial of therapeutic hypothermia being ethical (89%) and using deferred consent (85%). Conclusions Wide variation in UK practice in the use of therapeutic hypothermia and a state of clinical equipoise is demonstrated by this survey, which shows important support for UK multicentre collaboration in a future trial of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest.

Evolution, safety and efficacy of targeted temperature management after pediatric cardiac arrest ☆

BACKGROUND It is unknown whether targeted temperature management (TTM) improves survival after pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The aim of this study was to assess the evolution, safety and efficacy of TTM (32-34 °C) compared to standard temperature management (STM) (<38 °C). METHODS Retrospective, single center cohort study. Patients aged >one day up to 16 years, admitted to a UK Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) after OHCA (January 2004-December 2010). Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; efficacy and safety outcomes included: application of TTM, physiological, hematological and biochemical side effects. RESULTS Seventy-three patients were included. Thirty-eight patients (52%) received TTM (32-34 °C). Prior to ILCOR guidance adoption in January 2007, TTM was used infrequently (4/25; 16%). Following adoption, TTM (32-34 °C) use increased significantly (34/48; 71% Chi(2); p < 0.0001). TTM (32-34 °C) and STM (<38 °C) groups were similar at baseline. TTM (32-34 °C) was associated with bradycardia and hypotension compared to STM (<38 °C). TTM (32-34 °C) reduced episodes of hyperthermia (>38 °C) in the 1st 24h; however, excessive hypothermia (<32 °C) and hyperthermia (>38 °C) occurred in both groups up to 72 h, and all patients (n = 11) experiencing temperature <32 °C died. The study was underpowered to determine a difference in hospital survival (34% (TTM (32-34 °C)) versus 23% (STM (<38 °C)); p = 0.284). However, the TTM (32-34 °C) group had a significantly longer PICU length of stay. CONCLUSIONS TTM (32-34 °C) was feasible but associated with bradycardia, hypotension, and increased length of stay in PICU. Temperature <32 °C had a universally grave prognosis. Larger studies are required to assess effect on survival.

Survey of the use of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest in UK paediatric emergency departments

Objectives To ascertain current use of therapeutic hypothermia (TH) after paediatric cardiac arrest in UK emergency departments (EDs), and views on participating in a UK randomised controlled trial (RCT) incorporating early induction of TH in ED. Design Anonymous web-based survey of 77 UK Emergency Medicine (EM) consultants from 28 UK EDs that see children during the period April–June 2010. Results 62% (48/77) of surveyed consultants responded from 21/28 (75%) EDs. All managed children post cardiac arrest. 90% (43/48) were aware of the literature concerning TH after cardiac arrest in adults. However, 63% (30/48) had never used TH in paediatric practice. All departments had at least one method of inducing TH (surface cooling; air/water blankets; intravenous cold fluid or catheters). Reasons stated for not inducing TH included no equipment available (26%; 11/42), TH not advocated by the local PICU (24%; 10/42) and not enough evidence for its use (24%; 10/42). TH was considered based on advice from the local Paediatric Intensive Care Units (68%; 17/25) or likelihood of recovery after arrest (32%; 8/25). There was strong support for a UK RCT of TH versus normothermia (85%; 40/47). The proposed RCT was felt to be ethical (87%; 40/48) with use of deferred consent acceptable (74%; 34/46). Conclusion UK EM consultants are aware of TH but infrequently initiate the therapy in children for a number of reasons. Their involvement would enable early induction of TH in EDs after paediatric cardiac arrest during a UK RCT. The authors have demonstrated the availability of suitable equipment and EM consultant support for participation in such a RCT.

Should children who have a cardiac arrest be treated with therapeutic hypothermia

The International Liaison Committee for Resuscitation recommends that comatose adult patients with spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest are cooled to 32-34°C for 12-24 hours based on analysis of data from two randomised controlled trials and 17 observational studies.1 However, these studies were mostly in a specific subgroup of cardiac arrest patients with witnessed, out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation, and evidence of benefit in the general population of cardiac arrest patients has been less certain.2 The rationale for therapeutic hypothermia is that it can reduce cerebral metabolism, attenuate biosynthesis of excitotoxic compounds, reduce free radical production, reduce inflammation, and regulate gene and protein expressions associated with necrotic and apoptotic pathways during ischaemia and reperfusion.3 Recommendations for treatment in children4 (box 1) are based almost solely on adult data. However, the aetiology of cardiac arrest is very different in children,5 possibly altering the pattern of neuronal injury. Most cardiac arrests are secondary to a respiratory cause with profound hypoxia, and primary cardiac causes of arrests, including ventricular fibrillation, are rare. In other clinical situations, therapeutic hypothermia has been seen to be both beneficial (newborns with hypoxic brain injury within 6 hours of birth)6 and potentially harmful (traumatic brain injury).7 It is therefore important that the question of whether children with cardiac arrest should be treated with therapeutic hypothermia is addressed. #### Box 1: Recommendations for use of therapeutic hypothermia after paediatric cardiac arrest (International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations4) Our recent Cochrane systematic …

Patient and public involvement in Paediatric Intensive Care research: considerations, challenges and facilitating factors

Plain English summaryPlain English summaryPaediatric Intensive Care (PIC) provides care to extremely ill children. Research in this area can be difficult because children are often too sick to discuss being involved in a study and parents are too upset about their child to think about taking part. This makes it even more important that research is well designed. We conducted a review of the literature about involving patients and the public (PPI) in PIC research. We wanted to know what PPI has taken place, who had been consulted and how this was undertaken. We reviewed the titles and abstracts of 4717 papers but found only 4 relevant papers. Three of the papers had consulted with parents of children who had been on PIC but only one study had spoken directly to a child themselves. The studies had used a number of different methods to invite people to take part but there did not appear to be one solution. All of the studies thought PPI was good for the development of their research but none of them had tried to measure what had changed as a result. There are difficulties associated with carrying out PPI in the PIC setting. Researchers need to share more of their experiences, positive and negative, so we can try to identify the best ways of carrying out PPI in PIC studies. This will help ensure that research studies are designed which address the needs and concerns of children and their parents.AbstractIntroduction Involving the public in health care research is reported to enhance the quality, appropriateness, acceptability and relevance to patients and the public (INVOLVE, Briefing notes for researchers, 2012; Staniszewska et al., Int J Technol Assess Health Care 274:391-9, 2011). Conducting research with children and young people is regarded as challenging and this makes it even more important that the research is well designed and understands the perspective of the child and family. We conducted a narrative literature review of the Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) literature, in the context of Paediatric Intensive Care (PIC). Our aims were to identify what PPI activity has taken place, with whom researchers engaged and what outcomes they reported. Method Electronic databases Medline, CINAHL and Embase (January 2000- June 2016) were searched using the search terms patient and public involvement and consultation. Participants were defined as child, parent, paediatric or pediatric and the context as intensive or critical care. Papers were excluded where activity reflected ‘participants’ as research subjects. Included papers were reviewed using the GRIPP checklist to appraise the quality of reporting. Results The search strategy identified 4717 abstracts. Seventeen papers were reviewed in full and four papers were included, all of which are case studies, describing a consultation approach. None of the papers described PPI as a multi-stage process. Only one study engaged with a former PIC patient and the majority of those consulted did not have any PIC experience. Activity was reported as being of benefit but there was no measurement of the impact of PPI. Conclusion There are numerous challenges associated with the conduct of research in PIC. It is therefore essential that the perspective of children, young people and their parents have been considered in the design of trials. However, there are few published accounts of PPI within the PIC context and the accounts that exist highlight issues about who to approach and when, and a lack of clarity about the best ways to engage with them. Research Ethics Committees and funding bodies expect to see evidence of PPI in research applications and we need to develop our understanding of what contributes towards successful PPI in this context.