Melissa J Parker

Part 6: Pediatric basic life support and pediatric advanced life support. 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations

The Pediatric Task Force reviewed all questions submitted by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) member councils in 2010, reviewed all council training materials and resuscitation guidelines and algorithms, and conferred on recent areas of interest and controversy. We identified a few areas where there were key differences in council-specific guidelines based on historical recommendations, such as the A-B-C (Airway, Breathing, Circulation) versus C-A-B (Circulation, Airway, Breathing) sequence of provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), initial back blows versus abdominal thrusts for foreign-body airway obstruction, an upper limit for recommended chest compression rate, and initial defibrillation dose for shockable rhythms (2 versus 4 J/kg). We produced a working list of prioritized questions and topics, which was adjusted with the advent of new research evidence. This led to a prioritized palate of 21 PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions for ILCOR task force focus. The 2015 process was supported by information specialists who performed in-depth systematic searches, liaising with pediatric content experts so that the most appropriate terms and outcomes and the most relevant publications were identified. Relevant adult literature was considered (extrapolated) in those PICO questions that overlapped with other task forces, or when there were insufficient pediatric data. In rare circumstances (in the absence of sufficient human data), appropriate animal studies were incorporated into reviews of the literature. However, these data were considered only when higher levels of evidence were not available and the topic was deemed critical. When formulating the PICO questions, the task force felt it important to evaluate patient outcomes that extend beyond return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or discharge from the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). In recognition that the measures must have meaning, not only to clinicians but also to parents and caregivers, longer-term outcomes at 30 …

Part 6: Pediatric basic life support and pediatric advanced life support

The Pediatric Task Force reviewed all questions submitted by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) member councils in 2010, reviewed all council training materials and resuscitation guidelines and algorithms, and conferred on recent areas of interest and controversy. We identified a few areas where there were key differences in council-specific guidelines based on historical recommendations, such as the A-B-C (Airway, Breathing, Circulation) versus C-A-B (Circulation, Airway, Breathing) sequence of provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), initial back blows versus abdominal thrusts for foreign-body airway obstruction, an upper limit for recommended chest compression rate, and initial defibrillation dose for shockable rhythms (2 versus 4 J/kg). We produced a working list of prioritized questions and topics, which was adjusted with the advent of new research evidence. This led to a prioritized palate of 21 PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions for ILCOR task force focus. The 2015 process was supported by information specialists who performed in-depth systematic searches, liaising with pediatric content experts so that the most appropriate terms and outcomes and the most relevant publications were identified. Relevant adult literature was considered (extrapolated) in those PICO questions that overlapped with other task forces, or when there were insufficient pediatric data. In rare circumstances (in the absence of sufficient human data), appropriate animal studies were incorporated into reviews of the literature. However, these data were considered only when higher levels of evidence were not available and the topic was deemed critical. When formulating the PICO questions, the task force felt it important to evaluate patient outcomes that extend beyond return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or discharge from the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). In recognition that the measures must have meaning, not only to clinicians but also to parents and caregivers, longer-term outcomes at 30 …

Effect of the Low Risk Ankle Rule on the frequency of radiography in children with ankle injuries

Background: The Low Risk Ankle Rule is a validated clinical decision rule that has the potential to safely reduce radiography in children with acute ankle injuries. We performed a phased implementation of the Low Risk Ankle Rule and evaluated its effectiveness in reducing the frequency of radiography in children with ankle injuries. Methods: Six Canadian emergency departments participated in the study from Jan. 1, 2009, to Aug. 31, 2011. At the 3 intervention sites, there were 3 consecutive 26-week phases. In phase 1, no interventions were implemented. In phase 2, we activated strategies to implement the ankle rule, including physician education, reminders and a computerized decision support system. In phase 3, we included only the decision support system. No interventions were introduced at the 3 pair-matched control sites. We examined the management of ankle injuries among children aged 3–16 years. The primary outcome was the proportion of children undergoing radiography. Results: We enrolled 2151 children with ankle injuries, 1055 at intervention and 1096 at control hospitals. During phase 1, the baseline frequency of pediatric ankle radiography at intervention and control sites was 96.5% and 90.2%, respectively. During phase 2, the frequency of ankle radiography decreased significantly at intervention sites relative to control sites (between-group difference −21.9% [95% confidence interval [CI] −28.6% to −15.2%]), without significant differences in patient or physician satisfaction. All effects were sustained in phase 3. The sensitivity of the Low Risk Ankle Rule during implementation was 100% (95% CI 85.4% to 100%), and the specificity was 53.1% (95% CI 48.1% to 58.1%). Interpretation: Implementation of the Low Risk Ankle Rule in several different emergency department settings reduced the rate of pediatric ankle radiography significantly and safely, without an accompanying change in physician or patient satisfaction. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00785876.

Predictors of Major Intervention in Infants With Bronchiolitis

We sought to identify predictors of the major medical intervention (MMI) in infants with bronchiolitis in the Emergency Department (ED) to recognize those in need of hospitalization versus the candidates for discharge.

Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

This Part describes the process of creating the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC), informed by the 2015 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) publication.1,2 The process for the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) systematic review is quite different when compared with the process used in 2010.1–3 For the 2015 systematic review process, ILCOR used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) (www.gradeworkinggroup.org) approach to systematic reviews and guideline development. For the development of this 2015 Guidelines Update, the AHA used the ILCOR reviews as well as the AHA definition of Classes of Recommendation (COR) and Levels of Evidence (LOE) (Table 1). This Part summarizes the application of the ILCOR GRADE process to inform the creation of 2015 Guidelines Update, and the process of assigning the AHA COR and LOE. View this table: Table 1. Applying Class of Recommendations and Level of Evidence to Clinical Strategies, Interventions, Treatments, or Diagnostic Testing in Patient Care* ### Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation The 2015 CoSTR summarizes the published scientific evidence that was identified to answer specific resuscitation questions. ILCOR uses the GRADE system to summarize evidence and determine confidence in estimates of effect as well as to formulate treatment recommendations. GRADE is a consensus-crafted tool in wide use by many professional societies and reference organizations, including the American College of Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, and the Cochrane Collaboration, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. The choice of the GRADE approach was based on its increasingly ubiquitous use, practicality, and unique features. To our knowledge, the ILCOR evidence review process represents the largest application of the GRADE system in a healthcare-related review. GRADE is a system to review evidence to determine …

Sodium bicarbonate use in shock and cardiac arrest: attitudes of pediatric acute care physicians.

Objectives:To evaluate the preferences and self-reported practices of pediatric acute care physicians with respect to sodium bicarbonate administration to infants and children in shock or cardiac arrest. Design:National survey study utilizing a self-administered questionnaire. Setting:Thirteen Canadian pediatric tertiary care centers. Subjects:Canadian pediatric critical care physicians, pediatric emergency physicians, and trainees in these subspecialties. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:Survey items were evaluated based on Yes/No responses, frequency responses, and Likert scales. Overall response rate was 53% (151/284) with 49.0% (74/151) citing pediatric critical care as their primary practice. 82.0% of respondents (123/150) indicated they would administer sodium bicarbonate as part of ongoing resuscitation for septic shock, whereas 58.3% (88/151) would administer sodium bicarbonate in a cardiac arrest scenario (p = 0.004). 47.3% (71/150) selected a pH threshold at or below which they would administer sodium bicarbonate (mean, 6.94 ± 0.013; median, 7.00; range, 6.50–7.20; interquartile range, 6.90–7.00), whereas 20.5% (31/151) selected a base excess threshold (mean, –15.62 ± 0.78; median, –16; range, –20 to –4; interquartile range, –20 to –14). Both pH and duration of resuscitation were strongly associated with the decision to administer sodium bicarbonate (p < 0.0001). Respondents’ perceptions regarding a colleague’s likelihood of administering sodium bicarbonate to the same patient under the same circumstances reflect an acknowledgment of disparate practices with respect to sodium bicarbonate use. 53.0% (79/149) felt current American Heart Association guidelines help them in deciding whether to administer sodium bicarbonate to critically ill patients, and 84% would support a randomized trial. Conclusion:Differences of opinion exist among pediatric acute care physicians with respect to the timing and appropriateness of sodium bicarbonate administration during resuscitation. Most indicated they would support moving forward with a clinical trial. (Crit Care Med 2013; 41:2188–2195)

Prospective evaluation of direct approach with a tablet device as a strategy to enhance survey study participant response rate.

BackgroundInvestigators conduct survey studies for a variety of reasons. Poor participant response rates are common, however, and may limit the generalizability and utility of results. The objective of this study was to determine whether direct approach with a tablet device enhances survey study participant response rate and to assess participants’ experiences with this mode of survey administration.FindingsAn interventional study nested within a single center survey study was conducted at McMaster Children’s Hospital. The primary outcome was the ability to achieve of a survey study response rate of 70% or greater. Eligible participants received 3 email invitations (Week 0, 2, 4) to complete a web-based (Survey Monkey) survey. The study protocol included plans for a two-week follow-up phase (Phase 2) where non-responders were approached by a research assistant and invited to complete an iPad-based version of the survey. The Phase 1 response rate was 48.7% (56/115). Phase 2 effectively recruited reluctant responders, increasing the overall response rate to 72.2% (83/115). On a 7-point Likert scale, reluctant responders highly rated their enjoyment (mean 6.0, sd 0.83 [95% CI: 5.7-6.3]) and ease of use (mean 6.7, sd 0.47 [95% CI: 6.5-6.9]) completing the survey using the iPad. Reasons endorsed for Phase 2 participation included: direct approach (81%), immediate survey access (62%), and the novelty of completing a tablet-based survey (54%). Most reluctant responders (89%) indicated that a tablet-based survey is their preferred method of survey completion.ConclusionsUse of a tablet-based version of the survey was effective in recruiting reluctant responders and this group reported positive experiences with this mode of survey administration.

Rapid, easy, and cheap randomization: prospective evaluation in a study cohort

BackgroundWhen planning a randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigators must select randomization and allocation procedures based upon a variety of factors. While third party randomization is cited as being among the most desirable randomization processes, many third party randomization procedures are neither feasible nor cost-effective for small RCTs, including pilot RCTs. In this study we present our experience with a third party randomization and allocation procedure that utilizes current technology to achieve randomization in a rapid, reliable, and cost-effective manner.MethodsThis method was developed by the investigators for use in a small 48-participant parallel group RCT with four study arms. As a nested study, the reliability of this randomization procedure was prospectively evaluated in this cohort. The primary outcome of this nested study was the proportion of subjects for whom allocation information was obtained by the Research Assistant within 15 min of the initial participant randomization request. A secondary outcome was the average time for communicating participant group assignment back to the Research Assistant. Descriptive information regarding any failed attempts at participant randomization as well as costs attributable to use of this method were also recorded. Statistical analyses included the calculation of simple proportions and descriptive statistics.ResultsForty-eight participants were successfully randomized and group allocation instruction was received for 46 (96%) within 15 min of the Research Assistant placing the initial randomization request. Time elapsed in minutes until receipt of participant allocation instruction was Mean (SD) 3.1 +/− 3.6; Median (IQR) 2 (2,3); Range (1–20) for the entire cohort of 48. For the two participants for whom group allocation information was not received by the Research Assistant within the 15-min pass threshold, this information was obtained following a second request at 18 and 20 min, respectively. The method described here produced an email audit trail, which proved useful to the primary study.ConclusionsWe report a method of third party randomization that uses current technology to operationalize randomization and allocation in a rapid, easy, and cost-effective manner. Other investigators may find this method useful, particularly for small RCTs, including pilot RCTs, on a tight budget.

Translating Resuscitation Guidelines into Practice: Health Care Provider Attitudes, Preferences and Beliefs Regarding Pediatric Fluid Resuscitation Performance

Introduction Children who require fluid resuscitation for the treatment of shock present to tertiary and non-tertiary medical settings. While timely fluid therapy improves survival odds, guidelines are poorly translated into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to characterize the attitudes, preferences and beliefs of health care providers working in acute care settings regarding pediatric fluid resuscitation performance. Methods A single-centre survey study was conducted at McMaster Childrens Hospital from January to May, 2012. The sampling frame (n = 115) included nursing staff, physician staff and subspecialty trainees working in Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) or Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). A self-administered questionnaire was developed and assessed for face validity prior to distribution. Eligible participants were invited at 0, 2, and 4 weeks to complete a web-based version of the survey. A follow-up survey administration phase was conducted to improve the response rate. Results Response rate was 72.2% (83/115), with 83% (68/82) self-identifying as nursing staff and 61% (50/82) as PCCM providers. Resuscitation experience, frequency of shock management, and years in specialty, were similar between PCCM and PEM responders. Physicians and nurses had differing opinions regarding the most effective method to achieve rapid fluid resuscitation in young children presenting in shock (p<0.001). Disagreement also existed regarding the age and size of patients in whom rapid infuser devices, such as the Level-1 Rapid Infuser, should be used (p<0.001). Providers endorsed a number of potential concerns related to the use of rapid infuser devices in children, and only 14% of physicians and 55% of nursing staff felt that they had received adequate training in the use of such devices (p = 0.005). Conclusions There is a lack of consensus among health care providers regarding how pediatric fluid resuscitation guidelines should be operationalized, supporting a need for further work to define best practices.

Factors affecting pediatric isotonic fluid resuscitation efficiency: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of syringe size

BackgroundGoal-directed therapy guidelines for pediatric septic shock resuscitation recommend fluid delivery at speeds in excess of that possible through use of regular fluid infusion pumps. In our experience, syringes are commonly used by health care providers (HCPs) to achieve rapid fluid resuscitation in a pediatric fluid resuscitation scenario. At present, it is unclear which syringe size health care providers should use when performing fluid resuscitation to achieve maximal fluid resuscitation efficiency. The objective of this study was therefore to determine if an optimal syringe size exists for conducting manual pediatric fluid resuscitation.MethodsThis 48-participant parallel group randomized controlled trial included 4 study arms (10, 20, 30, 60 mL syringe size groups). Eligible participants were HCPs from McMaster Children’s Hospital, Hamilton, Canada blinded to the purpose of the trial. Consenting participants were randomized using a third party technique. Following a standardization procedure, participants administered 900 mL (60 mL/kg) of isotonic saline to a simulated 15 kg child using prefilled provided syringes of the allocated size in rapid sequence. Primary outcome was total time to administer the 900 mL and this data was collected through video review by two blinded outcome assessors. Sample size was predetermined based upon a primary outcome analysis using one-way ANOVA.Results12 participants were randomized to each group (n=48) and all completed trial protocol to analysis. Analysis was conducted according to intention to treat principles. A significant difference in fluid resuscitation time (in seconds) was found between syringe size group means: 10 mL, 563s [95% CI 521; 606]; 20 mL, 506s [95% CI 64; 548]; 30 mL, 454s [95% CI 412; 596]; 60 mL, 455s [95% CI 413; 497] (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe syringe size used when performing manual pediatric fluid resuscitation has a significant impact on fluid resuscitation speed, in a setting where fluid filled syringes are continuously available. Greatest efficiency was achieved with 30 or 60 mL syringes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01494116