Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT

Hemodynamic Response to Fluid Boluses in Patients with Single-Ventricle Parallel Circulation

The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of fluid bolus in response to a hypotensive episode by evaluating high-fidelity hemodynamic data obtained from children with single-ventricle anatomy and parallel circulation. Single center, retrospective analysis of hemodynamic and oximetric data after fluid bolus administrations within the first 2 weeks post-surgery. A baseline (- 60 to - 10 min), hypotensive episode (- 10 to 0 min), and response interval (0 to 60 min) were defined to quantify the dynamics of vital signs. The responses assessed include heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, oxygen extraction ratios, and pulmonary-to-systemic flow ratios. Mixed effects models were used to account for the repeated measures over the response interval. The analysis included 67 fluid boluses. There is a decrease in heart rate and an increase in blood pressure during the response in comparison to the hypotensive time. These vitals rapidly return to the baseline values. The boluses induced a significant decrease in renal and cerebral oxygen extraction ratios, with no significant change in arterial oxygen saturation or pulmonary-to-systemic flow ratio. The type of bolus (normal saline versus albumin) did not affect the response in blood pressure. However, in comparison with albumin, normal saline had a more favorable effect on the renal and cerebral oxygen extraction ratios. This study demonstrates that fluid boluses are an effective rescue medication for hypotensive episodes in children with parallel circulation by improving hemodynamics, as well as markers of oxygen delivery. The type of bolus (normal saline versus albumin) did not affect the blood pressure response. However, normal saline had a more pronounced effect on the renal and cerebral oxygen extraction ratios than albumin.

Challenges in the recognition and management of paediatric sepsis - The journey

Paediatric sepsis remains a leading cause of childhood death. Morbidity is high, with up to one third of children affected developing ongoing, sometimes lifelong sequelae. To address the major burden of sepsis on child health, there is need for a unified approach to care, as outlined in the Australian National Action Plan for sepsis. While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2020 guidelines provided evidence-based recommendations for sepsis management in hospital, additional emphasis on families, pre-hospital recognition and post-sepsis care incorporating the multidisciplinary team is paramount to achieve quality patient outcomes. The role of families, paramedics and nurses in recognising and managing paediatric sepsis remains an under-represented area in current literature. The aim of this paper is to critically discuss key challenges surrounding the journey of paediatric sepsis, drawing on contemporary literature to highlight key areas pertinent to recognition and management of sepsis in children. Application of a holistic, patient-centred focus will provide an overview of paediatric sepsis, aiming to inform future development for enhanced healthcare delivery and identify critical areas for further research.

Establishing and augmenting views on the acceptability of a paediatric critical care randomised controlled trial (the FEVER trial): a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

To explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study.

DESIGN

Mixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial.

SETTING

English, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs).

PARTICIPANTS

(1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al's theoretical framework of acceptability.

RESULTS

There was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818.

Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the GASTRIC feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding is widespread in paediatric intensive care and neonatal units, but has little underlying evidence to support it.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question: is a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement feasible in UK paediatric intensive care units and neonatal units?

DESIGN

A mixed-methods study involving five linked work packages in two parallel arms: neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. Work package 1: a survey of units to establish current UK practice. Work package 2: qualitative interviews with health-care professionals and caregivers of children admitted to either setting. Work package 3: a modified two-round e-Delphi survey to investigate health-care professionals' opinions on trial design issues and to obtain consensus on outcomes. Work package 4: examination of national databases to determine the potential eligible populations. Work package 5: two consensus meetings of health-care professionals and parents to review the data and agree consensus on outcomes that had not reached consensus in the e-Delphi study.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Parents of children with experience of ventilation and tube feeding in both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units, and health-care professionals working in neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units.

RESULTS

Baseline surveys showed that the practice of gastric residual volume measurement was very common (96% in paediatric intensive care units and 65% in neonatal units). Ninety per cent of parents from both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units supported a future trial, while highlighting concerns around possible delays in detecting complications. Health-care professionals also indicated that a trial was feasible, with 84% of staff willing to participate in a trial. Concerns expressed by junior nurses about the intervention arm of not measuring gastric residual volumes were addressed by developing a simple flow chart and education package. The trial design survey and e-Delphi study gained consensus on 12 paediatric intensive care unit and nine neonatal unit outcome measures, and identified acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given the differences in physiology, disease processes, environments, staffing and outcomes of interest, two different trials are required in the two settings. Database analyses subsequently showed that trials were feasible in both settings in terms of patient numbers. Of 16,222 children who met the inclusion criteria in paediatric intensive care units, 12,629 stayed for > 3 days. In neonatal units, 15,375 neonates < 32 weeks of age met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the two consensus meetings demonstrated 'buy-in' from the wider UK neonatal communities and paediatric intensive care units, and enabled us to discuss and vote on the outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the e-Delphi study.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Two separate UK trials (one in neonatal units and one in paediatric intensive care units) are feasible to conduct, but they cannot be combined as a result of differences in outcome measures and treatment protocols, reflecting the distinctness of the two specialties.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42110505.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.