Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 43, Issue 11, pp 1686–1689 | Cite as

Paediatric sepsis: old wine in new bottles?

  • Luregn J. Schlapbach
  • Etienne Javouhey
  • Nicolaas J. G. Jansen
Open Access
What's New in Intensive Care

The recent year marked a milestone in the field of sepsis in adults, with the revised Sepsis-3 definitions [1] and the updated Surviving Sepsis Campaign [2] published. But what about paediatric sepsis: how does Sepsis-3 fit in with what we know on paediatric sepsis and can we relate it to the way we treat children with sepsis?

First of all, what is sepsis in children? The 2005 consensus definition of paediatric sepsis required the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in a child with suspected or proven infection. In view of the high mortality seen with sepsis, the importance of early recognition and intervention was emphasized. However, SIRS criteria are easily met in children with non-infectious diseases, and even infected children meeting these criteria often have nil organ dysfunction.

The Sepsis-3 definitions prompt clinicians and researchers to consider three key aspects when confronted with a patient evaluated for sepsis: (1) presence of infection, (2) development of a dysregulated response to infection leading to organ dysfunction, and (3) progression to severe disease associated with a substantial increase in mortality. From this perspective, a part of previous sepsis awareness programs in children were effectively centred around recognition of infection and early initiation of antimicrobial treatment, which remains one of the most powerful interventions to prevent disease progression. With regards to organ dysfunction, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score allows application to adults with pre-existing organ dysfunction, taking into account severity and number of organ dysfunctions. Unfortunately, SOFA was neither designed nor adapted for the paediatric age group. The Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction Score-2 (PELOD-2) [3] currently represents the closest scoring system to SOFA, but remains to be validated prospectively in children with sepsis outside ICU. With regards to defining subsets of paediatric sepsis patients at substantially greater mortality risk, patterns characterizing paediatric sepsis have to be taken into account. First, a large proportion of sepsis deaths in previously healthy children occur within the first 48 h of PICU admission [4]. Ideally, sepsis severity definitions should thus capture patients at high risk of mortality as soon as possible after admission to Emergency Departments (ED) or PICUs. Second, hyperlactataemia may be the most powerful single routine clinical laboratory marker discriminating children at higher mortality risk, both in ED and PICU settings, with lactate levels at presentation >4 mmol/l seen in patients with a mortality of 10% and higher [5, 6]. Third, arterial hypotension remains a late sign of paediatric septic shock, and the triad of hyperlactataemia, hypotension, and vasopressor requirement is initially only present in a minority of children at time of ICU admission. Fourth, clinicians are exposed to an increasingly challenging cohort of children with complex comorbidities, who remain at substantial risk of death even if they survived the initial septic shock. Such late deaths may represent missed opportunities for damage control, pertinent to aspects such as source control, fluid management, and prevention of hospital-acquired secondary infections.

So where are we with treatment for paediatric sepsis? Prevalence and mortality of severe sepsis have become comparable to adults, yet, despite large campaigns addressing sepsis awareness, outcome improvement has been moderate at best. Interestingly, the reduction in sepsis mortality in PICU observed over the past decade is almost identical to that of children requiring PICU for non-infectious causes [7], suggesting that this survival increase is likely due to a combination of improved practices. While randomized controlled pharmaceutical trials have consistently failed to demonstrate survival benefit, there is hope that the era of personalized medicine may help to identify subgroups of patients, where benefit will exceed harm of previously studied interventions. At this stage, getting the basics done right remains the best we can do, and scepticism as to how well we are performing is warranted, considering that audits often reveal median times from hospital presentation to first antibiotics exceeding the 1-h benchmark proposed in the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines [8]. Implementation of a sepsis protocol results in shorter time to first intravenous fluid and antibiotics administration as well as reduced time to vasoactive infusion [9, 10, 11, 12]. Management of children with a sepsis protocol, based on SCCM-PALS guidelines, aiming to timely deliver antibiotics, adequate intravenous fluid resuscitation and vasoactive agents, has been shown to be associated with a decreased mortality [13, 14], a reduced length of hospital and PICU stay [10, 14], and a reduced number of children with organ dysfunction (Table 1) [8]. Increased compliance with sepsis bundles in paediatric emergency departments was associated with improved outcomes, highlighting the importance of bundle implementation and maintenance for performance metrics [15]. Although most studies in children were not powered to assess mortality as an outcome, the aggregate evidence strongly supports institutions to implement pediatric sepsis bundles, and screen tools for sepsis, as part of best practice-as recommended by the 2017 guidelines for adults [2].
Table 1

Review of studies assessing the impact of bundles of care in children with severe sepsis or septic shock

Author

Journal, Year,

Location, Ref no.

Design

Population

Sample size

Intervention

Results on bundle performance

Results on patient outcome

Balamuth F

Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2016

Philadelphia, US [8]

Retrospective

Single centre

189 Children

56 days to 18 years

With severe sepsis or septic shock

Protocolized sepsis guideline

121 children treated with the sepsis protocol

68 were treated with usual care

Children treated according to protocol were more likely to be organ dysfunction-free on day 1 (RR = 4.4, 95% CI: 2.0–9.7) and on day 2 (RR = 5.2, 95% CI: 2.5–10.8)

Cruz AT

Pediatrics, 2011

Texas, US [9]

Prospective

Quality Improvement program

Single centre

191 encounters in 167 patients with suspected sepsis

Septic shock protocol

Computerized triage tool

Electronic alert

High risk classification 

Reduced median time from triage to first bolus from 56 to 22 min (p < 0.001)

Reduced median time to first antibiotics from 130 to 38 min (p < 0.001)

Not assessed

Larsen GY

Pediatrics, 2011

Utah, US [10]

Prospective

Quality Improvement program

Single center

2005–2007 Before

2008–2009 After

345

Septic shock protocol and care guideline

Educational program

Triage tool: VSs and physical examination

Feedback

Compliance with 3 bundles care (20 mL/kg IVF within 60′, lactate assessment, and antibiotics within 3 h) increased with time: from 5% (before period) to 54% (after period)

Decreased of median hospital LOS from 181 to 140 h (p < 0.05)

No difference on mortality rate

Paul R

Pediatrics, 2014

Boston, US [11]

Prospective quality improvement program

Single centre

2009–2011 Before

2011–2013 After

242

126 before intervention, 116 after intervention

Bundle of 5 time-specific goals (recognition of SS, vascular access, IVF, vasopressors, antibiotics)

Plan-do-act-study-act cycles

100% adherence

Reduced median time to IVF from 83 (43–145) to 33 min (0–68)

Reduced median time to vasoactive agents from 90 (51–164) to 35 (14–86)

Increase of the number of cases between each death from severe sepsis and septic shock

Workman JK

Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2016

Utah, US [12]

Prospective

single center

321 met screening inclusion criteria 

Care in compliance with SSC guidelines (117 children, 36%)

Shorter time to antibiotics administration (44 vs. 94 min, p < 0.01),

Shorter time to vasoactive infusion (47.5 vs. 130 min, p < 0.01)

No difference on NP-MODS

Lane RD

Pediatrics, 2016

Utah, US [13]

Prospective

Quality improvement program (2007–2014)

Single centre

1278 children with severe sepsis screening criteria

Septic shock pathway, screening tool/algorithm

Compliance to bundle: timely antibiotics, IVF for signs of SS

Mean bundle adherence improved from 73 to 84%

Lower mortality in the bundle compliant group (1.2% vs. 4.2%, OR = 0.20 IQR (0.07–0.53))

Paul R

Pediatrics, 2012

Boston, US [14]

Prospective quality improvement program

Single centre

2009–2011 Pre

126 severe sepsis or septic shock

Bundle of 5 time-specific goals (recognition of SS, vascular access, IVF, vasopressors, antibiotics)

19% adherence to the global bundle

Reduced ICU and hospital LOS: 6.8 vs. 10.9 days, p = 0.009 and 5.5 vs. 6.8, p = 0.035 respectively

CI confidence interval, IQR interquartile range, IVF intravenous fluid, LOS length of stay, NP-MODS new or progressive –multi organ dysfunctions, OR odd ratio, RR relative risk, SS septic shock, SSC survival sepsis campaign, VSs vital signs

So where to from here then? Future sepsis interventions need to identify the patient group most likely to respond to a specific intervention. First of all, is the patient actually suffering from an infection and can we speed up time to diagnosis allowing earlier appropriate antimicrobial treatment using molecular diagnostics? Second, can we develop faster, easily accessible markers and scoring systems to reliably identify children with dysregulated immune response? Can these help us to discriminate subgroups that benefit from more/less aggressive fluid resuscitation, early inotropes, and therapeutic adjuncts such as antitoxin therapy, immune modulators and extracorporeal life support? Third, maybe one of the most important paradigm changes the Early Goal Directed study promoted, was the realization that ED and ICU represent a care continuum rather than two separate entities. Using early serial observations to discriminate responders from non-responders to the initial sepsis bundle will help to develop powerful tools to rapidly identify patients who should receive early ICU support.

In conclusion, re-shaping our approach to infection, sepsis, and sepsis severity in children is not just an academic exercise but is key to developing screening tools for early recognition and designing trials addressing the right target groups. Thanks to the creation of large international paediatric research networks, these questions can now be addressed in collaborative studies.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the section Infection, Inflammation and Sepsis and scientific members of the European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors has declared a conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Angus DC (2016) The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315:801–810CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, Kumar A, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Nunnally ME, Rochwerg B, Rubenfeld GD, Angus DC, Annane D, Beale RJ, Bellinghan GJ, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith C, De Backer DP, French CJ, Fujishima S, Gerlach H, Hidalgo JL, Hollenberg SM, Jones AE, Karnad DR, Kleinpell RM, Koh Y, Lisboa TC, Machado FR, Marini JJ, Marshall JC, Mazuski JE, McIntyre LA, McLean AS, Mehta S, Moreno RP, Myburgh J, Navalesi P, Nishida O, Osborn TM, Perner A, Plunkett CM, Ranieri M, Schorr CA, Seckel MA, Seymour CW, Shieh L, Shukri KA, Simpson SQ, Singer M, Thompson BT, Townsend SR, Van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Wiersinga WJ, Zimmerman JL, Dellinger RP (2017) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 43:304–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leteurtre S, Duhamel A, Salleron J, Grandbastien B, Lacroix J, Leclerc F, Groupe Francophone de Reanimation et d’Urgences P (2013) PELOD-2: an update of the PEdiatric logistic organ dysfunction score. Crit Care Med 41:1761–1773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morin L, Ray S, Wilson C, Remy S, Benissa MR, Jansen NJ, Javouhey E, Peters MJ, Kneyber M, De Luca D, Nadel S, Schlapbach LJ, Maclaren G, Tissieres P, ESPNIC Refractory Septic Shock Definition Taskforce tISISsoE (2016) Refractory septic shock in children: a European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care definition. Intensive Care Med 42:1948–1957CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott HF, Brou L, Deakyne SJ, Kempe A, Fairclough DL, Bajaj L (2017) Association between early lactate levels and 30-day mortality in clinically suspected sepsis in children. JAMA Pediatr 171:249–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schlapbach LJ, MacLaren G, Festa M, Alexander J, Erickson S, Beca J, Slater A, Schibler A, Pilcher D, Millar J, Straney L, Australian, New Zealand Intensive Care Society Centre for O, Resource E, Australian, New Zealand Intensive Care Society Paediatric Study G (2017) Prediction of pediatric sepsis mortality within 1 h of intensive care admission. Intensive Care Med. doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4701-8
  7. 7.
    Schlapbach LJ, Straney L, Alexander J, MacLaren G, Festa M, Schibler A, Slater A, Group APS (2015) Mortality related to invasive infections, sepsis, and septic shock in critically ill children in Australia and New Zealand, 2002-13: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 15:46–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balamuth F, Weiss SL, Fitzgerald JC, Hayes K, Centkowski S, Chilutti M, Grundmeier RW, Lavelle J, Alpern ER (2016) Protocolized treatment is associated with decreased organ dysfunction in pediatric severe sepsis. Pediatr Crit Care Med 17:817–822CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cruz AT, Perry AM, Williams EA, Graf JM, Wuestner ER, Patel B (2011) Implementation of goal-directed therapy for children with suspected sepsis in the emergency department. Pediatrics 127(3):e758–e766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsen GY, Mecham N, Greenberg R (2011) An emergency department septic shock protocol and care guideline for children initiated at triage. Pediatrics 127(6):e1585–e1592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paul R, Melendez E, Stack A, Capraro A, Monuteaux M, Neuman MI (2014) Improving adherence to PALS septic shock guidelines. Pediatrics 133(5):e1358–e1366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Workman JK, Ames SG, Reeder RW, Korgenski EK, Masotti SM, Bratton SL, Larsen GY (2016) Treatment of pediatric septic shock with the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines and PICU patient outcomes. Pediatr Crit Care Med 17(10):e451–e458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lane RD, Funai T, Reeder R, Larsen GY (2016) High reliability pediatric septic shock quality improvement initiative and decreasing mortality. Pediatrics 138(4):e20154153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paul R, Neuman MI, Monuteaux MC, Melendez E (2012) Adherence to PALS sepsis guidelines and hospital length of stay. Pediatrics 130(2):e273–e280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R, Osborn T, Lemeshow S, Chiche JD, Artigas A, Dellinger RP (2014) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcorefernce nr 10 mes in a 7.5-year study. Intensive Care Med 40:1623–1633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luregn J. Schlapbach
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Etienne Javouhey
    • 4
    • 5
  • Nicolaas J. G. Jansen
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Paediatric Critical Care Research Group, Mater Research InstituteUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Paediatric Intensive Care UnitLady Cilento Children’s HospitalBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Pediatrics, InselspitalUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.Pediatric Emergency and Intensive Care UnitHôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils LyonBronFrance
  5. 5.University of LyonUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1LyonFrance
  6. 6.Chairman of the Section Infection, Inflammation and Sepsis of ESPNIC, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Wilhelmina Children’s HospitalUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Child Health, Science for Life, Research GroupUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations