Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18369591›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2008

ACCM/PALS haemodynamic support guidelines for paediatric septic shock: an outcomes comparison with and without monitoring central venous oxygen saturation.

Cláudio F de Oliveira, Débora S F de Oliveira, Adriana F C Gottschald, Juliana D G Moura, Graziela A Costa, Andréa C Ventura, José Carlos Fernandes, Flávio A C Vaz, Joseph A Carcillo, Emanuel P Rivers and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
18.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

114 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 400 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Primary Outcome Measures in Pediatric Septic Shock Trials: A Systematic Review.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Guideline
  12. Guideline
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Cláudio F de OliveiraPaediatric Intensive Care Unit, Department of Paediatrics, Instituto da Criança Pedro de Alcântra, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. claudiof@icr.hcnet.usp.br
Débora S F de Oliveira
Adriana F C Gottschald
Juliana D G Moura
Graziela A Costa
Andréa C Ventura
José Carlos Fernandes
Flávio A C Vaz
Joseph A Carcillo
Emanuel P Rivers
Eduardo J Troster
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRHospital Universitário da Universidade de São Paulo · BRHenry Ford Health System · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe ACCM/PALS guidelines address early correction of paediatric septic shock using conventional measures. In the evolution of these recommendations, indirect measures of the balance between systemic oxygen delivery and demands using central venous or superior vena cava oxygen saturation (ScvO(2) > or = 70%) in a goal-directed approach have been added. However, while these additional goal-directed endpoints are based on evidence-based adult studies, the extrapolation to the paediatric patient remains unvalidated.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare treatment according to ACCM/PALS guidelines, performed with and without ScvO(2) goal-directed therapy, on the morbidity and mortality rate of children with severe sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND

interventionsChildren and adolescents with severe sepsis or fluid-refractory septic shock were randomly assigned to ACCM/PALS with or without ScvO(2) goal-directed resuscitation. MEASUREMENTS: Twenty-eight-day mortality was the primary endpoint.

resultsOf the 102 enrolled patients, 51 received ACCM/PALS with ScvO(2) goal-directed therapy and 51 received ACCM/PALS without ScvO(2) goal-directed therapy. ScvO(2) goal-directed therapy resulted in less mortality (28-day mortality 11.8% vs. 39.2%, p=0.002), and fewer new organ dysfunctions (p=0.03). ScvO(2) goal-directed therapy resulted in more crystalloid (28 (20-40) vs. 5 (0-20 ml/kg, p<0.0001), blood transfusion (45.1% vs. 15.7%, p=0.002) and inotropic (29.4% vs. 7.8%, p=0.01) support in the first 6 h.

conclusionsThis study supports the current ACCM/PALS guidelines. Goal-directed therapy using the endpoint of a ScvO(2)> or =70% has a significant and additive impact on the outcome of children and adolescents with septic shock.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicCardiac OutputChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHemodynamicsHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicOxygenResuscitationShock, SepticTreatment OutcomeOxygen

Identifiers

PMID18369591
OpenAlexW2054493330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.