Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2018 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2018 Open Access

Critical Care 1/2018

Implications for paediatric shock management in resource-limited settings: a perspective from the FEAST trial

Zeitschrift:
Critical Care > Ausgabe 1/2018
Autoren:
Kirsty Anne Houston, Elizabeth C. George, Kathryn Maitland
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13054-018-1966-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Background

Although the African “Fluid Expansion as Supportive therapy” (FEAST) trial showed fluid resuscitation was harmful in children with severe febrile illness managed in resource-limited hospitals, the most recent evidence reviewed World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines continue to recommend fluid boluses in children with shock according to WHO criteria “WHO shock”, arguing that the numbers included in the FEAST trial were too small to provide reasonable certainty.

Methods

We re-analysed the FEAST trial results for all international definitions for paediatric shock including hypotensive (or decompensated shock) and the WHO criteria. In addition, we examined the clinical relevance of the WHO criteria to published and unpublished observational studies reporting shock in resource-limited settings.

Results

We established that hypotension was rare in children with severe febrile illness complicating only 29/3170 trial participants (0.9%). We confirmed that fluid boluses were harmful irrespective of the definitions of shock including the very small number with WHO shock (n = 65). In this subgroup 48% of bolus recipients died at 48 h compared to 20% of the non-bolus control group, an increased absolute risk of 28%, but translating to an increased relative risk of 240% (p = 0.07 (two-sided Fisher’s exact test)). Examining studies describing the prevalence of the stringent WHO shock criteria in children presenting to hospital we found this was rare (~ 0.1%) and in these children mortality was very high (41.5–100%).

Conclusions

The updated WHO guidelines continue to recommend boluses for a very limited number of children presenting at hospital with the strict definition of WHO shock. Nevertheless, the 3% increased mortality from boluses seen across FEAST trial participants would also include this subgroup of children receiving boluses. Recommendations aiming to differentiate WHO shock from other definitions will invariably lead to “slippage” at the bedside, with the potential of exposing a wider group of children to the harm of fluid-bolus therapy.
Zusatzmaterial
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Critical Care 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe