Introduction: The timely provision of critical care to hospitalised patients at risk for cardiopulmonary arrest is contingent upon identification and referral by frontline providers. Current approaches require improvement. In a single-centre study, we developed the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System (Bedside PEWS) score to identify patients at risk. The objective of this study was to validate the Bedside PEWS score in a large patient population at multiple hospitals. Methods: We performed an international, multicentre, case-control study of children admitted to hospital inpatient units with no limitations on care. Case patients had experienced a clinical deterioration event involving either an immediate call to a resuscitation team or urgent admission to a paediatric intensive care unit. Control patients had no events. The scores ranged from 0 to 26 and were assessed in the 24 hours prior to the clinical deterioration event. Score performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUCROC) curve by comparison with the retrospective rating of nurses and the temporal progression of scores in case patients. Results: A total of 2,074 patients were evaluated at 4 participating hospitals. The median (interquartile range) maximum Bedside PEWS scores for the 12 hours ending 1 hour before the clinical deterioration event were 8 (5 to 12) in case patients and 2 (1 to 4) in control patients (P < 0.0001). The AUCROC curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.87 (0.85 to 0.89). In case patients, mean scores were 5.3 at 20 to 24 hours and 8.4 at 0 to 4 hours before the event (P < 0.0001). The AUCROC curve (95% CI) of the retrospective nurse ratings was 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86). This was significantly lower than that of the Bedside PEWS score (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The Bedside PEWS score identified children at risk for cardiopulmonary arrest. Scores were elevated and continued to increase in the 24 hours before the clinical deterioration event. Prospective clinical evaluation is needed to determine whether this score will improve the quality of care and patient outcomes.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population's movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in attempt to “flatten the curve” of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. The initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects (i.e., groupthink). Over time, important information emerged relevant to the modeling, including the lower infection fatality rate (median 0.23%), clarification of high-risk groups (specifically, those 70 years of age and older), lower herd immunity thresholds (likely 20–40% population immunity), and the difficult exit strategies. In addition, information emerged on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, adversely affecting many millions of people with poverty, food insecurity, loneliness, unemployment, school closures, and interrupted healthcare. Raw numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths were difficult to interpret, and may be tempered by information placing the number of COVID-19 deaths in proper context and perspective relative to background rates. Considering this information, a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health (at least 5–10 times so in terms of wellbeing years) than COVID-19 can be. Controversies and objections about the main points made are considered and addressed. Progress in the response to COVID-19 depends on considering the trade-offs discussed here that determine the wellbeing of populations. I close with some suggestions for moving forward, including focused protection of those truly at high risk, opening of schools, and building back better with a economy.

We reviewed reported survival and neurological outcomes, and predictors of these outcomes for pediatric cardiac extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). We searched PubMed from 2000 to April 2011. Cumulative survival after cardiac ECMO in children was 788/1755 (45%); renal dysfunction, dialysis, neurologic complication, lactate, and ECMO duration consistently predicted this outcome, whereas single ventricle and ECPR did not. Neurological outcomes after cardiac ECMO were based on poorly described telephone questions in two studies for 47 patients with 51% significantly impaired and detailed follow-up testing for 42 patients in three studies with mental delay in 38% and mental score >85 (average or above) in 33%. Cumulative survival after ECPR in children was 371/762 (49%); noncardiac disease, renal dysfunction, neurologic complication, and pH on extracorporeal life support consistently predicted this outcome, whereas duration of CPR did not. Neurological outcomes after ECPR were based predominantly on the pediatric cerebral performance category (PCPC) score by chart review, with 161/181 (79%) having PCPC <2. No study reported detailed follow-up testing for survivors of ECPR. Survival outcomes of most cardiac subgroups were similar, except for concerning mortality in cavopulmonary connection patients. Priority areas for study include identification of potentially modifiable predictors of long-term outcomes.

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been "worked out" and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule. We first present a description of the process of DCD and the standard ethical rationale for the practice. We then present our concerns with DCD, including the following: irreversibility of absent circulation has not occurred and the many attempts to claim it has have all failed; conflicts of interest at all steps in the DCD process, including the decision to withdraw life support before DCD, are simply unavoidable; potentially harmful premortem interventions to preserve organ utility are not justifiable, even with the help of the principle of double effect; claims that DCD conforms with the intent of the law and current accepted medical standards are misleading and inaccurate; and consensus statements by respected medical groups do not change these arguments due to their low quality including being plagued by conflict of interest. Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are "straw-man arguments," such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate. Until this debate occurs, we call for a moratorium on the practice of DCD.

Introduction: Early administration of antibiotics for sepsis, and of fluid boluses and vasoactive agents for septic shock, is recommended. Evidence for this in children is limited. Methods: The Alberta Sepsis Network prospectively enrolled eligible children admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) with sepsis from 04/2012-10/2014. Demographics, severity of illness, and outcomes variables were prospectively entered into the ASN database after deferred consent. Timing of interventions were determined by retrospective chart review using a study manual and case-report-form. We aimed to determine the association of intervention timing and outcome in children with sepsis. Univariate (t-test and Fisher’s Exact) and multiple linear regression statistics evaluated predictors of outcomes of PICU length of stay (LOS) and ventilation days. Results: Seventy-nine children, age median 60 (IQR 22–133) months, 40 (51 %) female, 39 (49 %) with severe underlying co-morbidity, 44 (56 %) with septic shock, and median PRISM-III 10.5 [IQR 6.0-17.0] were enrolled. Most patients presented in an ED: 36 (46 %) at an outlying hospital ED, and 21 (27 %) at the Children’s Hospital ED. Most infections were pneumonia with/without empyema (42, 53 %), meningitis (11, 14 %), or bacteremia (10, 13 %). The time from presentation to acceptable antibiotic administration was a median of 115.0 [IQR 59.0-323.0] minutes; 20 (25 %) of patients received their antibiotics in the first hour from presentation. Independent predictors of PICU LOS were PRISM-III, and severe underlying co-morbidity, but not time to antibiotics. In the septic shock subgroup, the volume of fluid boluses given in the first 2 hours was independently associated with longer PICU LOS (effect size 0.22 days; 95 % CI 0.5, 0.38; per ml/kg). Independent predictors of ventilator days were PRISM-III score and severe underlying co-morbidity. In the septic shock subgroup, volume of fluid boluses in the first 2 hours was independently associated with more ventilator days (effect size 0.09 days; 95 % CI 0.02, 0.15; per ml/kg). Conclusion: Higher volume of early fluid boluses in children with sepsis and septic shock was independently associated with longer PICU LOS and ventilator days. More study on the benefits and harms of fluid bolus therapy in children are needed.