Rationale: Pediatric-specific ventilator liberation guidelines are lacking despite the many studies exploring elements of extubation readiness testing. The lack of clinical practice guidelines has led to significant and unnecessary variation in methods used to assess pediatric patients’ readiness for extubation. Methods: Twenty-six international experts comprised a multiprofessional panel to establish pediatrics-specific ventilator liberation clinical practice guidelines, focusing on acutely hospitalized children receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours. Eleven key questions were identified and first prioritized using the Modified Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence. A systematic review was conducted for questions that did not meet an a priori threshold of ⩾80% agreement, with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodologies applied to develop the guidelines. The panel evaluated the evidence and drafted and voted on the recommendations. Measurements and Main Results: Three questions related to systematic screening using an extubation readiness testing bundle and a spontaneous breathing trial as part of the bundle met Modified Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations criteria of ⩾80% agreement. For the remaining eight questions, five systematic reviews yielded 12 recommendations related to the methods and duration of spontaneous breathing trials, measures of respiratory muscle strength, assessment of risk of postextubation upper airway obstruction and its prevention, use of postextubation noninvasive respiratory support, and sedation. Most recommendations were conditional and based on low to very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions: This clinical practice guideline provides a conceptual framework with evidence-based recommendations for best practices related to pediatric ventilator liberation.

Common, operational definitions are crucial to assess interventions and outcomes related to pediatric mechanical ventilation. These definitions can reduce unnecessary variability among research and quality improvement efforts, to ensure findings are generalizable, and can be pooled to establish best practices. Can we establish operational definitions for key elements related to pediatric ventilator liberation using a combination of detailed literature review and consensus-based approaches? A panel of 26 international experts in pediatric ventilator liberation, two methodologists, and two librarians conducted systematic reviews on eight topic areas related to pediatric ventilator liberation. Through a series of virtual meetings, we established draft definitions that were voted upon using an anonymous web-based process. Definitions were revised by incorporating extracted data gathered during the systematic review and discussed in another consensus meeting. A second round of voting was conducted to confirm the final definitions. In eight topic areas identified by the experts, 16 preliminary definitions were established. Based on initial discussion and the first round of voting, modifications were suggested for 11 of the 16 definitions. There was significant variability in how these items were defined in the literature reviewed. The final round of voting achieved ≥ 80% agreement for all 16 definitions in the following areas: what constitutes respiratory support (invasive mechanical ventilation and noninvasive respiratory support), liberation and failed attempts to liberate from invasive mechanical ventilation, liberation from respiratory support, duration of noninvasive respiratory support, total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, spontaneous breathing trials, extubation readiness testing, 28 ventilator-free days, and planned vs rescue use of post-extubation noninvasive respiratory support. We propose that these consensus-based definitions for elements of pediatric ventilator liberation, informed by evidence, be used for future quality improvement initiatives and research studies to improve generalizability and facilitate comparison.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric airway management is a challenging process at community emergency departments (CEDs) due to lower pediatric volume, a lack of pediatric expertise among staff, and a lack of pediatric-specific equipment and resources. This has contributed to increased mortality in pediatric patients presenting to CEDs in comparison to pediatric academic medical centers (AMCs). We hypothesized that a collaborative program between CEDs and the state AMC would improve the quality of pediatric airway management provided by CEDs in simulated settings and the CEDs' pediatric emergency readiness scores. METHODS: This prospective, pre- and post-intervention study utilized in situ simulation and was conducted in 10 CEDs in the state of Indiana. A team from the pediatric AMC led a multi-faceted improvement program, which included post-simulation debriefing, addressing pediatric airway management issues, targeted assessment reports, access to pediatric resources, and ongoing communication with the AMC. The primary outcome of the study was improvement of simulated pediatric airway management in the CEDs. The secondary outcome was improvement of the CEDs' pediatric emergency readiness scores score. RESULTS: A total of 35 multidisciplinary teams participated in pre-intervention sessions, and 40 teams participated in post-intervention sessions. Overall adherence to a critical action checklist improved from 52% at the pre-intervention visits to 71% post-intervention ( P = .003). There were significant improvements in the use of appropriate endotracheal tube (ETT) size (from 67% to 100%, P = .02), cuffed ETT (from 8% to 71%, P < .001), appropriate blade size (from 58% to 100%, P = .03), and availability of suction catheter (from 10% to 42%, P = .049). The CEDs' total pediatric emergency readiness scores score improved from 58.8 ± 15.6 pre-intervention to 75.8 ± 9.3 post-intervention ( P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative improvement program between a pediatric AMC and CEDs improved the CEDs' simulated pediatric emergency airway management. This model can be utilized to improve management of other pediatric critical conditions in these CEDs.

Rationale: Periextubation corticosteroids are commonly used in children to prevent upper airway obstruction (UAO). However, the best timing and dose combination of corticosteroids is unknown. Objectives: To compare effectiveness of different corticosteroid regimens in preventing UAO and reintubation. Methods: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase search identified randomized trials in children using corticosteroids to prevent UAO. All studies used dexamethasone. The studies were categorized based on timing of initiation of dexamethasone (early use: >12 h before extubation) and the dose (high dose: ⩾0.5 mg/kg/dose). We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with studies grouped into four regimens: high dose, early use (HE); low dose, early use (LE); high dose, late use (HL); and low dose, late use. Results: Eight trials (n = 903) were included in the analysis. For preventing UAO (odds ratio; 95% credible interval), HE (0.13; 0.04–0.36), HL (0.39; 0.19–0.74), and LE (0.15; 0.04–0.58) regimens appear to be more effective than no dexamethasone (low certainty). HE and LE had the highest probability of being the top-ranked regimens for preventing UAO (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 0.901 and 0.808, respectively). For preventing reintubation, the effect estimate was imprecise for all four dexamethasone regimens compared with no dexamethasone (very low certainty). HE and LE were the top-ranked regimens (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 0.803 and 0.720, respectively) for preventing reintubation. Sensitivity analysis showed that regimens that started >12 hours before extubation were likely more effective than regimens started >6 hours before extubation. Conclusions: Periextubation dexamethasone can prevent postextubation UAO in children, but effectiveness is highly dependent on timing and dosing regimen. Early initiation (ideally >12 h before extubation) appears to be more important than the dose of dexamethasone. Ultimately, the specific steroid strategy should be personalized, considering the potential for adverse events associated with dexamethasone and the individual risk of UAO and reintubation.

Rationale: Over 20,000 children are hospitalized in the United States for asthma every year. Although initial treatment guidelines are well established, there is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal respiratory support devices for these patients. Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate institutional and temporal variability in the use of respiratory support modalities for pediatric critical asthma. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Virtual Pediatrics Systems database. Our study population included children older than 2 years old admitted to a VPS contributing pediatric intensive care unit from January 2012 to December 2021 with a primary diagnosis of asthma or status asthmaticus. We evaluated the percentage of encounters using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for all institutions, then divided institutions into quintiles based on the volume of patients. We created logistic regression models to determine the influence of institutional volume and year of admission on respiratory support modality use. We also conducted time-series analyses using Kendall’s tau. Results: Our population included 77,115 patient encounters from 163 separate institutions. Institutional use of respiratory modalities had significant variation in HFNC (28.3%, interquartile range [IQR], 11.0–49.0%; P < 0.01), CPAP (1.4%; IQR, 0.3–4.3%; P < 0.01), NIV (8.6%; IQR, 3.5–16.1%; P < 0.01), and IMV (5.1%; IQR, 3.1–8.2%; P < 0.01). Increased institutional patient volume was associated with significantly increased use of NIV (odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 1.29–1.36; P < 0.01) and CPAP (OR, 1.20; 1.15–1.25; P < 0.01), and significantly decreased use of HFNC (OR, 0.80; 0.79–0.81; P < 0.01) and IMV (OR, 0.82; 0.79–0.86; P < 0.01). Time was also associated with a significant increase in the use of HFNC (11.0–52.3%; P < 0.01), CPAP (1.6–5.4%; P < 0.01), and NIV (3.7–21.2%; P < 0.01), whereas there was no significant change in IMV use (6.1–4.0%; P = 0.11). Conclusions: Higher-volume centers are using noninvasive positive pressure ventilation more frequently for pediatric critical asthma and lower frequencies of HFNC and IMV. Treatment with HFNC, CPAP, and NIV for this population is increasing in the last decade.

Background: We aimed to use the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry to describe the current practice of rest mechanical ventilation setting in children receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) and to determine if relationships exist between ventilator settings and mortality. Methods: Data for patients 14 days to 18 years old who received V-V ECMO from 2012-2016 were reviewed. Mechanical ventilation data available includes mode and settings at 24 h after ECMO cannulation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine if rest settings were associated with mortality. Results: We reviewed 1161 subjects, of which 1022 (88%) received conventional mechanical ventilation on ECMO. Rest settings, expressed as medians (25th%, 75th%), are as follows: rate 12 breaths/minute (10, 17); peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) 22 cmH₂O (20,27); positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) 10 cmH₂O (8, 10); and fraction of inspired oxygen (F_iO₂) 0.4 (0.37, 0.60). Survival to discharge was 68%. Higher ventilator F_iO₂ (odds ratio:1.13 per 0.1 increase, 95% confidence interval:1.04, 1.23), independent of arterial oxygen saturation, was associated with mortality. Conclusions: Current rest ventilator management for children receiving V-V ECMO primarily relies on conventional mechanical ventilation with moderate amounts of PIP, PEEP, and FiO₂. Further study on the relationship between FiO₂ and mortality should be pursued.