PRagMatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced versus nOrmaL Saline FlUid in Sepsis: the PRoMPT BOLUS Randomized Controlled Trial Pilot Feasibility Study.

2019

2019 Jun 10

1553-2712

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Resuscitation with crystalloid fluid is a cornerstone of pediatric septic shock treatment. However, the optimal type of crystalloid fluid is unknown. We aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized trial to compare balanced (lactated Ringer's [LR]) with 0.9% normal saline (NS) fluid resuscitation in children with suspected septic shock.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Open-label pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) at a single academic children's hospital from January - August 2018. Eligible patients were &gt;6 months to &lt;18 years-old who were treated in the emergency department for suspected septic shock, operationalized as blood culture, parenteral antibiotics, and fluid resuscitation for abnormal perfusion. Screening, enrollment, and randomization were carried out by the clinical team as part of routine care. Patients were randomized to receive either LR or NS for up to 48 hours following randomization. Other than fluid type, all treatment decisions were at the clinical team's discretion. Feasibility outcomes included proportion of eligible patients enrolled, acceptability of enrollment via the U.S. federal exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations, and adherence to randomized study fluid administration.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Of 59 eligible patients, 50 (85%) were enrolled and randomized. Twenty four were randomized to LR and 26 to NS. Only one (2%) of 44 patients enrolled using EFIC withdrew before study completion. Total median crystalloid fluid volume received during the intervention window was 107 (IQR 60, 155) mL/kg and 98 (IQR 63, 128) mL/kg in the LR and NS arms, respectively (p=0.50). Patients randomized to LR received a median of only 20% (IQR 13, 32) of all study fluid as NS compared to 99% (IQR 64,100%) of study fluid as NS in the NS arm (absolute difference 79%, 95% CI 48,85).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>A pragmatic study design proved feasible to study comparative effectiveness of LR versus NS fluid resuscitation for pediatric septic shock. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p>

10.1111/acem.13815

Acad Emerg Med

31183919

The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network Registry: A Multicenter Electronic Health Record Registry of Pediatric Emergency Care.

2018

366-376

2018 Apr

1869-0327

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong> Electronic health record (EHR)-based registries allow for robust data to be derived directly from the patient clinical record and can provide important information about processes of care delivery and patient health outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong> A data dictionary, and subsequent data model, were developed describing EHR data sources to include all processes of care within the emergency department (ED). ED visit data were deidentified and XML files were created and submitted to a central data coordinating center for inclusion in the registry. Automated data quality control occurred prior to submission through an application created for this project. Data quality reports were created for manual data quality review.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong> The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) Registry, representing four hospital systems and seven EDs, demonstrates that ED data from disparate health systems and EHR vendors can be harmonized for use in a single registry with a common data model. The current PECARN Registry represents data from 2,019,461 pediatric ED visits, 894,503 distinct patients, more than 12.5 million narrative reports, and 12,469,754 laboratory tests and continues to accrue data monthly.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong> The Registry is a robust harmonized clinical registry that includes data from diverse patients, sites, and EHR vendors derived via data extraction, deidentification, and secure submission to a central data coordinating center. The data provided may be used for benchmarking, clinical quality improvement, and comparative effectiveness research.</p>

10.1055/s-0038-1651496

Appl Clin Inform

29791930