eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. To submit an eLetter please go to the article you wish to respond to and click on the link that reads "eLetters: Submit a Response." Submission of eLetters are open to all health care professionals and experts in related fields.

eLetters to:

ARTICLES:
Joe Brierley and Mark J. Peters
Distinct Hemodynamic Patterns of Septic Shock at Presentation to Pediatric Intensive Care
Pediatrics 2008; 122: 752-759 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*eLetters: Submit a response to this article

eLetters published:

[Read eLetters] ¿CA vs CVC? Involvements.
Guillermo Luis Montalván González   (6 October 2008)

¿CA vs CVC? Involvements. 6 October 2008
  Top
Guillermo Luis Montalván González,
doctor
Paediatric Intensive Care Unit.

Send letter to journal:
Re: ¿CA vs CVC? Involvements.

gmontalvan.mtz{at}infomed.sld.cu Guillermo Luis Montalván González

¿CA vs CVC? Involvements.

Dr. Guillermo Luis Montalván González Paediatric Intensive Care Unit. Hospital Pediátrico Docente “Eliseo Noel Caamaño” Matanzas Cuba. Email: gmontalvan.mtz@infomed.sld.cu

The article of Joe Brierley and Mark J. Peters (1) is interesting, because add new evidences to the hemodynamic patterns that shows the pediatric patient in septic shock, besides doing it with a noninvasive cardiac output device ( Doppler ultrasonography). Each day increases in quantity and quality the publications they improve the understanding of the initial handling of the pediatric patient with severe sepsis and septic shock (2,3,4 ) . Recent guidelines and initiatives show that the progression from sepsis to severe sepsis and septic shock can be effectively halted and reversed with timely therapeutic interventions by recognizing the importance of the reconnaissance early of the sepsis with hypoperfusion. However, the article is confused in the way that shows the profiles hemodynamic of the patients according to presenting fluid-resistant septic shock secondary to central venous catheter-associated infection and community-acquired sepsis .

I think that the proposed hypothesis not trusts make evident solid and yes maybe to the personal experience of the investigators and this takes away you quality to the investigation. I think that it is very simplistic the analysis of the because of these finds, in a so complex phenomenon as the sepsis, where many factors as the genetics, premorbid illness , age, sex, characteristics of infecting pathogens, source control, patient response to infection, the functional reserve of the patient, and the degree of dysfunction of organs plays important roles (5). For the professional it is important knowledge that the child with septic shock resistant to fluids can show varied hemodynamic patterns and the therapeutic employee will depend of these finds, but the hemodynamic presentation depends of many factors implied, and this article does not give clarity in the topic. It is important to consider that the sepsis, severe sepsis and the septic shock does not function as a simple system of causes-effect, existing much more complex mechanisms implied in the pathogeny.

Still in the child the signs they correspond to high suspicion of sepsis + organs dysfunction ( severe sepsis, septic shock), will be the important elements to value for the professional the capillary refill, quality of the peripheral pulses, shock index, mental status, central and peripheral temperatures, urine output and also when results possible the measurement of the SvO2, lactate levels, anion gap acidosis and cardiac output(6). With these tools we show an impressive reduction of the mortality for sepsis (97% in the late 1960 to as low as 2% in 2003 in previously healthy children) (7) . In the middle of the important international effort to foment the reconnaissance and manage early of the severe sepsis and septic shock, do you see it code show encouraging results. I think that the article is a step more in the arduous and important task to improve the knowledge of the problem.

If see it of this way the article takes importance.

References: 1. Brierley J. , Peters M J. Distinct Hemodynamic Patterns of Septic Shock at Presentation to Pediatric Intensive Care. Pediatrics 2008 122: 752-759. 2. Ceneviva G, Paschall JA, Maffei F, Carcillo JA. Hemodynamic support in fluid-refractory pediatric septic shock. Pediatrics. 1998;102(2). 3. De Oliveira CF, de Oliveira DS, Gottschld AF et al.: ACCM/PALS maemodynamic support guidelines for paediatric septic shock: an outcomes comparoson with and without monitorinng central venous oxigen saturation. Intensive Care Med.(2008). 4. Han Y, Carcillo J, Dragotta M, et al. Early reversal of pediatricneonatal septic shock by community physicians is associated with improved outcome. Pediatrics. 2003;112(4):793–799 5. R. Scott Watson, Carcillo JA. The Epidemiology of Severe Sepsis in Children in the United States. Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 167.pp 695–701,2003. 6. Carcillo JA et al.Goal-Directed Management of Pediatric Shock in the Emergency Department. Clin Ped Emerg Med 8:165-175 2007 7. Carcillo JA, Han YY, Kissoon N. Sepsis guidelines and the global pediatrics sepsis initiative: implications for treatment. Future Medicine.Therapy (2008) 5(4), 301- 394.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared