PCCM Journal

May 2024 and another month of exciting Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) publications. There are three Editor’s Choice articles with editorials, and each article is accompanied by PCCM Connections material. The topics are clinical decision support using digital bedside data (^1,2), trainee education and needs in spiritual care (^3,4), and communication with parents about patient prognosis and the language we use (^5,6). Finally, in addition to the PCCM Connections section of the Editor’s Choice, I have started a new section called PCCM International.

Pelletier JH, Rakkar J, Au AK, et al: Retrospective Validation of a Computerized Physiologic Equation to Predict Minute Ventilation Needs in Critically Ill Children (¹).

My first Editor’s Choice article reports the use of a large electronic dataset of acid-base and ventilator parameters in children undergoing neuromuscular blockade during mechanical ventilation to validate a computerized equation to predict minute ventilation requirements. There were over 15,000 arterial blood gases in 484 patients and the investigators found that in silico their equation outperformed clinicians in real time (¹). The accompanying editorial provides a helpful discussion about simulation and teaching platforms, and clinical decision support in respiratory care (²).

We then have two parallel developments in the PCCM literature that are worth reviewing. You may recall the work of the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference and the renewed emphasis in leveraging clinical informatics and data science for improved care and research in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (^7,8). The other work is from the Pediatric Data Science and Analytics (PEDAL) subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators network (⁹). The group had a 2020 survey of clinical decision support practices (¹⁰) and, in April 2024, a Special Article about development, validation, and implementation of unsupervised machine learning models in pediatric critical care research (¹¹). Do read them all.

Stevens PE, Rassbach CE, Qin F, Kuo KW: Spiritual Care in PICUs: A U.S. Survey of 245 Training Fellows, 2020−2021 (³).

My second Editor’s Choice article is a report of clinical fellows’ responses to a survey about spiritual care in their PICU and/or neonatal intensive care unit practices, 2020 to 2021 (³). The survey response rate was around one-third of 720 training fellows in the United States, which is far below the usual acceptable rate of 85%. However, with opinions from a total of 245 fellows, these insights cannot be ignored. For example, many fellows reported that “spiritual care was important for patients and families but (they) rarely incorporated spiritual care into their self-reported clinical practice.” This theme is discussed in the accompanying editorial (⁴), which considers a way forward in curricula, education, and research to “rediscover…. (see above header quote).” Of note, it has been almost 20 years since PCCM last published material about history taking and addressing parents’ spiritual needs (^12,13), and so this information warrants further review and study.

Olive AM, Wagner AF, Mulhall DT, et al: Nudging During Pediatric Intensive Care Conferences With Family Members: Retrospective Analysis of Transcripts From a Single Center, 2015−2019 (⁵).

My third Editor’s Choice article is a retrospective study of transcripts from 70 care conferences involving clinicians and families, 2015−2019 (⁵). The authors examined episodes of decision-making that occurred in 63 transcripts and provide a summary of almost 1,100 instances of nudging. The accompanying editorial comments on the implications of this new research in care conferences, and there is a summary table of strategies to promote “ethically supported shared decision-making” (⁶).

This area of research is underrepresented in PCCM. However, for more reading material, look at my second Editor’s Choice this month (^3,4), the systematic review of prognostic and goals-of-care communication in the PICU (¹⁴), and the data from the comparative trial of parent Navigator-support during and after PICU admission (^15–17).

There are two PCCM Connections topics this month. The first extends the above discussion about clinical decision support (^1,2). This month there are two articles about an automated, daily calculation of the pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score. One article describes the external validation of the automated calculator using a single center 7-year cohort, 2015−2021 (¹⁸). The other article describes using this calculator to provide a dynamic prediction of mortality with longitudinal pSOFA scores (¹⁹). Please read the accompanying editorial, which is a tour de force with its skillful coverage of severity scoring, prognostic modeling, and biomedical informatics (²⁰).

The second topic for PCCM Connections is covered in a PCCM Perspective about end-of-life care and the principle of “supported privacy” for families (²¹). That is, “creating and protecting a private space during end-of-life care in the PICU, while simultaneously sustaining unobtrusive continued presence for practical and emotional support of the family.” The summary of recommendations in the authors’ table is useful and adds to the discussions found in this month’s second and third Editor’s Choices (see above).

Our last international focus on sepsis came from Pakistan and was about biomarker-based risk-stratification (^22,23). This month, PCCM publishes an article from southwest China describing the epidemiological characteristics, from 12 centers identifying sepsis or septic shock in 3.3% of over 11,000 PICU admissions, 2022−2023 (²⁴). The accompanying editorial covers issues such as diagnosis and treatment protocols (²⁵), which should now be seen in the context of the 2024 international consensus criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock (²⁶).

Finally, this month there is another Editorial Notes, Methods, and Statistics article in the series about writing for PCCM (^27–30). The new addition gives details about the variety of formats for PCCM’s Editorials and Commentaries (³¹). There is also guidance on paragraph-by-paragraph content and structure for new writers.

Another month of top-rated specialist articles in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). My three April 2024 Editor’s Choice articles, each with editorials, cover familiar research themes in the Journal. For a change, alongside each of these highlights, I include some educational material usually found in the PCCM Connections section. The topics are pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) (^1,2), formal ethics consultation in cases of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (^3,4), and hemodynamics in cannulation for ECMO during active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) (^5,6).

Gertz SJ, Bhalla A, Chima RS, et al; Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Incidence and Epidemiology (PARDIE) Investigators and the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network: Immunocompromised-Associated Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Experience From the 2016/2017 Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Incidence and Epidemiology Prospective Cohort Study (¹).

My first Editor’s Choice article is a report using the 2016/2017 PARDS incidence and epidemiology (PARDIE) cohort. The accompanying editorial (²) is helpful because it reviews last year’s articles using the PARDIE dataset: the association between platelet transfusion and diuretic use with unfavorable outcome (⁷); and the association between immunosuppression and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure (^8,9). The PARDIE investigators delve deeper into the 2016/2017 dataset and compare 105 patients with ICC-associated PARDS with another 603 patients with severe PARDS without ICC. Platelet transfusion, diuretic use, and NIV-failure feature in the latest report (¹). And of particular interest is how these factors could now add to our interpretation of the 2023 guidance in the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (^10,11): should we consider ICC-associated PARDS as a separate clinical entity, and what about the utility of NIV-trials in such children?

Siegel B, Taylor LS, Alizadeh F, et al: Formal Ethics Consultation in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort of a Quaternary Pediatric Hospital (³).

My second Editor’s Choice article is a single-center review of formal ethics consultation in ECMO patients, 2012−2021 (³). This work is about 27 of 605 ECMO patients who were referred for ethics consultation, with a focus on frequent ethical themes that occur. The accompanying editorial provides a helpful discussion on how to maximize the benefits of ethics consultation (⁴). Read this material with the 2023 systematic review on prognostic and goals of care communication in the pediatric intensive care unit (¹²), and the 2022 reports on ECMO candidacy decisions (^13–15).

Yates AR, Naim MY, Reeder RW, et al: Early Cardiac Arrest Hemodynamics, End-Tidal Co₂, and Outcomes in Pediatric Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Secondary Analysis of the ICU-RESUScitation Project Dataset (2016-2021) (⁵).

My third Editor’s Choice article is a secondary analysis of the ICU-Resuscitation project (ICU-RESUS) dataset, with a focus on invasive arterial waveform data in 97 patients undergoing ECPR. The potential usefulness of such monitoring in gauging pathophysiology is covered in the accompanying editorial (⁶). For a broader view, read this work from 2016−2021 with the recent ECPR data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization dataset (2017−2021) (¹⁶), and the Virtual Pediatric System database (2010−2018) (¹⁷).

There are two other PCCM Connections educational items this month. The first is a Special Article from the Pediatric Data Science and Analytics (PEDAL) subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators network (¹⁸). The PEDAL article combines a scoping review on the use of supervised machine learning applications in PCCM research with a position paper on the standard needed for future PCCM articles using machine learning (¹⁹).

The second item is a Professional Organization research perspective from the Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education and Research (SCEPTER) IV Workshop (²⁰). The SCEPTER group has defined 25 consensus statements to improve the methodology of clinical studies involving analgesia and sedation in practices such as the PICU. Read these statements along with the Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guidelines published in 2022 (²¹), because they relate to adding more to our evidence base.

Finally, we have the return of the PCCM Narrative. This month I am pleased to present n essay from a 3rd year medical student giving us a touching piece called “Superhero” (²²).

March 2024 and another month of amazing content in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). Please take the time to read my three Editor’s Choice articles, each with editorials. First is an article about prognostic modeling in critically ill children in a low- and middle-income (LMIC) PICU in Cambodia (^1,2). The second is a single-center analysis of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in infants with bronchiolitis (^3,4). The third is a two-center PICU study about a machine learning model designed to improve the conventional clinical criteria to predict need for intubation in the PICU (^5,6).

Chandna A, Keang S, Vorlark M, et al: A Prognostic Model for Critically Ill Children in Locations With Emerging Critical Care Capacity (¹).

My first editor’s choice article from Cambodia used a dataset of over 1,300 children (1,500 admission) in a PICU, 2018 to 2020. There were close to 100 deaths, and the authors examined the performance of nine existing severity of illness mortality prediction scores, and then derived their own prediction model for their resource constrained setting. The accompanying editorial provides an international perspective with a commentary on the various risk-prediction models available and what the study adds to the literature (²).

This new work from Cambodia (^1,2) is now the next piece of a contemporary narrative within PCCM focused on PICU practice in LMIC settings. For example, we have had articles about utility of Pediatric Index of Mortality scoring (⁷), resource inequities among facilities (⁸), pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis and prevalence (^9,10), sepsis biomarkers (^11,12), and sepsis definitions that are appropriate for children worldwide (¹³). Also look at the deeper insight provided by our PCCM editorial commentaries on LMIC settings about monitoring outcomes (¹⁴), development of services when resources are scarce (¹⁵), and centralization of practices (¹⁶).

Lepage-Farrell A, Tabone L, Plante V, et al: Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist in Infants With Bronchiolitis: Respiratory Outcomes in a Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort, 2016−2018 (³).

My second editor’s choice article is from investigators at a PICU in Canada who report their experience of using NIV-NAVA in 64 of 205 bronchiolitis patients aged under 2 years. In this report, NIV-NAVA was used after failure of first-tier NIV support (i.e., continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO]) during the two winters, 2016−2018. Six of the NIV-NAVA patients deteriorated to the point of needing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The researchers give a detailed account of respiratory effort physiology with quantitative electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) from 2 hours before to 2 hours after starting NIV-NAVA.

This work extends two themes in PCCM: bronchiolitis and diaphragmatic electrophysiology. Regarding bronchiolitis respiratory support, by way of recalling what was published in 2023, we had a systematic review and network meta-analyses on HFNO and other NIV therapies in bronchiolitis (¹⁷); two quality improvement studies of “protocolized NIV” in bronchiolitis (^18–20); and a multicenter, retrospective study of variations in early PICU management during IMV (^21,22). Regarding diaphragmatic electrophysiology, in 2021 PCCM had a descriptive study of transcutaneous electromyography (^23,24), and in 2023 there was a retrospective report about the range in Edi measurements in the PICU population (^25,26) from the current researchers in Canada (³). Add to all this material the editorial that accompanies the new report (⁴). It gives a helpful discussion about bringing together bronchiolitis clinical care with diaphragmatic electrophysiology data in a potential protocolized trial (⁴) (n.b., elsewhere in PCCM we call these pragmatic trials (^27,28)).

Chanci D, Grunwell JR, Rafiel A, et al: Development and Validation of a Model for Endotracheal Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Prediction in PICU Patients (⁵).

My third editor’s choice article focuses on the problem of predicting need for endotracheal intubation and IMV in PICU patients. Here, the authors use large datasets to develop and validate an automated machine learning model for decision-support. This material is state-of-the-art for the PICU, so also read the accompanying editorial (⁶). There are two other editorials that have been part of the Journal’s narrative on machine learning: one gives details about evaluating machine learning models for clinical prediction problems (²⁹); the other is about clinical deterioration detection using machine learning (³⁰). These, together with this March’s editorial (⁶), serve as an education in this theme of research.

In the April 2024 issue, the PEDAL (pediatric data science and analytics) subgroup of the PALISI (pediatric acute lung injury and sepsis investigators) network (³¹) have a scoping review as part of a Special Article on the use of supervised machine learning applications in PCCM research (³²). This PEDAL subgroup position paper will be the standard for future PCCM articles on machine learning in the PICU.

The PCCM Connections this month highlights two educational items. The first is in the new and improved Editorial Notes, Methods, and Statistics section article comments on the problem of measurement error in PCCM research (³³). This commentary is very important for those reading and reporting research in PCCM as it describes the standard now required for considering error, precision, bias, noise, and differences between measurements and scales presented in our tables and figures. As an example, the authors write about data using point of care ultrasound (POCUS) measurements. They illustrate their material with one of the other studies published this month (³⁴). Here, POCUS was used in under 5-year-olds to measure the laryngeal air column width around a cuffed endotracheal tube before extubation. These millimeter measurements (to 2 decimal places) were then related to risk of postextubation stridor.

Finally, the second educational item highlighted in PCCM Connections is a Clinical Science commentary about the cold stress response in acute brain injury and critical illness (³⁵). The authors from the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, Pittsburgh, write an outstanding and beautifully illustrated commentary and, in PCCM’s 25^th year, it shows how far the field has progressed since the Safar group’s 2000 (volume number 1) publication on secondary brain damage after traumatic injury (³⁶).

February 2024 of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) is yet another important issue of the Journal. First, read the Foreword about “fair use of augmented intelligence and artificial intelligence in the preparation and review of submissions” to all three Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) journals (i.e., Critical Care Medicine, PCCM, and Critical Care Explorations) (¹). For PCCM authors, readers, and reviewers, this position statement adds to PCCM’s 2023 recommendations for engaging with citation to references in the Chatbot Generative Pre-Trained Transformer era (²).

After the Foreword, by way of celebrating this year’s SCCM annual conference, look at the three Late Breaker (i.e., not previously published ahead of print) items that serve as my Editor’s Choices (^3–5). Taken together with the PCCM Connections section this month, all this material builds toward definitive answers to clinical questions; ultimately preparing for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or the equivalent form of clinical information.

Choong K, Fraser DD, Al-Farsi A, et al; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group: Early Rehabilitation in Critically Ill Children: A Two-Center Implementation Study (³).

My first editor’s choice article is our first late breaker report for the SCCM meeting. Here, the authors from two centers in Canada (during 2018 to 2020) performed an implementation study of “bundled care” consisting of analgesia-first sedation, delirium monitoring and prevention, and early mobilization (³). In over 1,000 patients, representing over 4,000 patient days, the authors looked for relationships between the use of bundled care and the incidence of delirium, ventilator-free days, length-of-stay, and mortality. The accompanying editorial provides important insight and gives background to the use of an alternative to RCTs when evaluating effectiveness of a bundle of care; that is, what is now called a “hybrid implementation study” with type 2 design (⁶).

The potential impacts of this work and editorial are, primarily, the addition of new information to the 2022 SCCM clinical practice guideline on “Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation, Neuromuscular Blockade, and Delirium in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients with Consideration of the ICU Environment and Early Mobility” (⁷). The report also provides much needed detail about the ABCDEF (i.e., Assessing pain, Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, Choice of sedation, Delirium monitoring/management, Early exercise/mobility, and Family engagement/empowerment) approach in pediatric critical care (^8,9). Last, the report should be seen as exemplary in its dealings with the complexities of Implementation Science, as recently outlined by the subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) network focused on Excellence in Pediatric Implementation Science (ECLIPSE) (^10,11).

Mills KI, Albert BD, Bechard LJ, et al: Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Versus Placebo–A Blinded Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Two Strategies in Critically Ill Infants With Congenital Heart Disease (SUPPRESS-CHD) (²).

My second editor’s choice and late breaker article is a report of a prospective pilot RCT in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population carried out 2019-2022 (²). In the COVID-19 era, the authors were able to screen over 1,400 CICU admissions and recruited 58 patients to their pilot RCT about stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., histamine-2 receptor antagonist versus placebo) during CICU management in infants with congenital heart disease. The study adds to the catalogue of PCCM Trials content that I summarized in my end of 2023 review (¹²). Importantly, it follows an investigative approach using pragmatic trials to answer clinical questions in the CICU; for more information about pragmatic trials do review PCCM’s content on such studies (^13,14). The next question is whether the authors can use their pilot-RCT experience to deliver a definitive RCT. The answer would be so useful to our practice, by either informing the decision to stop giving unnecessary treatment or encouraging the decision to continue with routine stress ulcer prophylaxis.

Harley A, George S, Phillips N, et al; Resuscitation in Paediatric Sepsis Randomized Controlled Pilot Platform Study in the Emergency Department (RESPOND ED) Study Group: Resuscitation With Early Adrenaline Infusion for Children With Septic Shock–A Randomized Pilot Trial (³).

My third editor’s choice is another RCT feasibility study, which in this instance looks at a fluid-vasopressor algorithm in pediatric septic shock care (³). The question being asked is whether a protocol comparing early epinephrine infusion (i.e., started after a 20 mL/kg fluid bolus) versus standard care (i.e., 40−60 mL/kg fluid bolus followed by inotrope infusion) is safe and feasible in children with septic shock? Again, another pragmatic approach to answering a clinical question (see above and references 13, 14). Here, the investigators recruited 40 patients presenting to four pediatric emergency departments in Australia and concluded that a fluid-sparing algorithm, with early vasopressors, in septic shock is feasible and there is a rationale for performing a definitive RCT in children.

Of note, the “fluid-sparing” algorithm is not a new concept in the Journal, since the evolution of this idea was covered at the time of publication of the post-FEAST (i.e., Fluid Expansion as Supportive Therapy) trial era data analysis from Uganda and Kenya (^15,16). The next step for this algorithm should include broadening relevance to the international setting, as was highlighted in the recent Special Article on international sepsis diagnosis and care (¹⁷). Thought will also need to be given to the practicalities of early administration of peripheral vasoactive agents, as was covered in 2022 (^18–20). So, enjoy the read, and follow closely the next iterations of this work.

The pilot RCT about early vasopressors in septic shock (³) also provides us with an opportunity to focus on additional PCCM material about potential metabolic interventions in septic shock patients.

Looking back to 2022, the Journal published a four-article Mini Symposium on the topic of vitamins in sepsis and critical illness. There was a single-center prospective study from Switzerland of patients with blood culture proven-sepsis that demonstrated the frequent finding of low and deficient vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and vitamin B1 (thiamine) levels (²¹). There was also a single-center study from the United States that showed vitamin C deficiency in a significant proportion of critically ill patients, compared with a control group (²²). Last, there was a single-center study from Turkey that examined the prevalence and time course of thiamine deficiency in PICU patients (²³). Then, to bring this information together, there was an accompanying editorial about metabolic resuscitation during sepsis using the combination of Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic acid, and Thiamine in so-called HAT-therapy (²⁴). The conclusion being “…promising, but unproven therapeutic option for pediatric sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.”

Now, in this February issue there are two new articles about vitamin C and vitamin B1 in children with suspected sepsis. First, a study from Australia showing that critically ill children evaluated for sepsis frequently have decreased levels of vitamin C, with lower levels in children with higher severity, but no similar associations were evident for thiamine (²⁵). Second, a pilot RCT testing the feasibility of HAT-therapy in 60 children requiring vasopressors for septic shock; the authors from Australia and New Zealand concluded than a RCT was feasible, and it would require a sample size of 384 patients (²⁶).

Regarding the educational connection between the 2022 Mini Symposium (21−²⁴) and the two new reports (^25,26) on metabolic interventions in septic shock, it is worth spending time reviewing the contemporary PCCM data about hydrocortisone in pediatric septic shock from the United States. There is the 2013-−2017 life after pediatric sepsis evaluation (LAPSE) study that failed to identify an association between early corticosteroid therapy in children with septic shock and clinical and 1-month health-related quality of life outcomes (^27,28). There is also the 2015−2018 sepsis biomarker model (PERSEVERE)-II risk stratification study of pediatric septic shock, which had an opposite result to the LAPSE data and showed that corticosteroid administration was associated with increased mortality in a subgroup of children with high PERSEVERE-II risk score (^29,30). Hence, at present, we do not have a definitive answer about hydrocortisone. However, there is an ongoing RCT about Stress Hydrocortisone in Pediatric Septic Shock (SHIPSS, see ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03401398), which has now extended its recruitment to several international sites. Given the emerging international data on vitamin C and vitamin B1 levels in critically ill children with septic shock, the question is whether the metabolic dimension has more importance than previously thought?

It’s January 2024 and the 25^th volume of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) begins. It is a jubilee year for the Journal and at the start I draw your attention to another three Editor’s Choice articles. First, a secondary analysis of outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in the 2016-2021 ICU-RESUScitation dataset (¹). Second, a single-center, retrospective review of experience using a prostacyclin analogue as the sole anticoagulant in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) for critically ill children with liver diseases (2010−2019) (²). Third, a systematic review and meta-analysis registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, see https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) about tools and measures to predict fluid responsiveness in pediatric shock states (up to May 2022) (³). Each report has an accompanying editorial (^4–6).

Federman M, Sutton RM, Reeder RW, et al: Survival With Favorable Neurological Outcome and Quality of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Following In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest In Children With Cardiac Disease Compared With Noncardiac Disease (¹).

This month’s reading could begin with a secondary analysis of the 2016−2021 ICU-RESUScitation dataset (¹). This report is PCCM’s third item in a series from a cluster randomized controlled trial about IHCA care (^1,7,8). The authors have selected 1,100 patients and assessed the odds of favorable neurologic outcome in three groups: medical cardiac, surgical cardiac, and non-cardiac cases. The authors also examined cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality and physiology, including features of chest compression, end-tidal partial pressure of cardon dioxide, and blood pressure. The accompanying editorial is from the newest member of PCCM’s Associate Editor team, Dr. Ravi Thiagarajan (⁴). There are useful insights into the recent history of CPR outcomes after IHCA, as well as a call to designing studies of CPR quality metrics.

Deep A, Alexander EC, Khatri A, et al: Epoprostenol (Prostacyclin Analogue) as a Sole Anticoagulant in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy for Critically Ill Children With Liver Disease: Single Center Retrospective Study, 2010−2019 (²).

Prothrombotic risk and coagulopathy is a problem in critically ill patients with liver disease requiring CRRT. Therefore, my second Editor’s Choice is a timely evaluation. The report comes from a hepatology-focused PICU in the United Kingdom, which has a 10-year experience of using Epoprostenol (a prostacyclin analogue) as its sole CRRT anticoagulant (²). The authors describe their practice in 96 patients undergoing 353 filter episodes of CRRT, lasting over 18,500 hours. The accompanying editorial gives a helpful overview of anticoagulation strategies during various forms of extracorporeal support (⁵); it also comments on the practicalities of the Epoprostenol protocol (which can be found in the supplemental file of the U.K. report).

Walker SB, Winters JM, Schauer JM, et al: Performance of Tools and Measures to Predict Fluid Responsiveness In Pediatric Shock and Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (³).

My third highlighted article is a PROSPERO-registered systematic review of the literature (³); the a priori registration underlines the rigor of this type of report for PCCM (⁹). In this review the authors identified 62 articles (up to May 2022) containing analyses of 54 unique fluid responsiveness predictive tools primarily in ventilated children in the operating room or PICU (³). Our editorialist discusses these tools, with a useful account about point of care ultrasound (POCUS) (⁶). Please read this information on POCUS in the context of other PCCM commentaries about regulating POCUS training and practice in the PICU (^10–12). Finally, it is also worth rereading PCCM’s two concise clinical physiology articles about the cardiovascular system in severe sepsis (¹³) and cardiogenic shock (¹⁴), and the helpful pressure-volume illustrations from the cardiovascular simulator when using fluid boluses for resuscitation.

This year we continue with the educational “connections” reading for our subscribers and trainees. This month’s focus is on links with the topic of IHCA, which was highlighted as an Editor’s Choice (^1,4). There are three reports (and their editorials) to review from large datasets that provide insight into other aspects of treatment during IHCA resuscitation. Take time to refresh your memory with these therapies. What about calcium administration during CPR for IHCA in children with heart disease, as reported in the American Heart Association’s “Get With The Guidelines Resuscitation” (GWTG-R) registry (^15,16)? What about sodium bicarbonate administration in pediatric cases of IHCA, as described in the ICU-RESUScitation project (^4,17)? And last, what about inappropriate shock delivery during pediatric IHCA, as identified by the international pediatric cardiac arrest quality improvement collaborative in the Pediatric Resuscitation Quality (pediRES-Q) study (¹⁸)?

December 2023 and we’re closing this year with another strong issue of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). There are four Editor’s Choice articles: two about severe acute viral respiratory illness and one focused on parents of critically ill children. The fourth Editor’s Choice article covers malnutrition and nutritional support in the PICU and serves as a stimulus to the further reading mentioned in the PCCM Connections section. Finally, there is a PCCM Narrative this month.

Leland SB, Staffa SJ, Newhams MM, et al; Pediatric Acute Lung and Sepsis Investigator’s Network Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study Group (PALISI PICFLU) Investigators and Overcoming COVID-19 Investigators: The Modified Clinical Respiratory Progression Scale for Pediatric Patients: Evaluation as a Severity Metric and Outcome Measure in Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (¹).

In this exploratory report (¹), a subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) network (²) modified the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Progression Scale for patients with acute viral respiratory illness during PICU admission. The PALISI network group first presents details of scale development followed by testing in three separate datasets: the Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza (PICFLU) study; the PICFLU Vaccine Effectiveness (PICFLU-VE) study; and the Overcoming COVID-19 public health surveillance registry. Read the article and examine the informative alluvial plots. This clinical progression scale for pediatrics could become an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials (RCT) of therapy for viral lower respiratory tract infective illness

Miranda M, Ray S, Boot E, et al: Variation in Early Pediatric Intensive Care Management Strategies and Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation for Acute Viral Bronchiolitis in the United Kingdom: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study (³).

My next Editor’s Choice article describes a multicenter retrospective study of infants receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for bronchiolitis in the United Kingdom (³). Previously, some of the authors reported a three-center retrospective cohort of 462 infants undergoing IMV for bronchiolitis over the period 2012−2016 (⁴). The authors identified between-center variations in both practice and outcomes and suggested that these findings could be further tested through implementing “optimal care bundles.” The U.K. group has not reached the point of such a prospective study but has extended its review from three to 13 centers: now studying a population of 350 infants receiving IMV for bronchiolitis in 2019. The authors again report factors associated with duration of IMV and the results of sedation practices will be of interest to our community. (Please read these findings alongside the 2022 Society of Critical Care Medicine [SCCM)] clinical practice guidelines [CPG] on sedatives during IMV; in particular, read through Table 1 in the CPG [⁵]). The U.K. researchers found variation in sedation practices during IMV for bronchiolitis in the 13 centers in the United Kingdom in 2019. If this difference exists today–this is four years later–it suggests another opportunity for a U.K.-wide pragmatic trial which, after all, is its research expertise (⁶). The authors are now advocating for RCTs during IMV for bronchiolitis with simultaneous study of multiple questions: standard versus restricted fluid management; nasal versus oral endotracheal intubation; and alpha-2 agonists versus benzodiazepines. Perhaps the clinical progression scale for acute viral respiratory illness described in my first Editor’s Choice article will also have a role (¹).

Pryce P, Gangopadhyay M, Edwards JD: Parental Adverse Childhood Experiences and Post-PICU Stress in Children and Parents (⁷).

My third Editor’s Choice article (⁷) continues the theme of parental mental health that has been a focus at PCCM, with recent contributions on screening for factors influencing parental psychological vulnerability (^8,9) and the protracted consequence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in parents of critically ill children (^10,11). In an observational study carried out in 2021, the authors collected data from 145 parents and examined associations between a parent’s history of adverse childhood experiences and their own post-PICU PTSD symptoms (⁷). There is an accompanying editorial by a clinical psychologist (and PCCM Editorial Board member), Dr. Gillian Colville, who asks us to think more about the social determinants of health and the growing literature on risk and protective factors related to development of psychological difficulties (¹²). Also read Dr Colville’s report of 20 years as an embedded psychologist within the PICU in this month’s issue (¹³).

Campos-Mino S, Figueiredo-Delgado A, Zarate P, et al; Nutrition Committee, Latin American Society of Pediatric Intensive Care (SLACIP): Malnutrition and Nutrition Support in Latin American PICUs: The Nutrition in PICU (NutriPIC) Study (¹⁴).

My fourth Editor’s Choice article comes from the Latin American Society of Pediatric Intensive Care (SLACIP) and is a point prevalence study of malnutrition and nutritional support in 41 PICUs in 13 Latin American countries on one day in 2021 (¹⁴). SLACIP identified 311 children on the day of study who, in general, had adequate enteral nutritional support but half the children did not receive recommended levels of calories and protein.

Please read the article because it serves as the starting point from which to review contemporary questions about enteral nutrition in the PICU: 1) What is happening worldwide; 2) What about fellowship education in this subject area; 3) What are the new techniques for feeding tube placement; 4) What can be done during noninvasive respiratory support; and 4) What is the up-to-date clinical science? The article also adds to the international work that PCCM has recently published from South Africa, Malawi, Kenya, India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. (For more information about the international reports, look at the website (https://journals.lww.com/pccmjournal/pages/collectiondetails.aspx?TopicalCollectionId=26): select the “Collections” drop-down menu, and click on the items in the “Editor’s Choice” section for an overview, issue-by-issue.)

After reading my fourth Editor’s Choice article (¹⁴), by way of an educational review, move onto the 2019 world survey of 920 PICU practitioners in 57 countries that asked about barriers to delivery of enteral nutrition (¹⁵). Then read the 2019 survey of North American pediatric critical care fellowship programs, with 20 program directors and 60 fellows, which found that nutrition education was “highly underrepresented” in curricula (¹⁶). Next, review the report on postpyloric feeding tube placement under ultrasound guidance (^17,18). Look at the 2018−2019, four-center European PICU report of feeding practices and energy balance in 190 children receiving noninvasive respiratory support (^19,20). Last, search out two articles that address mechanistic aspects of adequacy of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients receiving IMV support: one brief report about anticholinergic drug burden (²¹), and the other a Concise Clinical Science Review about the Zonulin pathway in gastrointestinal dysfunction (²²).

Finally, before moving through the rest of this issue of PCCM from our authors, reviewers, and editors, read the PCCM Narrative Essay called “Shared Vulnerabilities” (²³). I have also written a foreword to the December 2023 issue that will give some insight into PCCM’s processes and metrics this year (²⁴).

May 2024 and another month of exciting Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) publications. There are three Editor’s Choice articles with editorials, and each article is accompanied by PCCM Connections material. The topics are clinical decision support using digital bedside data (^1,2), trainee education and needs in spiritual care (^3,4), and communication with parents about patient prognosis and the language we use (^5,6). Finally, in addition to the PCCM Connections section of the Editor’s Choice, I have started a new section called PCCM International.

Pelletier JH, Rakkar J, Au AK, et al: Retrospective Validation of a Computerized Physiologic Equation to Predict Minute Ventilation Needs in Critically Ill Children (¹).

My first Editor’s Choice article reports the use of a large electronic dataset of acid-base and ventilator parameters in children undergoing neuromuscular blockade during mechanical ventilation to validate a computerized equation to predict minute ventilation requirements. There were over 15,000 arterial blood gases in 484 patients and the investigators found that in silico their equation outperformed clinicians in real time (¹). The accompanying editorial provides a helpful discussion about simulation and teaching platforms, and clinical decision support in respiratory care (²).

We then have two parallel developments in the PCCM literature that are worth reviewing. You may recall the work of the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference and the renewed emphasis in leveraging clinical informatics and data science for improved care and research in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (^7,8). The other work is from the Pediatric Data Science and Analytics (PEDAL) subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators network (⁹). The group had a 2020 survey of clinical decision support practices (¹⁰) and, in April 2024, a Special Article about development, validation, and implementation of unsupervised machine learning models in pediatric critical care research (¹¹). Do read them all.

Stevens PE, Rassbach CE, Qin F, Kuo KW: Spiritual Care in PICUs: A U.S. Survey of 245 Training Fellows, 2020−2021 (³).

My second Editor’s Choice article is a report of clinical fellows’ responses to a survey about spiritual care in their PICU and/or neonatal intensive care unit practices, 2020 to 2021 (³). The survey response rate was around one-third of 720 training fellows in the United States, which is far below the usual acceptable rate of 85%. However, with opinions from a total of 245 fellows, these insights cannot be ignored. For example, many fellows reported that “spiritual care was important for patients and families but (they) rarely incorporated spiritual care into their self-reported clinical practice.” This theme is discussed in the accompanying editorial (⁴), which considers a way forward in curricula, education, and research to “rediscover…. (see above header quote).” Of note, it has been almost 20 years since PCCM last published material about history taking and addressing parents’ spiritual needs (^12,13), and so this information warrants further review and study.

Olive AM, Wagner AF, Mulhall DT, et al: Nudging During Pediatric Intensive Care Conferences With Family Members: Retrospective Analysis of Transcripts From a Single Center, 2015−2019 (⁵).

My third Editor’s Choice article is a retrospective study of transcripts from 70 care conferences involving clinicians and families, 2015−2019 (⁵). The authors examined episodes of decision-making that occurred in 63 transcripts and provide a summary of almost 1,100 instances of nudging. The accompanying editorial comments on the implications of this new research in care conferences, and there is a summary table of strategies to promote “ethically supported shared decision-making” (⁶).

This area of research is underrepresented in PCCM. However, for more reading material, look at my second Editor’s Choice this month (^3,4), the systematic review of prognostic and goals-of-care communication in the PICU (¹⁴), and the data from the comparative trial of parent Navigator-support during and after PICU admission (^15–17).

There are two PCCM Connections topics this month. The first extends the above discussion about clinical decision support (^1,2). This month there are two articles about an automated, daily calculation of the pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score. One article describes the external validation of the automated calculator using a single center 7-year cohort, 2015−2021 (¹⁸). The other article describes using this calculator to provide a dynamic prediction of mortality with longitudinal pSOFA scores (¹⁹). Please read the accompanying editorial, which is a tour de force with its skillful coverage of severity scoring, prognostic modeling, and biomedical informatics (²⁰).

The second topic for PCCM Connections is covered in a PCCM Perspective about end-of-life care and the principle of “supported privacy” for families (²¹). That is, “creating and protecting a private space during end-of-life care in the PICU, while simultaneously sustaining unobtrusive continued presence for practical and emotional support of the family.” The summary of recommendations in the authors’ table is useful and adds to the discussions found in this month’s second and third Editor’s Choices (see above).

Our last international focus on sepsis came from Pakistan and was about biomarker-based risk-stratification (^22,23). This month, PCCM publishes an article from southwest China describing the epidemiological characteristics, from 12 centers identifying sepsis or septic shock in 3.3% of over 11,000 PICU admissions, 2022−2023 (²⁴). The accompanying editorial covers issues such as diagnosis and treatment protocols (²⁵), which should now be seen in the context of the 2024 international consensus criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock (²⁶).

Finally, this month there is another Editorial Notes, Methods, and Statistics article in the series about writing for PCCM (^27–30). The new addition gives details about the variety of formats for PCCM’s Editorials and Commentaries (³¹). There is also guidance on paragraph-by-paragraph content and structure for new writers.

Another month of top-rated specialist articles in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). My three April 2024 Editor’s Choice articles, each with editorials, cover familiar research themes in the Journal. For a change, alongside each of these highlights, I include some educational material usually found in the PCCM Connections section. The topics are pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) (^1,2), formal ethics consultation in cases of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (^3,4), and hemodynamics in cannulation for ECMO during active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) (^5,6).

Gertz SJ, Bhalla A, Chima RS, et al; Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Incidence and Epidemiology (PARDIE) Investigators and the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network: Immunocompromised-Associated Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Experience From the 2016/2017 Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Incidence and Epidemiology Prospective Cohort Study (¹).

My first Editor’s Choice article is a report using the 2016/2017 PARDS incidence and epidemiology (PARDIE) cohort. The accompanying editorial (²) is helpful because it reviews last year’s articles using the PARDIE dataset: the association between platelet transfusion and diuretic use with unfavorable outcome (⁷); and the association between immunosuppression and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure (^8,9). The PARDIE investigators delve deeper into the 2016/2017 dataset and compare 105 patients with ICC-associated PARDS with another 603 patients with severe PARDS without ICC. Platelet transfusion, diuretic use, and NIV-failure feature in the latest report (¹). And of particular interest is how these factors could now add to our interpretation of the 2023 guidance in the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (^10,11): should we consider ICC-associated PARDS as a separate clinical entity, and what about the utility of NIV-trials in such children?

Siegel B, Taylor LS, Alizadeh F, et al: Formal Ethics Consultation in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort of a Quaternary Pediatric Hospital (³).

My second Editor’s Choice article is a single-center review of formal ethics consultation in ECMO patients, 2012−2021 (³). This work is about 27 of 605 ECMO patients who were referred for ethics consultation, with a focus on frequent ethical themes that occur. The accompanying editorial provides a helpful discussion on how to maximize the benefits of ethics consultation (⁴). Read this material with the 2023 systematic review on prognostic and goals of care communication in the pediatric intensive care unit (¹²), and the 2022 reports on ECMO candidacy decisions (^13–15).

Yates AR, Naim MY, Reeder RW, et al: Early Cardiac Arrest Hemodynamics, End-Tidal Co₂, and Outcomes in Pediatric Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Secondary Analysis of the ICU-RESUScitation Project Dataset (2016-2021) (⁵).

My third Editor’s Choice article is a secondary analysis of the ICU-Resuscitation project (ICU-RESUS) dataset, with a focus on invasive arterial waveform data in 97 patients undergoing ECPR. The potential usefulness of such monitoring in gauging pathophysiology is covered in the accompanying editorial (⁶). For a broader view, read this work from 2016−2021 with the recent ECPR data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization dataset (2017−2021) (¹⁶), and the Virtual Pediatric System database (2010−2018) (¹⁷).

There are two other PCCM Connections educational items this month. The first is a Special Article from the Pediatric Data Science and Analytics (PEDAL) subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators network (¹⁸). The PEDAL article combines a scoping review on the use of supervised machine learning applications in PCCM research with a position paper on the standard needed for future PCCM articles using machine learning (¹⁹).

The second item is a Professional Organization research perspective from the Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education and Research (SCEPTER) IV Workshop (²⁰). The SCEPTER group has defined 25 consensus statements to improve the methodology of clinical studies involving analgesia and sedation in practices such as the PICU. Read these statements along with the Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guidelines published in 2022 (²¹), because they relate to adding more to our evidence base.

Finally, we have the return of the PCCM Narrative. This month I am pleased to present n essay from a 3rd year medical student giving us a touching piece called “Superhero” (²²).

March 2024 and another month of amazing content in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). Please take the time to read my three Editor’s Choice articles, each with editorials. First is an article about prognostic modeling in critically ill children in a low- and middle-income (LMIC) PICU in Cambodia (^1,2). The second is a single-center analysis of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in infants with bronchiolitis (^3,4). The third is a two-center PICU study about a machine learning model designed to improve the conventional clinical criteria to predict need for intubation in the PICU (^5,6).

Chandna A, Keang S, Vorlark M, et al: A Prognostic Model for Critically Ill Children in Locations With Emerging Critical Care Capacity (¹).

My first editor’s choice article from Cambodia used a dataset of over 1,300 children (1,500 admission) in a PICU, 2018 to 2020. There were close to 100 deaths, and the authors examined the performance of nine existing severity of illness mortality prediction scores, and then derived their own prediction model for their resource constrained setting. The accompanying editorial provides an international perspective with a commentary on the various risk-prediction models available and what the study adds to the literature (²).

This new work from Cambodia (^1,2) is now the next piece of a contemporary narrative within PCCM focused on PICU practice in LMIC settings. For example, we have had articles about utility of Pediatric Index of Mortality scoring (⁷), resource inequities among facilities (⁸), pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis and prevalence (^9,10), sepsis biomarkers (^11,12), and sepsis definitions that are appropriate for children worldwide (¹³). Also look at the deeper insight provided by our PCCM editorial commentaries on LMIC settings about monitoring outcomes (¹⁴), development of services when resources are scarce (¹⁵), and centralization of practices (¹⁶).

Lepage-Farrell A, Tabone L, Plante V, et al: Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist in Infants With Bronchiolitis: Respiratory Outcomes in a Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort, 2016−2018 (³).

My second editor’s choice article is from investigators at a PICU in Canada who report their experience of using NIV-NAVA in 64 of 205 bronchiolitis patients aged under 2 years. In this report, NIV-NAVA was used after failure of first-tier NIV support (i.e., continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO]) during the two winters, 2016−2018. Six of the NIV-NAVA patients deteriorated to the point of needing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The researchers give a detailed account of respiratory effort physiology with quantitative electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) from 2 hours before to 2 hours after starting NIV-NAVA.

This work extends two themes in PCCM: bronchiolitis and diaphragmatic electrophysiology. Regarding bronchiolitis respiratory support, by way of recalling what was published in 2023, we had a systematic review and network meta-analyses on HFNO and other NIV therapies in bronchiolitis (¹⁷); two quality improvement studies of “protocolized NIV” in bronchiolitis (^18–20); and a multicenter, retrospective study of variations in early PICU management during IMV (^21,22). Regarding diaphragmatic electrophysiology, in 2021 PCCM had a descriptive study of transcutaneous electromyography (^23,24), and in 2023 there was a retrospective report about the range in Edi measurements in the PICU population (^25,26) from the current researchers in Canada (³). Add to all this material the editorial that accompanies the new report (⁴). It gives a helpful discussion about bringing together bronchiolitis clinical care with diaphragmatic electrophysiology data in a potential protocolized trial (⁴) (n.b., elsewhere in PCCM we call these pragmatic trials (^27,28)).

Chanci D, Grunwell JR, Rafiel A, et al: Development and Validation of a Model for Endotracheal Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Prediction in PICU Patients (⁵).

My third editor’s choice article focuses on the problem of predicting need for endotracheal intubation and IMV in PICU patients. Here, the authors use large datasets to develop and validate an automated machine learning model for decision-support. This material is state-of-the-art for the PICU, so also read the accompanying editorial (⁶). There are two other editorials that have been part of the Journal’s narrative on machine learning: one gives details about evaluating machine learning models for clinical prediction problems (²⁹); the other is about clinical deterioration detection using machine learning (³⁰). These, together with this March’s editorial (⁶), serve as an education in this theme of research.

In the April 2024 issue, the PEDAL (pediatric data science and analytics) subgroup of the PALISI (pediatric acute lung injury and sepsis investigators) network (³¹) have a scoping review as part of a Special Article on the use of supervised machine learning applications in PCCM research (³²). This PEDAL subgroup position paper will be the standard for future PCCM articles on machine learning in the PICU.

The PCCM Connections this month highlights two educational items. The first is in the new and improved Editorial Notes, Methods, and Statistics section article comments on the problem of measurement error in PCCM research (³³). This commentary is very important for those reading and reporting research in PCCM as it describes the standard now required for considering error, precision, bias, noise, and differences between measurements and scales presented in our tables and figures. As an example, the authors write about data using point of care ultrasound (POCUS) measurements. They illustrate their material with one of the other studies published this month (³⁴). Here, POCUS was used in under 5-year-olds to measure the laryngeal air column width around a cuffed endotracheal tube before extubation. These millimeter measurements (to 2 decimal places) were then related to risk of postextubation stridor.

Finally, the second educational item highlighted in PCCM Connections is a Clinical Science commentary about the cold stress response in acute brain injury and critical illness (³⁵). The authors from the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, Pittsburgh, write an outstanding and beautifully illustrated commentary and, in PCCM’s 25^th year, it shows how far the field has progressed since the Safar group’s 2000 (volume number 1) publication on secondary brain damage after traumatic injury (³⁶).

February 2024 of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) is yet another important issue of the Journal. First, read the Foreword about “fair use of augmented intelligence and artificial intelligence in the preparation and review of submissions” to all three Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) journals (i.e., Critical Care Medicine, PCCM, and Critical Care Explorations) (¹). For PCCM authors, readers, and reviewers, this position statement adds to PCCM’s 2023 recommendations for engaging with citation to references in the Chatbot Generative Pre-Trained Transformer era (²).

After the Foreword, by way of celebrating this year’s SCCM annual conference, look at the three Late Breaker (i.e., not previously published ahead of print) items that serve as my Editor’s Choices (^3–5). Taken together with the PCCM Connections section this month, all this material builds toward definitive answers to clinical questions; ultimately preparing for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or the equivalent form of clinical information.

Choong K, Fraser DD, Al-Farsi A, et al; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group: Early Rehabilitation in Critically Ill Children: A Two-Center Implementation Study (³).

My first editor’s choice article is our first late breaker report for the SCCM meeting. Here, the authors from two centers in Canada (during 2018 to 2020) performed an implementation study of “bundled care” consisting of analgesia-first sedation, delirium monitoring and prevention, and early mobilization (³). In over 1,000 patients, representing over 4,000 patient days, the authors looked for relationships between the use of bundled care and the incidence of delirium, ventilator-free days, length-of-stay, and mortality. The accompanying editorial provides important insight and gives background to the use of an alternative to RCTs when evaluating effectiveness of a bundle of care; that is, what is now called a “hybrid implementation study” with type 2 design (⁶).

The potential impacts of this work and editorial are, primarily, the addition of new information to the 2022 SCCM clinical practice guideline on “Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation, Neuromuscular Blockade, and Delirium in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients with Consideration of the ICU Environment and Early Mobility” (⁷). The report also provides much needed detail about the ABCDEF (i.e., Assessing pain, Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, Choice of sedation, Delirium monitoring/management, Early exercise/mobility, and Family engagement/empowerment) approach in pediatric critical care (^8,9). Last, the report should be seen as exemplary in its dealings with the complexities of Implementation Science, as recently outlined by the subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) network focused on Excellence in Pediatric Implementation Science (ECLIPSE) (^10,11).

Mills KI, Albert BD, Bechard LJ, et al: Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Versus Placebo–A Blinded Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Two Strategies in Critically Ill Infants With Congenital Heart Disease (SUPPRESS-CHD) (²).

My second editor’s choice and late breaker article is a report of a prospective pilot RCT in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population carried out 2019-2022 (²). In the COVID-19 era, the authors were able to screen over 1,400 CICU admissions and recruited 58 patients to their pilot RCT about stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., histamine-2 receptor antagonist versus placebo) during CICU management in infants with congenital heart disease. The study adds to the catalogue of PCCM Trials content that I summarized in my end of 2023 review (¹²). Importantly, it follows an investigative approach using pragmatic trials to answer clinical questions in the CICU; for more information about pragmatic trials do review PCCM’s content on such studies (^13,14). The next question is whether the authors can use their pilot-RCT experience to deliver a definitive RCT. The answer would be so useful to our practice, by either informing the decision to stop giving unnecessary treatment or encouraging the decision to continue with routine stress ulcer prophylaxis.

Harley A, George S, Phillips N, et al; Resuscitation in Paediatric Sepsis Randomized Controlled Pilot Platform Study in the Emergency Department (RESPOND ED) Study Group: Resuscitation With Early Adrenaline Infusion for Children With Septic Shock–A Randomized Pilot Trial (³).

My third editor’s choice is another RCT feasibility study, which in this instance looks at a fluid-vasopressor algorithm in pediatric septic shock care (³). The question being asked is whether a protocol comparing early epinephrine infusion (i.e., started after a 20 mL/kg fluid bolus) versus standard care (i.e., 40−60 mL/kg fluid bolus followed by inotrope infusion) is safe and feasible in children with septic shock? Again, another pragmatic approach to answering a clinical question (see above and references 13, 14). Here, the investigators recruited 40 patients presenting to four pediatric emergency departments in Australia and concluded that a fluid-sparing algorithm, with early vasopressors, in septic shock is feasible and there is a rationale for performing a definitive RCT in children.

Of note, the “fluid-sparing” algorithm is not a new concept in the Journal, since the evolution of this idea was covered at the time of publication of the post-FEAST (i.e., Fluid Expansion as Supportive Therapy) trial era data analysis from Uganda and Kenya (^15,16). The next step for this algorithm should include broadening relevance to the international setting, as was highlighted in the recent Special Article on international sepsis diagnosis and care (¹⁷). Thought will also need to be given to the practicalities of early administration of peripheral vasoactive agents, as was covered in 2022 (^18–20). So, enjoy the read, and follow closely the next iterations of this work.

The pilot RCT about early vasopressors in septic shock (³) also provides us with an opportunity to focus on additional PCCM material about potential metabolic interventions in septic shock patients.

Looking back to 2022, the Journal published a four-article Mini Symposium on the topic of vitamins in sepsis and critical illness. There was a single-center prospective study from Switzerland of patients with blood culture proven-sepsis that demonstrated the frequent finding of low and deficient vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and vitamin B1 (thiamine) levels (²¹). There was also a single-center study from the United States that showed vitamin C deficiency in a significant proportion of critically ill patients, compared with a control group (²²). Last, there was a single-center study from Turkey that examined the prevalence and time course of thiamine deficiency in PICU patients (²³). Then, to bring this information together, there was an accompanying editorial about metabolic resuscitation during sepsis using the combination of Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic acid, and Thiamine in so-called HAT-therapy (²⁴). The conclusion being “…promising, but unproven therapeutic option for pediatric sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.”

Now, in this February issue there are two new articles about vitamin C and vitamin B1 in children with suspected sepsis. First, a study from Australia showing that critically ill children evaluated for sepsis frequently have decreased levels of vitamin C, with lower levels in children with higher severity, but no similar associations were evident for thiamine (²⁵). Second, a pilot RCT testing the feasibility of HAT-therapy in 60 children requiring vasopressors for septic shock; the authors from Australia and New Zealand concluded than a RCT was feasible, and it would require a sample size of 384 patients (²⁶).

Regarding the educational connection between the 2022 Mini Symposium (21−²⁴) and the two new reports (^25,26) on metabolic interventions in septic shock, it is worth spending time reviewing the contemporary PCCM data about hydrocortisone in pediatric septic shock from the United States. There is the 2013-−2017 life after pediatric sepsis evaluation (LAPSE) study that failed to identify an association between early corticosteroid therapy in children with septic shock and clinical and 1-month health-related quality of life outcomes (^27,28). There is also the 2015−2018 sepsis biomarker model (PERSEVERE)-II risk stratification study of pediatric septic shock, which had an opposite result to the LAPSE data and showed that corticosteroid administration was associated with increased mortality in a subgroup of children with high PERSEVERE-II risk score (^29,30). Hence, at present, we do not have a definitive answer about hydrocortisone. However, there is an ongoing RCT about Stress Hydrocortisone in Pediatric Septic Shock (SHIPSS, see ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03401398), which has now extended its recruitment to several international sites. Given the emerging international data on vitamin C and vitamin B1 levels in critically ill children with septic shock, the question is whether the metabolic dimension has more importance than previously thought?

It’s January 2024 and the 25^th volume of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) begins. It is a jubilee year for the Journal and at the start I draw your attention to another three Editor’s Choice articles. First, a secondary analysis of outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in the 2016-2021 ICU-RESUScitation dataset (¹). Second, a single-center, retrospective review of experience using a prostacyclin analogue as the sole anticoagulant in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) for critically ill children with liver diseases (2010−2019) (²). Third, a systematic review and meta-analysis registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, see https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) about tools and measures to predict fluid responsiveness in pediatric shock states (up to May 2022) (³). Each report has an accompanying editorial (^4–6).

Federman M, Sutton RM, Reeder RW, et al: Survival With Favorable Neurological Outcome and Quality of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Following In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest In Children With Cardiac Disease Compared With Noncardiac Disease (¹).

This month’s reading could begin with a secondary analysis of the 2016−2021 ICU-RESUScitation dataset (¹). This report is PCCM’s third item in a series from a cluster randomized controlled trial about IHCA care (^1,7,8). The authors have selected 1,100 patients and assessed the odds of favorable neurologic outcome in three groups: medical cardiac, surgical cardiac, and non-cardiac cases. The authors also examined cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality and physiology, including features of chest compression, end-tidal partial pressure of cardon dioxide, and blood pressure. The accompanying editorial is from the newest member of PCCM’s Associate Editor team, Dr. Ravi Thiagarajan (⁴). There are useful insights into the recent history of CPR outcomes after IHCA, as well as a call to designing studies of CPR quality metrics.

Deep A, Alexander EC, Khatri A, et al: Epoprostenol (Prostacyclin Analogue) as a Sole Anticoagulant in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy for Critically Ill Children With Liver Disease: Single Center Retrospective Study, 2010−2019 (²).

Prothrombotic risk and coagulopathy is a problem in critically ill patients with liver disease requiring CRRT. Therefore, my second Editor’s Choice is a timely evaluation. The report comes from a hepatology-focused PICU in the United Kingdom, which has a 10-year experience of using Epoprostenol (a prostacyclin analogue) as its sole CRRT anticoagulant (²). The authors describe their practice in 96 patients undergoing 353 filter episodes of CRRT, lasting over 18,500 hours. The accompanying editorial gives a helpful overview of anticoagulation strategies during various forms of extracorporeal support (⁵); it also comments on the practicalities of the Epoprostenol protocol (which can be found in the supplemental file of the U.K. report).

Walker SB, Winters JM, Schauer JM, et al: Performance of Tools and Measures to Predict Fluid Responsiveness In Pediatric Shock and Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (³).

My third highlighted article is a PROSPERO-registered systematic review of the literature (³); the a priori registration underlines the rigor of this type of report for PCCM (⁹). In this review the authors identified 62 articles (up to May 2022) containing analyses of 54 unique fluid responsiveness predictive tools primarily in ventilated children in the operating room or PICU (³). Our editorialist discusses these tools, with a useful account about point of care ultrasound (POCUS) (⁶). Please read this information on POCUS in the context of other PCCM commentaries about regulating POCUS training and practice in the PICU (^10–12). Finally, it is also worth rereading PCCM’s two concise clinical physiology articles about the cardiovascular system in severe sepsis (¹³) and cardiogenic shock (¹⁴), and the helpful pressure-volume illustrations from the cardiovascular simulator when using fluid boluses for resuscitation.

This year we continue with the educational “connections” reading for our subscribers and trainees. This month’s focus is on links with the topic of IHCA, which was highlighted as an Editor’s Choice (^1,4). There are three reports (and their editorials) to review from large datasets that provide insight into other aspects of treatment during IHCA resuscitation. Take time to refresh your memory with these therapies. What about calcium administration during CPR for IHCA in children with heart disease, as reported in the American Heart Association’s “Get With The Guidelines Resuscitation” (GWTG-R) registry (^15,16)? What about sodium bicarbonate administration in pediatric cases of IHCA, as described in the ICU-RESUScitation project (^4,17)? And last, what about inappropriate shock delivery during pediatric IHCA, as identified by the international pediatric cardiac arrest quality improvement collaborative in the Pediatric Resuscitation Quality (pediRES-Q) study (¹⁸)?

December 2023 and we’re closing this year with another strong issue of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). There are four Editor’s Choice articles: two about severe acute viral respiratory illness and one focused on parents of critically ill children. The fourth Editor’s Choice article covers malnutrition and nutritional support in the PICU and serves as a stimulus to the further reading mentioned in the PCCM Connections section. Finally, there is a PCCM Narrative this month.

Leland SB, Staffa SJ, Newhams MM, et al; Pediatric Acute Lung and Sepsis Investigator’s Network Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study Group (PALISI PICFLU) Investigators and Overcoming COVID-19 Investigators: The Modified Clinical Respiratory Progression Scale for Pediatric Patients: Evaluation as a Severity Metric and Outcome Measure in Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (¹).

In this exploratory report (¹), a subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) network (²) modified the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Progression Scale for patients with acute viral respiratory illness during PICU admission. The PALISI network group first presents details of scale development followed by testing in three separate datasets: the Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza (PICFLU) study; the PICFLU Vaccine Effectiveness (PICFLU-VE) study; and the Overcoming COVID-19 public health surveillance registry. Read the article and examine the informative alluvial plots. This clinical progression scale for pediatrics could become an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials (RCT) of therapy for viral lower respiratory tract infective illness

Miranda M, Ray S, Boot E, et al: Variation in Early Pediatric Intensive Care Management Strategies and Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation for Acute Viral Bronchiolitis in the United Kingdom: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study (³).

My next Editor’s Choice article describes a multicenter retrospective study of infants receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for bronchiolitis in the United Kingdom (³). Previously, some of the authors reported a three-center retrospective cohort of 462 infants undergoing IMV for bronchiolitis over the period 2012−2016 (⁴). The authors identified between-center variations in both practice and outcomes and suggested that these findings could be further tested through implementing “optimal care bundles.” The U.K. group has not reached the point of such a prospective study but has extended its review from three to 13 centers: now studying a population of 350 infants receiving IMV for bronchiolitis in 2019. The authors again report factors associated with duration of IMV and the results of sedation practices will be of interest to our community. (Please read these findings alongside the 2022 Society of Critical Care Medicine [SCCM)] clinical practice guidelines [CPG] on sedatives during IMV; in particular, read through Table 1 in the CPG [⁵]). The U.K. researchers found variation in sedation practices during IMV for bronchiolitis in the 13 centers in the United Kingdom in 2019. If this difference exists today–this is four years later–it suggests another opportunity for a U.K.-wide pragmatic trial which, after all, is its research expertise (⁶). The authors are now advocating for RCTs during IMV for bronchiolitis with simultaneous study of multiple questions: standard versus restricted fluid management; nasal versus oral endotracheal intubation; and alpha-2 agonists versus benzodiazepines. Perhaps the clinical progression scale for acute viral respiratory illness described in my first Editor’s Choice article will also have a role (¹).

Pryce P, Gangopadhyay M, Edwards JD: Parental Adverse Childhood Experiences and Post-PICU Stress in Children and Parents (⁷).

My third Editor’s Choice article (⁷) continues the theme of parental mental health that has been a focus at PCCM, with recent contributions on screening for factors influencing parental psychological vulnerability (^8,9) and the protracted consequence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in parents of critically ill children (^10,11). In an observational study carried out in 2021, the authors collected data from 145 parents and examined associations between a parent’s history of adverse childhood experiences and their own post-PICU PTSD symptoms (⁷). There is an accompanying editorial by a clinical psychologist (and PCCM Editorial Board member), Dr. Gillian Colville, who asks us to think more about the social determinants of health and the growing literature on risk and protective factors related to development of psychological difficulties (¹²). Also read Dr Colville’s report of 20 years as an embedded psychologist within the PICU in this month’s issue (¹³).

Campos-Mino S, Figueiredo-Delgado A, Zarate P, et al; Nutrition Committee, Latin American Society of Pediatric Intensive Care (SLACIP): Malnutrition and Nutrition Support in Latin American PICUs: The Nutrition in PICU (NutriPIC) Study (¹⁴).

My fourth Editor’s Choice article comes from the Latin American Society of Pediatric Intensive Care (SLACIP) and is a point prevalence study of malnutrition and nutritional support in 41 PICUs in 13 Latin American countries on one day in 2021 (¹⁴). SLACIP identified 311 children on the day of study who, in general, had adequate enteral nutritional support but half the children did not receive recommended levels of calories and protein.

Please read the article because it serves as the starting point from which to review contemporary questions about enteral nutrition in the PICU: 1) What is happening worldwide; 2) What about fellowship education in this subject area; 3) What are the new techniques for feeding tube placement; 4) What can be done during noninvasive respiratory support; and 4) What is the up-to-date clinical science? The article also adds to the international work that PCCM has recently published from South Africa, Malawi, Kenya, India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. (For more information about the international reports, look at the website (https://journals.lww.com/pccmjournal/pages/collectiondetails.aspx?TopicalCollectionId=26): select the “Collections” drop-down menu, and click on the items in the “Editor’s Choice” section for an overview, issue-by-issue.)

After reading my fourth Editor’s Choice article (¹⁴), by way of an educational review, move onto the 2019 world survey of 920 PICU practitioners in 57 countries that asked about barriers to delivery of enteral nutrition (¹⁵). Then read the 2019 survey of North American pediatric critical care fellowship programs, with 20 program directors and 60 fellows, which found that nutrition education was “highly underrepresented” in curricula (¹⁶). Next, review the report on postpyloric feeding tube placement under ultrasound guidance (^17,18). Look at the 2018−2019, four-center European PICU report of feeding practices and energy balance in 190 children receiving noninvasive respiratory support (^19,20). Last, search out two articles that address mechanistic aspects of adequacy of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients receiving IMV support: one brief report about anticholinergic drug burden (²¹), and the other a Concise Clinical Science Review about the Zonulin pathway in gastrointestinal dysfunction (²²).

Finally, before moving through the rest of this issue of PCCM from our authors, reviewers, and editors, read the PCCM Narrative Essay called “Shared Vulnerabilities” (²³). I have also written a foreword to the December 2023 issue that will give some insight into PCCM’s processes and metrics this year (²⁴).

May 2024 and another month of exciting Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) publications. There are three Editor’s Choice articles with editorials, and each article is accompanied by PCCM Connections material. The topics are clinical decision support using digital bedside data (^1,2), trainee education and needs in spiritual care (^3,4), and communication with parents about patient prognosis and the language we use (^5,6). Finally, in addition to the PCCM Connections section of the Editor’s Choice, I have started a new section called PCCM International.

Pelletier JH, Rakkar J, Au AK, et al: Retrospective Validation of a Computerized Physiologic Equation to Predict Minute Ventilation Needs in Critically Ill Children (¹).

My first Editor’s Choice article reports the use of a large electronic dataset of acid-base and ventilator parameters in children undergoing neuromuscular blockade during mechanical ventilation to validate a computerized equation to predict minute ventilation requirements. There were over 15,000 arterial blood gases in 484 patients and the investigators found that in silico their equation outperformed clinicians in real time (¹). The accompanying editorial provides a helpful discussion about simulation and teaching platforms, and clinical decision support in respiratory care (²).

We then have two parallel developments in the PCCM literature that are worth reviewing. You may recall the work of the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference and the renewed emphasis in leveraging clinical informatics and data science for improved care and research in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (^7,8). The other work is from the Pediatric Data Science and Analytics (PEDAL) subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators network (⁹). The group had a 2020 survey of clinical decision support practices (¹⁰) and, in April 2024, a Special Article about development, validation, and implementation of unsupervised machine learning models in pediatric critical care research (¹¹). Do read them all.

Stevens PE, Rassbach CE, Qin F, Kuo KW: Spiritual Care in PICUs: A U.S. Survey of 245 Training Fellows, 2020−2021 (³).

My second Editor’s Choice article is a report of clinical fellows’ responses to a survey about spiritual care in their PICU and/or neonatal intensive care unit practices, 2020 to 2021 (³). The survey response rate was around one-third of 720 training fellows in the United States, which is far below the usual acceptable rate of 85%. However, with opinions from a total of 245 fellows, these insights cannot be ignored. For example, many fellows reported that “spiritual care was important for patients and families but (they) rarely incorporated spiritual care into their self-reported clinical practice.” This theme is discussed in the accompanying editorial (⁴), which considers a way forward in curricula, education, and research to “rediscover…. (see above header quote).” Of note, it has been almost 20 years since PCCM last published material about history taking and addressing parents’ spiritual needs (^12,13), and so this information warrants further review and study.

Olive AM, Wagner AF, Mulhall DT, et al: Nudging During Pediatric Intensive Care Conferences With Family Members: Retrospective Analysis of Transcripts From a Single Center, 2015−2019 (⁵).

My third Editor’s Choice article is a retrospective study of transcripts from 70 care conferences involving clinicians and families, 2015−2019 (⁵). The authors examined episodes of decision-making that occurred in 63 transcripts and provide a summary of almost 1,100 instances of nudging. The accompanying editorial comments on the implications of this new research in care conferences, and there is a summary table of strategies to promote “ethically supported shared decision-making” (⁶).

This area of research is underrepresented in PCCM. However, for more reading material, look at my second Editor’s Choice this month (^3,4), the systematic review of prognostic and goals-of-care communication in the PICU (¹⁴), and the data from the comparative trial of parent Navigator-support during and after PICU admission (^15–17).

There are two PCCM Connections topics this month. The first extends the above discussion about clinical decision support (^1,2). This month there are two articles about an automated, daily calculation of the pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score. One article describes the external validation of the automated calculator using a single center 7-year cohort, 2015−2021 (¹⁸). The other article describes using this calculator to provide a dynamic prediction of mortality with longitudinal pSOFA scores (¹⁹). Please read the accompanying editorial, which is a tour de force with its skillful coverage of severity scoring, prognostic modeling, and biomedical informatics (²⁰).

The second topic for PCCM Connections is covered in a PCCM Perspective about end-of-life care and the principle of “supported privacy” for families (²¹). That is, “creating and protecting a private space during end-of-life care in the PICU, while simultaneously sustaining unobtrusive continued presence for practical and emotional support of the family.” The summary of recommendations in the authors’ table is useful and adds to the discussions found in this month’s second and third Editor’s Choices (see above).

Our last international focus on sepsis came from Pakistan and was about biomarker-based risk-stratification (^22,23). This month, PCCM publishes an article from southwest China describing the epidemiological characteristics, from 12 centers identifying sepsis or septic shock in 3.3% of over 11,000 PICU admissions, 2022−2023 (²⁴). The accompanying editorial covers issues such as diagnosis and treatment protocols (²⁵), which should now be seen in the context of the 2024 international consensus criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock (²⁶).

Finally, this month there is another Editorial Notes, Methods, and Statistics article in the series about writing for PCCM (^27–30). The new addition gives details about the variety of formats for PCCM’s Editorials and Commentaries (³¹). There is also guidance on paragraph-by-paragraph content and structure for new writers.

Another month of top-rated specialist articles in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). My three April 2024 Editor’s Choice articles, each with editorials, cover familiar research themes in the Journal. For a change, alongside each of these highlights, I include some educational material usually found in the PCCM Connections section. The topics are pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) (^1,2), formal ethics consultation in cases of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (^3,4), and hemodynamics in cannulation for ECMO during active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) (^5,6).

Gertz SJ, Bhalla A, Chima RS, et al; Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Incidence and Epidemiology (PARDIE) Investigators and the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network: Immunocompromised-Associated Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Experience From the 2016/2017 Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Incidence and Epidemiology Prospective Cohort Study (¹).

My first Editor’s Choice article is a report using the 2016/2017 PARDS incidence and epidemiology (PARDIE) cohort. The accompanying editorial (²) is helpful because it reviews last year’s articles using the PARDIE dataset: the association between platelet transfusion and diuretic use with unfavorable outcome (⁷); and the association between immunosuppression and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure (^8,9). The PARDIE investigators delve deeper into the 2016/2017 dataset and compare 105 patients with ICC-associated PARDS with another 603 patients with severe PARDS without ICC. Platelet transfusion, diuretic use, and NIV-failure feature in the latest report (¹). And of particular interest is how these factors could now add to our interpretation of the 2023 guidance in the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (^10,11): should we consider ICC-associated PARDS as a separate clinical entity, and what about the utility of NIV-trials in such children?

Siegel B, Taylor LS, Alizadeh F, et al: Formal Ethics Consultation in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort of a Quaternary Pediatric Hospital (³).

My second Editor’s Choice article is a single-center review of formal ethics consultation in ECMO patients, 2012−2021 (³). This work is about 27 of 605 ECMO patients who were referred for ethics consultation, with a focus on frequent ethical themes that occur. The accompanying editorial provides a helpful discussion on how to maximize the benefits of ethics consultation (⁴). Read this material with the 2023 systematic review on prognostic and goals of care communication in the pediatric intensive care unit (¹²), and the 2022 reports on ECMO candidacy decisions (^13–15).

Yates AR, Naim MY, Reeder RW, et al: Early Cardiac Arrest Hemodynamics, End-Tidal Co₂, and Outcomes in Pediatric Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Secondary Analysis of the ICU-RESUScitation Project Dataset (2016-2021) (⁵).

My third Editor’s Choice article is a secondary analysis of the ICU-Resuscitation project (ICU-RESUS) dataset, with a focus on invasive arterial waveform data in 97 patients undergoing ECPR. The potential usefulness of such monitoring in gauging pathophysiology is covered in the accompanying editorial (⁶). For a broader view, read this work from 2016−2021 with the recent ECPR data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization dataset (2017−2021) (¹⁶), and the Virtual Pediatric System database (2010−2018) (¹⁷).

There are two other PCCM Connections educational items this month. The first is a Special Article from the Pediatric Data Science and Analytics (PEDAL) subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators network (¹⁸). The PEDAL article combines a scoping review on the use of supervised machine learning applications in PCCM research with a position paper on the standard needed for future PCCM articles using machine learning (¹⁹).

The second item is a Professional Organization research perspective from the Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education and Research (SCEPTER) IV Workshop (²⁰). The SCEPTER group has defined 25 consensus statements to improve the methodology of clinical studies involving analgesia and sedation in practices such as the PICU. Read these statements along with the Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guidelines published in 2022 (²¹), because they relate to adding more to our evidence base.

Finally, we have the return of the PCCM Narrative. This month I am pleased to present n essay from a 3rd year medical student giving us a touching piece called “Superhero” (²²).

March 2024 and another month of amazing content in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). Please take the time to read my three Editor’s Choice articles, each with editorials. First is an article about prognostic modeling in critically ill children in a low- and middle-income (LMIC) PICU in Cambodia (^1,2). The second is a single-center analysis of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in infants with bronchiolitis (^3,4). The third is a two-center PICU study about a machine learning model designed to improve the conventional clinical criteria to predict need for intubation in the PICU (^5,6).

Chandna A, Keang S, Vorlark M, et al: A Prognostic Model for Critically Ill Children in Locations With Emerging Critical Care Capacity (¹).

My first editor’s choice article from Cambodia used a dataset of over 1,300 children (1,500 admission) in a PICU, 2018 to 2020. There were close to 100 deaths, and the authors examined the performance of nine existing severity of illness mortality prediction scores, and then derived their own prediction model for their resource constrained setting. The accompanying editorial provides an international perspective with a commentary on the various risk-prediction models available and what the study adds to the literature (²).

This new work from Cambodia (^1,2) is now the next piece of a contemporary narrative within PCCM focused on PICU practice in LMIC settings. For example, we have had articles about utility of Pediatric Index of Mortality scoring (⁷), resource inequities among facilities (⁸), pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis and prevalence (^9,10), sepsis biomarkers (^11,12), and sepsis definitions that are appropriate for children worldwide (¹³). Also look at the deeper insight provided by our PCCM editorial commentaries on LMIC settings about monitoring outcomes (¹⁴), development of services when resources are scarce (¹⁵), and centralization of practices (¹⁶).

Lepage-Farrell A, Tabone L, Plante V, et al: Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist in Infants With Bronchiolitis: Respiratory Outcomes in a Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort, 2016−2018 (³).

My second editor’s choice article is from investigators at a PICU in Canada who report their experience of using NIV-NAVA in 64 of 205 bronchiolitis patients aged under 2 years. In this report, NIV-NAVA was used after failure of first-tier NIV support (i.e., continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO]) during the two winters, 2016−2018. Six of the NIV-NAVA patients deteriorated to the point of needing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The researchers give a detailed account of respiratory effort physiology with quantitative electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) from 2 hours before to 2 hours after starting NIV-NAVA.

This work extends two themes in PCCM: bronchiolitis and diaphragmatic electrophysiology. Regarding bronchiolitis respiratory support, by way of recalling what was published in 2023, we had a systematic review and network meta-analyses on HFNO and other NIV therapies in bronchiolitis (¹⁷); two quality improvement studies of “protocolized NIV” in bronchiolitis (^18–20); and a multicenter, retrospective study of variations in early PICU management during IMV (^21,22). Regarding diaphragmatic electrophysiology, in 2021 PCCM had a descriptive study of transcutaneous electromyography (^23,24), and in 2023 there was a retrospective report about the range in Edi measurements in the PICU population (^25,26) from the current researchers in Canada (³). Add to all this material the editorial that accompanies the new report (⁴). It gives a helpful discussion about bringing together bronchiolitis clinical care with diaphragmatic electrophysiology data in a potential protocolized trial (⁴) (n.b., elsewhere in PCCM we call these pragmatic trials (^27,28)).

Chanci D, Grunwell JR, Rafiel A, et al: Development and Validation of a Model for Endotracheal Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Prediction in PICU Patients (⁵).

My third editor’s choice article focuses on the problem of predicting need for endotracheal intubation and IMV in PICU patients. Here, the authors use large datasets to develop and validate an automated machine learning model for decision-support. This material is state-of-the-art for the PICU, so also read the accompanying editorial (⁶). There are two other editorials that have been part of the Journal’s narrative on machine learning: one gives details about evaluating machine learning models for clinical prediction problems (²⁹); the other is about clinical deterioration detection using machine learning (³⁰). These, together with this March’s editorial (⁶), serve as an education in this theme of research.

In the April 2024 issue, the PEDAL (pediatric data science and analytics) subgroup of the PALISI (pediatric acute lung injury and sepsis investigators) network (³¹) have a scoping review as part of a Special Article on the use of supervised machine learning applications in PCCM research (³²). This PEDAL subgroup position paper will be the standard for future PCCM articles on machine learning in the PICU.

The PCCM Connections this month highlights two educational items. The first is in the new and improved Editorial Notes, Methods, and Statistics section article comments on the problem of measurement error in PCCM research (³³). This commentary is very important for those reading and reporting research in PCCM as it describes the standard now required for considering error, precision, bias, noise, and differences between measurements and scales presented in our tables and figures. As an example, the authors write about data using point of care ultrasound (POCUS) measurements. They illustrate their material with one of the other studies published this month (³⁴). Here, POCUS was used in under 5-year-olds to measure the laryngeal air column width around a cuffed endotracheal tube before extubation. These millimeter measurements (to 2 decimal places) were then related to risk of postextubation stridor.

Finally, the second educational item highlighted in PCCM Connections is a Clinical Science commentary about the cold stress response in acute brain injury and critical illness (³⁵). The authors from the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, Pittsburgh, write an outstanding and beautifully illustrated commentary and, in PCCM’s 25^th year, it shows how far the field has progressed since the Safar group’s 2000 (volume number 1) publication on secondary brain damage after traumatic injury (³⁶).

February 2024 of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) is yet another important issue of the Journal. First, read the Foreword about “fair use of augmented intelligence and artificial intelligence in the preparation and review of submissions” to all three Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) journals (i.e., Critical Care Medicine, PCCM, and Critical Care Explorations) (¹). For PCCM authors, readers, and reviewers, this position statement adds to PCCM’s 2023 recommendations for engaging with citation to references in the Chatbot Generative Pre-Trained Transformer era (²).

After the Foreword, by way of celebrating this year’s SCCM annual conference, look at the three Late Breaker (i.e., not previously published ahead of print) items that serve as my Editor’s Choices (^3–5). Taken together with the PCCM Connections section this month, all this material builds toward definitive answers to clinical questions; ultimately preparing for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or the equivalent form of clinical information.

Choong K, Fraser DD, Al-Farsi A, et al; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group: Early Rehabilitation in Critically Ill Children: A Two-Center Implementation Study (³).

My first editor’s choice article is our first late breaker report for the SCCM meeting. Here, the authors from two centers in Canada (during 2018 to 2020) performed an implementation study of “bundled care” consisting of analgesia-first sedation, delirium monitoring and prevention, and early mobilization (³). In over 1,000 patients, representing over 4,000 patient days, the authors looked for relationships between the use of bundled care and the incidence of delirium, ventilator-free days, length-of-stay, and mortality. The accompanying editorial provides important insight and gives background to the use of an alternative to RCTs when evaluating effectiveness of a bundle of care; that is, what is now called a “hybrid implementation study” with type 2 design (⁶).

The potential impacts of this work and editorial are, primarily, the addition of new information to the 2022 SCCM clinical practice guideline on “Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation, Neuromuscular Blockade, and Delirium in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients with Consideration of the ICU Environment and Early Mobility” (⁷). The report also provides much needed detail about the ABCDEF (i.e., Assessing pain, Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, Choice of sedation, Delirium monitoring/management, Early exercise/mobility, and Family engagement/empowerment) approach in pediatric critical care (^8,9). Last, the report should be seen as exemplary in its dealings with the complexities of Implementation Science, as recently outlined by the subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) network focused on Excellence in Pediatric Implementation Science (ECLIPSE) (^10,11).

Mills KI, Albert BD, Bechard LJ, et al: Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Versus Placebo–A Blinded Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Two Strategies in Critically Ill Infants With Congenital Heart Disease (SUPPRESS-CHD) (²).

My second editor’s choice and late breaker article is a report of a prospective pilot RCT in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population carried out 2019-2022 (²). In the COVID-19 era, the authors were able to screen over 1,400 CICU admissions and recruited 58 patients to their pilot RCT about stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., histamine-2 receptor antagonist versus placebo) during CICU management in infants with congenital heart disease. The study adds to the catalogue of PCCM Trials content that I summarized in my end of 2023 review (¹²). Importantly, it follows an investigative approach using pragmatic trials to answer clinical questions in the CICU; for more information about pragmatic trials do review PCCM’s content on such studies (^13,14). The next question is whether the authors can use their pilot-RCT experience to deliver a definitive RCT. The answer would be so useful to our practice, by either informing the decision to stop giving unnecessary treatment or encouraging the decision to continue with routine stress ulcer prophylaxis.

Harley A, George S, Phillips N, et al; Resuscitation in Paediatric Sepsis Randomized Controlled Pilot Platform Study in the Emergency Department (RESPOND ED) Study Group: Resuscitation With Early Adrenaline Infusion for Children With Septic Shock–A Randomized Pilot Trial (³).

My third editor’s choice is another RCT feasibility study, which in this instance looks at a fluid-vasopressor algorithm in pediatric septic shock care (³). The question being asked is whether a protocol comparing early epinephrine infusion (i.e., started after a 20 mL/kg fluid bolus) versus standard care (i.e., 40−60 mL/kg fluid bolus followed by inotrope infusion) is safe and feasible in children with septic shock? Again, another pragmatic approach to answering a clinical question (see above and references 13, 14). Here, the investigators recruited 40 patients presenting to four pediatric emergency departments in Australia and concluded that a fluid-sparing algorithm, with early vasopressors, in septic shock is feasible and there is a rationale for performing a definitive RCT in children.

Of note, the “fluid-sparing” algorithm is not a new concept in the Journal, since the evolution of this idea was covered at the time of publication of the post-FEAST (i.e., Fluid Expansion as Supportive Therapy) trial era data analysis from Uganda and Kenya (^15,16). The next step for this algorithm should include broadening relevance to the international setting, as was highlighted in the recent Special Article on international sepsis diagnosis and care (¹⁷). Thought will also need to be given to the practicalities of early administration of peripheral vasoactive agents, as was covered in 2022 (^18–20). So, enjoy the read, and follow closely the next iterations of this work.

The pilot RCT about early vasopressors in septic shock (³) also provides us with an opportunity to focus on additional PCCM material about potential metabolic interventions in septic shock patients.

Looking back to 2022, the Journal published a four-article Mini Symposium on the topic of vitamins in sepsis and critical illness. There was a single-center prospective study from Switzerland of patients with blood culture proven-sepsis that demonstrated the frequent finding of low and deficient vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and vitamin B1 (thiamine) levels (²¹). There was also a single-center study from the United States that showed vitamin C deficiency in a significant proportion of critically ill patients, compared with a control group (²²). Last, there was a single-center study from Turkey that examined the prevalence and time course of thiamine deficiency in PICU patients (²³). Then, to bring this information together, there was an accompanying editorial about metabolic resuscitation during sepsis using the combination of Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic acid, and Thiamine in so-called HAT-therapy (²⁴). The conclusion being “…promising, but unproven therapeutic option for pediatric sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.”

Now, in this February issue there are two new articles about vitamin C and vitamin B1 in children with suspected sepsis. First, a study from Australia showing that critically ill children evaluated for sepsis frequently have decreased levels of vitamin C, with lower levels in children with higher severity, but no similar associations were evident for thiamine (²⁵). Second, a pilot RCT testing the feasibility of HAT-therapy in 60 children requiring vasopressors for septic shock; the authors from Australia and New Zealand concluded than a RCT was feasible, and it would require a sample size of 384 patients (²⁶).

Regarding the educational connection between the 2022 Mini Symposium (21−²⁴) and the two new reports (^25,26) on metabolic interventions in septic shock, it is worth spending time reviewing the contemporary PCCM data about hydrocortisone in pediatric septic shock from the United States. There is the 2013-−2017 life after pediatric sepsis evaluation (LAPSE) study that failed to identify an association between early corticosteroid therapy in children with septic shock and clinical and 1-month health-related quality of life outcomes (^27,28). There is also the 2015−2018 sepsis biomarker model (PERSEVERE)-II risk stratification study of pediatric septic shock, which had an opposite result to the LAPSE data and showed that corticosteroid administration was associated with increased mortality in a subgroup of children with high PERSEVERE-II risk score (^29,30). Hence, at present, we do not have a definitive answer about hydrocortisone. However, there is an ongoing RCT about Stress Hydrocortisone in Pediatric Septic Shock (SHIPSS, see ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03401398), which has now extended its recruitment to several international sites. Given the emerging international data on vitamin C and vitamin B1 levels in critically ill children with septic shock, the question is whether the metabolic dimension has more importance than previously thought?

It’s January 2024 and the 25^th volume of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) begins. It is a jubilee year for the Journal and at the start I draw your attention to another three Editor’s Choice articles. First, a secondary analysis of outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in the 2016-2021 ICU-RESUScitation dataset (¹). Second, a single-center, retrospective review of experience using a prostacyclin analogue as the sole anticoagulant in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) for critically ill children with liver diseases (2010−2019) (²). Third, a systematic review and meta-analysis registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, see https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) about tools and measures to predict fluid responsiveness in pediatric shock states (up to May 2022) (³). Each report has an accompanying editorial (^4–6).

Federman M, Sutton RM, Reeder RW, et al: Survival With Favorable Neurological Outcome and Quality of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Following In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest In Children With Cardiac Disease Compared With Noncardiac Disease (¹).

This month’s reading could begin with a secondary analysis of the 2016−2021 ICU-RESUScitation dataset (¹). This report is PCCM’s third item in a series from a cluster randomized controlled trial about IHCA care (^1,7,8). The authors have selected 1,100 patients and assessed the odds of favorable neurologic outcome in three groups: medical cardiac, surgical cardiac, and non-cardiac cases. The authors also examined cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality and physiology, including features of chest compression, end-tidal partial pressure of cardon dioxide, and blood pressure. The accompanying editorial is from the newest member of PCCM’s Associate Editor team, Dr. Ravi Thiagarajan (⁴). There are useful insights into the recent history of CPR outcomes after IHCA, as well as a call to designing studies of CPR quality metrics.

Deep A, Alexander EC, Khatri A, et al: Epoprostenol (Prostacyclin Analogue) as a Sole Anticoagulant in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy for Critically Ill Children With Liver Disease: Single Center Retrospective Study, 2010−2019 (²).

Prothrombotic risk and coagulopathy is a problem in critically ill patients with liver disease requiring CRRT. Therefore, my second Editor’s Choice is a timely evaluation. The report comes from a hepatology-focused PICU in the United Kingdom, which has a 10-year experience of using Epoprostenol (a prostacyclin analogue) as its sole CRRT anticoagulant (²). The authors describe their practice in 96 patients undergoing 353 filter episodes of CRRT, lasting over 18,500 hours. The accompanying editorial gives a helpful overview of anticoagulation strategies during various forms of extracorporeal support (⁵); it also comments on the practicalities of the Epoprostenol protocol (which can be found in the supplemental file of the U.K. report).

Walker SB, Winters JM, Schauer JM, et al: Performance of Tools and Measures to Predict Fluid Responsiveness In Pediatric Shock and Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (³).

My third highlighted article is a PROSPERO-registered systematic review of the literature (³); the a priori registration underlines the rigor of this type of report for PCCM (⁹). In this review the authors identified 62 articles (up to May 2022) containing analyses of 54 unique fluid responsiveness predictive tools primarily in ventilated children in the operating room or PICU (³). Our editorialist discusses these tools, with a useful account about point of care ultrasound (POCUS) (⁶). Please read this information on POCUS in the context of other PCCM commentaries about regulating POCUS training and practice in the PICU (^10–12). Finally, it is also worth rereading PCCM’s two concise clinical physiology articles about the cardiovascular system in severe sepsis (¹³) and cardiogenic shock (¹⁴), and the helpful pressure-volume illustrations from the cardiovascular simulator when using fluid boluses for resuscitation.

This year we continue with the educational “connections” reading for our subscribers and trainees. This month’s focus is on links with the topic of IHCA, which was highlighted as an Editor’s Choice (^1,4). There are three reports (and their editorials) to review from large datasets that provide insight into other aspects of treatment during IHCA resuscitation. Take time to refresh your memory with these therapies. What about calcium administration during CPR for IHCA in children with heart disease, as reported in the American Heart Association’s “Get With The Guidelines Resuscitation” (GWTG-R) registry (^15,16)? What about sodium bicarbonate administration in pediatric cases of IHCA, as described in the ICU-RESUScitation project (^4,17)? And last, what about inappropriate shock delivery during pediatric IHCA, as identified by the international pediatric cardiac arrest quality improvement collaborative in the Pediatric Resuscitation Quality (pediRES-Q) study (¹⁸)?

December 2023 and we’re closing this year with another strong issue of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM). There are four Editor’s Choice articles: two about severe acute viral respiratory illness and one focused on parents of critically ill children. The fourth Editor’s Choice article covers malnutrition and nutritional support in the PICU and serves as a stimulus to the further reading mentioned in the PCCM Connections section. Finally, there is a PCCM Narrative this month.

Leland SB, Staffa SJ, Newhams MM, et al; Pediatric Acute Lung and Sepsis Investigator’s Network Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study Group (PALISI PICFLU) Investigators and Overcoming COVID-19 Investigators: The Modified Clinical Respiratory Progression Scale for Pediatric Patients: Evaluation as a Severity Metric and Outcome Measure in Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (¹).

In this exploratory report (¹), a subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) network (²) modified the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Progression Scale for patients with acute viral respiratory illness during PICU admission. The PALISI network group first presents details of scale development followed by testing in three separate datasets: the Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza (PICFLU) study; the PICFLU Vaccine Effectiveness (PICFLU-VE) study; and the Overcoming COVID-19 public health surveillance registry. Read the article and examine the informative alluvial plots. This clinical progression scale for pediatrics could become an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials (RCT) of therapy for viral lower respiratory tract infective illness

Miranda M, Ray S, Boot E, et al: Variation in Early Pediatric Intensive Care Management Strategies and Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation for Acute Viral Bronchiolitis in the United Kingdom: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study (³).

My next Editor’s Choice article describes a multicenter retrospective study of infants receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for bronchiolitis in the United Kingdom (³). Previously, some of the authors reported a three-center retrospective cohort of 462 infants undergoing IMV for bronchiolitis over the period 2012−2016 (⁴). The authors identified between-center variations in both practice and outcomes and suggested that these findings could be further tested through implementing “optimal care bundles.” The U.K. group has not reached the point of such a prospective study but has extended its review from three to 13 centers: now studying a population of 350 infants receiving IMV for bronchiolitis in 2019. The authors again report factors associated with duration of IMV and the results of sedation practices will be of interest to our community. (Please read these findings alongside the 2022 Society of Critical Care Medicine [SCCM)] clinical practice guidelines [CPG] on sedatives during IMV; in particular, read through Table 1 in the CPG [⁵]). The U.K. researchers found variation in sedation practices during IMV for bronchiolitis in the 13 centers in the United Kingdom in 2019. If this difference exists today–this is four years later–it suggests another opportunity for a U.K.-wide pragmatic trial which, after all, is its research expertise (⁶). The authors are now advocating for RCTs during IMV for bronchiolitis with simultaneous study of multiple questions: standard versus restricted fluid management; nasal versus oral endotracheal intubation; and alpha-2 agonists versus benzodiazepines. Perhaps the clinical progression scale for acute viral respiratory illness described in my first Editor’s Choice article will also have a role (¹).

Pryce P, Gangopadhyay M, Edwards JD: Parental Adverse Childhood Experiences and Post-PICU Stress in Children and Parents (⁷).

My third Editor’s Choice article (⁷) continues the theme of parental mental health that has been a focus at PCCM, with recent contributions on screening for factors influencing parental psychological vulnerability (^8,9) and the protracted consequence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in parents of critically ill children (^10,11). In an observational study carried out in 2021, the authors collected data from 145 parents and examined associations between a parent’s history of adverse childhood experiences and their own post-PICU PTSD symptoms (⁷). There is an accompanying editorial by a clinical psychologist (and PCCM Editorial Board member), Dr. Gillian Colville, who asks us to think more about the social determinants of health and the growing literature on risk and protective factors related to development of psychological difficulties (¹²). Also read Dr Colville’s report of 20 years as an embedded psychologist within the PICU in this month’s issue (¹³).

Campos-Mino S, Figueiredo-Delgado A, Zarate P, et al; Nutrition Committee, Latin American Society of Pediatric Intensive Care (SLACIP): Malnutrition and Nutrition Support in Latin American PICUs: The Nutrition in PICU (NutriPIC) Study (¹⁴).

My fourth Editor’s Choice article comes from the Latin American Society of Pediatric Intensive Care (SLACIP) and is a point prevalence study of malnutrition and nutritional support in 41 PICUs in 13 Latin American countries on one day in 2021 (¹⁴). SLACIP identified 311 children on the day of study who, in general, had adequate enteral nutritional support but half the children did not receive recommended levels of calories and protein.

Please read the article because it serves as the starting point from which to review contemporary questions about enteral nutrition in the PICU: 1) What is happening worldwide; 2) What about fellowship education in this subject area; 3) What are the new techniques for feeding tube placement; 4) What can be done during noninvasive respiratory support; and 4) What is the up-to-date clinical science? The article also adds to the international work that PCCM has recently published from South Africa, Malawi, Kenya, India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. (For more information about the international reports, look at the website (https://journals.lww.com/pccmjournal/pages/collectiondetails.aspx?TopicalCollectionId=26): select the “Collections” drop-down menu, and click on the items in the “Editor’s Choice” section for an overview, issue-by-issue.)

After reading my fourth Editor’s Choice article (¹⁴), by way of an educational review, move onto the 2019 world survey of 920 PICU practitioners in 57 countries that asked about barriers to delivery of enteral nutrition (¹⁵). Then read the 2019 survey of North American pediatric critical care fellowship programs, with 20 program directors and 60 fellows, which found that nutrition education was “highly underrepresented” in curricula (¹⁶). Next, review the report on postpyloric feeding tube placement under ultrasound guidance (^17,18). Look at the 2018−2019, four-center European PICU report of feeding practices and energy balance in 190 children receiving noninvasive respiratory support (^19,20). Last, search out two articles that address mechanistic aspects of adequacy of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients receiving IMV support: one brief report about anticholinergic drug burden (²¹), and the other a Concise Clinical Science Review about the Zonulin pathway in gastrointestinal dysfunction (²²).

Finally, before moving through the rest of this issue of PCCM from our authors, reviewers, and editors, read the PCCM Narrative Essay called “Shared Vulnerabilities” (²³). I have also written a foreword to the December 2023 issue that will give some insight into PCCM’s processes and metrics this year (²⁴).