Search

IntroductionAcute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of oral olanzapine is more effective than a dose of oral diazepam at successfully sedating young people with ASBD.Methods and analysisThis study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 years and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of oral olanzapine and oral diazepam. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was received from the Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/66478/RCHM-2020). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12621001236886.

IntroductionAcute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of intramuscular olanzapine is more effective than intramuscular droperidol at successfully sedating young people with ASBD requiring intramuscular sedation.Methods and analysisThis study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular droperidol. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was received from the Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/69948/RCHM-2021). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12621001238864.

ImportanceNasal high-flow oxygen therapy in infants with bronchiolitis and hypoxia has been shown to reduce the requirement to escalate care. The efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy in children aged 1 to 4 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure without bronchiolitis is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of early high-flow oxygen therapy vs standard oxygen therapy in children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 14 metropolitan and tertiary hospitals in Australia and New Zealand, including 1567 children aged 1 to 4 years (randomized between December 18, 2017, and March 18, 2020) requiring hospital admission for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The last participant follow-up was completed on March 22, 2020.InterventionsEnrolled children were randomly allocated 1:1 to high-flow oxygen therapy (n = 753) or standard oxygen therapy (n = 764). The type of oxygen therapy could not be masked, but the investigators remained blinded until the outcome data were locked.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was length of hospital stay with the hypothesis that high-flow oxygen therapy reduces length of stay. There were 9 secondary outcomes, including length of oxygen therapy and admission to the intensive care unit. Children were analyzed according to their randomization group.ResultsOf the 1567 children who were randomized, 1517 (97%) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 1.9 years [IQR, 1.4-3.0 years]; 732 [46.7%] were female) and all children completed the trial. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the high-flow oxygen group with a median of 1.77 days (IQR, 1.03-2.80 days) vs 1.50 days (IQR, 0.85-2.44 days) in the standard oxygen group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]; P Conclusions and RelevanceNasal high-flow oxygen used as the initial primary therapy in children aged 1 to 4 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure did not significantly reduce the length of hospital stay compared with standard oxygen therapy.Trial Registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12618000210279

AIMS: High-flow is increasingly used in children with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), despite limited evidence. The primary feasibility endpoint for this pilot-study was the proportion of treatment failure, secondary outcomes being intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and proportion of patients requiring escalation of care. We measured duration of hospital stay, duration of oxygen therapy and rates of ICU admission. METHODS: An open-labelled randomised controlled trial feasibility design was used in two tertiary children's hospitals in the emergency department and general wards. Children aged 0-16 years with AHRF were randomised (1:1) to either high-flow or standard-oxygen. Children on standard-oxygen received rescue high-flow in general wards if failure criteria were met. RESULTS: Of 563 randomised, 283 received high-flow and 280 standard-oxygen with no adverse events. The proportion of children who failed treatment and receiving escalation of care was 11.7% (32/283 children) on high-flow and 18.1% (50/280 infants) on standard-oxygen (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.00). In children with obstructive airway disease, 9.7% on high-flow and 17.4% on standard-oxygen required escalation (risk-difference -7.7% percentage points; 95% confidence interval -14.3, -1.1); in children with non-obstructive disease no difference was observed. Neither difference in ICU admissions nor any difference in length of hospital stay was observed. Sixty percent of children who failed standard-oxygen responded to rescue high-flow. CONCLUSION: High-flow outside ICU appears to be feasible in children with AHRF and the required proportion of escalation was lower compared to standard-oxygen. The trial design can be applied in a future large randomised controlled trial.

IntroductionAcute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in children is the most frequent reason for non-elective hospital admission. During the initial phase, AHRF is a clinical syndrome defined for the purpose of this study by an oxygen requirement and caused by pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infections, asthma or bronchiolitis. Up to 20% of these children with AHRF can rapidly deteriorate requiring non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy has been used by clinicians for oxygen therapy outside intensive care settings to prevent escalation of care. A recent randomised trial in infants with bronchiolitis has shown that NHF therapy reduces the need to escalate therapy. No similar data is available in the older children presenting with AHRF. In this study we aim to investigate in children aged 1 to 4 years presenting with AHRF if early NHF therapy compared with standard-oxygen therapy reduces hospital length of stay and if this is cost-effective compared with standard treatment.Methods and analysisThe study design is an open-labelled randomised multicentre trial comparing early NHF and standard-oxygen therapy and will be stratified by sites and into obstructive and non-obstructive groups. Children aged 1 to 4 years (n=1512) presenting with AHRF to one of the participating emergency departments will be randomly allocated to NHF or standard-oxygen therapy once the eligibility criteria have been met (oxygen requirement with transcutaneous saturation Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained in Australia (HREC/15/QRCH/159) and New Zealand (HDEC 17/NTA/135). The trial commenced recruitment in December 2017. The study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. Authorship of all publications will be decided by mutual consensus of the research team.Trial registration numberACTRN12618000210279

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunctions should be accurately and efficiently diagnosed. In this case series, we describe the use of point-of-care ultrasound to rapidly identify pediatric ventriculoperitoneal shunt tubing fracture, obstruction, and infection.

Background: High-flow oxygen-therapy is increasingly used in children with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF), despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy outside intensive care units. Methods: An open labelled RCT feasibility design was used in emergency departments and general wards of two tertiary children's hospitals. Over a period of 1-year, children aged 0-16 years with AHRF were randomised (1:1) to either high-flow or standard-oxygen. Children on the standard-oxygen could receive rescue high-flow in the general wards if their conditions met treatment failure criteria. The primary efficiency-endpoints were feasibility, recruitment rates and safety followed by the efficacy-endpoints measuring the proportion escalation of care. We measured the duration of hospital stay, duration of oxygen therapy and rates of ICU admission. Findings: Of 563 randomised, 283 received high-flow and 280 standard-oxygen with no adverse events. The proportion of children receiving escalation of care was 11.7% (32/283 children) on the high-flow and 18.1% (50/280 infants) on standard-oxygen (risk difference -6.4 percentage points; 95% CI -12.4%, -0.5%; p=0.04). In children with obstructive airway disease 9.7% on high-flow and 17.4% on standard-oxygen required escalation (risk difference -7.7% percentage points; 95% CI -14.3%, -1.1%; p=0.03), whereas in children with non-obstructive disease no difference was observed. No difference in length of hospital stay was observed. 40% of children who failed standard-oxygen responded to rescue high-flow. Interpretation: High-flow outside ICU appears to be safe in children with AHRF and the required proportion of escalation was lower compared to standard-oxygen. The trial design can be applied in a future large RCT. Trial Registration: The study protocol was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. (ACTRN12615001305516). Funding Statement: The study was supported by a grant provided by Thrasher Research Fund and a project grant provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The high-flow equipment and consumables for both trial sites were donated by Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, which had no involvement in the design and conduct of the trial, the analysis of the data, or in the preparation of the manuscript. Declaration of Interests: DF and AS report financial support for travel and accommodation provided by Fisher&Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by Children’s Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/15/QRCH/159) and the authors used a consent to continue process.