Refractory Shock in Pediatric Emergency Departments: Challenges and Innovations in Early Escalation: A Narrative Review

Abstract

Refractory shock in children carries persistently high mortality, particularly in low-resource settings. It occurs when circulatory failure persists despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasoactive medications. This review summarizes pathophysiology, recognition, and escalation strategies for pediatric refractory shock, emphasizing early identification in the emergency department. It examines evidence for fluid management, vasoactive therapy, and point-of-care ultrasound in optimizing decision-making, along with second-line options such as corticosteroids, vasopressin, and milrinone. Special attention is given to resource-constrained settings, describing evidence-based adaptations including conservative fluid strategies from the FEAST trial, simplified algorithms, simulation-based training, and telemedicine. Improving outcomes requires rapid recognition, precise hemodynamic phenotyping, and timely evidence-based interventions.

Keywords

pediatric refractory shock septic shock hemodynamic monitoring POCUS vasoactive agents fluid resuscitation catecholamine-resistant shock resource-limited settings tele-ICU mortality reduction

Introduction

Pediatric shock is a life-threatening condition characterized by inadequate tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery, leading to rapid cellular injury and potential organ failure. The main types include septic shock (often triggered by severe infection), cardiogenic shock (resulting from cardiac pump failure), hypovolemic shock (due to significant fluid or blood loss), distributive shock (eg, anaphylaxis), and obstructive shock (eg, tamponade). While their underlying mechanisms differ, all require swift recognition and intervention to prevent irreversible damage¹

Refractory shock is defined as persistent hypotension and signs of poor perfusion despite adequate fluid resuscitation (40-60 ml/kg) and appropriate initiation of vasoactive support, as outlined by the Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) guidelines and refined by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC). This definition emphasizes the persistence of shock after correcting reversible factors and highlights the necessity of advanced hemodynamic assessment over simplistic “cold” versus “warm” clinical classification^2,3

The impact of early recognition in the emergency department (ED) cannot be overstated. Delays in intervention are consistently associated with increased mortality and organ dysfunction.⁴ Implementing structured protocols, including sepsis screening tools and time-sensitive intervention bundles, has been shown to significantly shorten shock reversal time and reduce in-hospital mortality.⁵ Adherence to evidence-based guidelines during the first “golden hour” of presentation is closely linked to improved survival.⁶

Case Vignette: Impact of Delayed Care

A 7-year-old boy presented to a rural ED with fever, lethargy, and decreased urine output. Initially misdiagnosed with a viral illness, his resuscitation and antibiotics were delayed. Within hours, he developed fluid-refractory cold septic shock with myocardial dysfunction, requiring high-dose vasoactive support, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and intensive care. This case underscores the dire consequences of missed early warning signs, where delayed escalation converted a potentially reversible condition into a protracted, resource-intensive crisis with significant morbidity.³

This review examines the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnostic strategies for refractory pediatric shock, explores current and emerging management approaches, and proposes practical, resource-conscious interventions to improve outcomes in diverse ED settings.

Search Strategy and Study Selection

databases searched (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar), timeframe (2010-2025), search terms (“pediatric refractory shock,” “septic shock,” “POCUS,” “vasoactive agents,” “resource-limited settings”), and inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed articles, guidelines, RCTs, observational studies, systematic reviews).

Pathophysiology and Classification of Shock

Shock is a pathological state of global tissue hypoperfusion where oxygen delivery (DO₂) is insufficient to meet metabolic demands, forcing a shift to anaerobic metabolism and lactate accumulation. Understanding shock requires a firm grasp of oxygen transport physiology.⁷

Oxygen Delivery and Consumption

Oxygen Delivery (DO₂): DO₂ = Cardiac Output (CO) × Arterial Oxygen Content (CaO₂)

○ CO = Heart Rate (HR) × Stroke Volume (determined by preload, contractility, afterload).

○ CaO₂ = (Hb × 1.34 × SaO₂) + (PaO₂ × 0.003). Hemoglobin concentration and saturation are the primary determinants.^8-10

Oxygen Consumption (VO₂): VO₂ = (CaO₂− CmvO₂) × CO. Reflects metabolic demand at the tissue level.¹¹

Oxygen Extraction Ratio (O₂ER): O₂ER = (CaO₂−CvO₂) / CaO₂. This ratio increases during compensated shock to maintain VO₂ until a critical point is reached, beyond which anaerobic metabolism predominates.¹² An O₂ER >50% signals approaching decompensation.⁹ See Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Relationship between DO₂ and VO₂ with associated markers of tissue oxygenation.

It captures the supply-dependent versus supply-independent phases, and the changes in ScvO₂, lactate, and oxygen extraction shown in the graph.

Types of Shock

Identifying the type of shock is a cornerstone of effective treatment.

a. Hypovolemic shock: Results from loss of circulating volume (hemorrhagic or non-hemorrhagic). Children present with tachycardia, delayed capillary refill, weak pulses, and cool extremities. Pitfalls include relying solely on blood pressure (a late sign) or underestimating ongoing losses. Management centers on rapid, controlled isotonic fluid resuscitation.^13,14

b. Cardiogenic shock: Arises from impaired myocardial contractility (eg, myocarditis, congenital heart disease). Features include tachycardia, respiratory distress, hepatomegaly, and cool extremities. A common error is administering large fluid boluses for misinterpreted tachycardia, risking pulmonary edema. Treatment emphasizes inotropes and cautious fluid management.^15,16

c. Distributive shock: Caused by abnormal vascular tone and vasodilation (eg, anaphylaxis, spinal shock). Children may have warm, flushed skin early on; spinal shock may present with hypotension without tachycardia. Pitfalls include delayed recognition of anaphylaxis and postponing epinephrine/vasopressors. Management requires trigger removal, epinephrine for anaphylaxis, and vasopressors.^17,18

d. Septic shock: A form of distributive shock triggered by an infection-induced inflammatory cascade. In children, “cold shock” (low CO, high systemic vascular resistance [SVR]) is most common, with tachycardia, mottled cool skin, and delayed capillary refill. “Warm shock” (high CO, low SVR) is less common and features bounding pulses and flash capillary refill. A key challenge is distinguishing phenotypes to guide appropriate vasoactive therapy^19-21 (See Table 1).

e. Obstructive shock: Occurs due to extracardiac mechanical obstruction of blood flow (eg, tension pneumothorax, cardiac tamponade). Presents with signs of shock plus specific features like distended neck veins or muffled heart sounds. It is often misdiagnosed as hypovolemic or cardiogenic shock. Management requires immediate relief of the obstruction.^22,23

Table 1.

Key Clinical Differences Between Warm and Cold Shock.

Feature	Cold shock	Warm shock
Hemodynamic profile	Low cardiac output (CO), high systemic vascular resistance (SVR)	High cardiac output (CO), low systemic vascular resistance (SVR)
Skin temperature	Cool extremities	Warm, flushed extremities
Capillary refill time	Prolonged (>2 seconds)	Flash or brisk (<1 second)
Pulse quality	Weak, thready pulses	Bounding pulses
Blood pressure	Narrow pulse pressure	Wide pulse pressure
Common phenotype	More common in children with septic shock	Less common in children; seen in late or distributive shock
Management focus	Improve contractility and perfusion (e.g., epinephrine)	Restore vascular tone (e.g., norepinephrine)

Initial Management and Escalation Triggers

Fluid Resuscitation: A Context-Dependent Paradigm

Fluid management strategies must be tailored to the healthcare setting and patient phenotype, as evidence supports different approaches.²⁴

High-income countries (HICs): SSC/ACCM-PALS guidelines recommend aggressive isotonic crystalloid boluses (10-20 ml/kg, repeated to 40-60 ml/kg in the first hour if no signs of overload), with advanced monitoring.^25,26

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): The landmark FEAST trial demonstrated that fluid boluses (saline or albumin) increased 48-hour mortality by 3% absolute risk in African children without access to intensive care unit (ICU) care. In the subgroup meeting strict World Health Organization (WHO) shock criteria, mortality was 48% in the bolus group versus 20% in controls. This has prompted a shift toward conservative boluses (10-20 ml/kg over 30-60 minutes) with vigilant reassessment for overload in LMICs^27,28 (See Table 2). Notably, the optimal fluid strategy remains controversial. While SSC/ACCM-PALS guidelines advocate for aggressive resuscitation, the FEAST trial demonstrated harm with boluses in African children lacking ICU access, prompting a paradigm shift in resource-limited settings. This discordance highlights the need for context-specific protocols rather than a universal approach.²⁸

Table 2.

Fluid Resuscitation Guidelines: HIC Versus LMIC.

Aspect	SSC & ACCM-PALS (HIC)	WHO ETAT + (LMIC)
Initial bolus	10-20, up to 40-60 ml/kg	10-20 ml/kg, cautious
Rationale	Improves perfusion, reduces mortality	FEAST trial: bolus increased mortality without ICU support

First-Line Vasoactive Agents: Epinephrine versus Dopamine

Overwhelming evidence supports epinephrine as the superior first-line agent for fluid-refractory cold septic shock.

Ramaswamy et al & Ventura et al : Randomized controlled trials demonstrated epinephrine was significantly more effective at shock reversal (41% vs 13%) and resulted in lower 28-day mortality (7% vs 20.6%) compared to dopamine.^29,30

Loomba et al Meta-Analysis: A systematic review of 397 patients confirmed lower mortality with epinephrine, reinforcing its superiority and better safety profile³¹ (See Table 3). Despite meta-analytic evidence favoring epinephrine, practice variability persists due to factors such as regional drug availability, clinician familiarity, cost, and the absence of epinephrine in some formularies in low-resource settings. Additionally, dopamine remains in use for certain phenotypes or when epinephrine is not immediately accessible.

Table 3.

Epinephrine Versus Dopamine in Pediatric Shock.^29-31.

Study	Finding	Limitations/context
Ramaswamy et al.²⁹	Superior shock reversal (41% vs 13%)	RCT conducted in ICU; generalizability to ED unclear
Ventura et al.³⁰	Lower 28-day mortality (7% vs 20.6%)	Single-center study; need for multicenter validation
Loomba et al.³¹ (meta-analysis)	Lower mortality with epinephrine	Most studies from high-resource settings; dopamine remains WHO essential medicine in some LMICs

Early Signs of Refractory Shock and Escalation Triggers

Hypotension is a late sign; clinical diagnosis is paramount.³²

Clinical signs of refractory shock: Prolonged capillary refill time (CRT) >2 seconds (cold shock), flash CRT or bounding pulses (warm shock), tachypnea, altered mental status, decreased urine output (<1 ml/kg/h), or signs of fluid overload (rales, hepatomegaly).^32,33

Laboratory findings: Lactate >2 mmol/l indicates hypoperfusion. Lactate >4 mmol/l after fluid bolus signals high risk of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and necessitates immediate vasoactive support. Metabolic acidosis guides fluid and inotropic therapy.^34,35

Prognostic scores: The pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) scores help stratify severity and predict mortality risk, guiding intervention intensity.^36,37

Immediate actions: Clinical signs should trigger phenotypically guided action: start epinephrine for cold shock, norepinephrine for warm shock, and initiate vasoactive agents for persistent hyperlactatemia (Table 4).

Table 4.

Escalation Triggers and Immediate Actions.

Sign / finding	Likely shock type	Immediate action
Prolonged CRT + narrow pulse pressure (PP)	Cold shock	Start epinephrine infusion
Flash CRT + wide PP	Warm shock	Start norepinephrine infusion
Lactate >4 mmol/l post-bolus	Any	Start vasoactives; consider adrenal insufficiency
Hypotension (late sign)	Any	Immediate fluid + vasoactive support

Advanced Rescue Strategies

When first-line therapies fail, advanced strategies are essential.

Second-Line Agents

Vasopressin/Terlipressin: Acts via V1a receptors to increase SVR. Used in catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock. It improves the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and organ function but no proven mortality benefit. Risk of excessive vasoconstriction and ischemia.^38,39

Milrinone: A phosphodiesterase inhibitor that increases myocardial contractility and lustropy (relaxation). First-line for shock with myocardial dysfunction. Avoid loading dose due to vasoplegia risk.^40,41

Methylene Blue: Inhibits nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation. Effective in catecholamine-refractory shock with normal ventricular function (per POCUS). Side effects are mild and transient (blue-green discoloration).⁴²

Corticosteroids

The role of hydrocortisone in catecholamine-resistant shock remains debated. It may improve cardiovascular function by enhancing catecholamine sensitivity. SSC guidelines recommend it for suspected/confirmed adrenal insufficiency.⁴³ Evidence on mortality is inconclusive; a Cochrane review suggested reduced short-term mortality but highlighted uncertainty about long-term benefits. Risks include hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and superinfection.^44,45 The cosyntropin stimulation test is of limited utility as a high response may reflect illness severity rather than true insufficiency. Evidence on mortality benefit from corticosteroids remains inconclusive. A Cochrane review suggested reduced short-term mortality but highlighted uncertainty about long-term benefits, along with risks of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and superinfection.⁴⁶

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS)

POCUS is a transformative, non-invasive tool for managing refractory shock.

Shock differentiation: Protocols like Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) and Pediatric RUSH (p-RUSH) enable rapid hemodynamic phenotyping, even in resource-limited settings.⁴⁷

Guided management: Allows dynamic assessment of cardiac filling and contractility, guiding fluid responsiveness and preventing overload.⁴⁸

Procedural safety: Enhances the safety and success of bedside procedures.⁴⁷ Integrating POCUS into ED workflows improves diagnostic accuracy, streamlines management, and facilitates timely critical care delivery. (See Figure 2)

Figure 2.

Pediatric shock rescue algorithm incorporating POCUS assessment and stepwise management.

Refractory Shock in Low-Resource Settings

Mortality from pediatric refractory shock in LMIC EDs ranges from 40% to 60%, exacerbated by systemic barriers.⁴⁹

Epidemiology: The WHO defines shock by the triad of weak tachycardic pulse, cold extremities, and CRT >3 seconds. While this identifies a small proportion of cases (0.1%-0.14% of admissions), they carry extreme mortality rates (41.5%-100%).^50,51 The FEAST trial fundamentally changed practice, proving fluid boluses are harmful in settings lacking ICU support.²⁷

Systemic barriers: Challenges include limited diagnostics (no arterial blood gas [ABG], lactate, POCUS), unreliable drug supply, lack of infusion pumps (requiring error-prone manual micro infusions), scarce mechanical ventilation, and no renal replacement therapy. Human resource deficits (limited PALS training) and delayed transfers without critical care support further hinder outcomes.^52,53

Contextual adaptations: Successful strategies include:

○ Fluids: Conservative boluses (10-20 ml/kg over 30-60 minutes) with immediate cessation for any overload signs.

○ Vascular access: Use of standard 16/18 G needles if pediatric IO needles are unavailable.

○ Drugs: Manual micro infusion sets, early antibiotics, stress-dose hydrocortisone.

○ Monitoring: Reliance on clinical endpoints: HR normalization, CRT <2 seconds, warm extremities, improved mental status, urine output >1 ml/kg/h^54,55 (See Table 5).

Table 5.

Resource-Adapted Management: HIC Versus LMIC Reality.

Aspect	HIC standard	LMIC-adapted approach	Key barriers
Fluids	Aggressive boluses + advanced monitoring	Conservative boluses + clinical reassessment	Limited monitoring, FEAST evidence
Vasoactive delivery	Infusion pumps, broad availability	Manual micro infusion, limited supply	Lack of pumps, drug shortages
Monitoring	Continuous blood pressure, ABG, lactate, POCUS	Basic vitals, CRT, clinical endpoints	Scarce equipment, observer variability

Future Directions: Simulation, Bundles, and Tele-ICU

Improving outcomes in LMICs requires innovative, context-appropriate solutions.

Simulation-Based Training (SBT): SBT is highly effective for building competency in high-stakes, low-frequency scenarios. Low-fidelity, locally adaptable simulations can practice clinical skills (eg, CRT assessment), decision-making without advanced monitoring, and therapeutic challenges (eg, manual drug infusion). In Kenya, an SBT program improved correct fluid dose calculation from 52% to 91%.^33,56

Bundled care tools: Simplified, pragmatic bundles standardize care and reduce practice variation. A model LMIC shock bundle prioritizes actions from 0 to 60 minutes: early recognition, vascular access, cautious fluids, oxygen, early antibiotics, and hypoglycemia screening/treatment^57,58 (See Table 6).

Tele-ICU integration: Tele-ICU programs connect remote experts with frontline clinicians, providing real-time guidance on vasopressor titration, fluid management, and decision-making. An initiative in India reduced transfer mortality in septic shock by nearly 50%. Despite barriers like internet connectivity, tele-ICU offers a platform for mentorship and capacity building, improving stabilization and outcomes.^59,60

Table 6.

LMIC Pediatric Shock Bundle (0-60 minutes).

Time (min)	Action	Description
0	Early recognition	Assess perfusion, mental status, CRT
0-10	Vascular access	Establish IV/IO line
10-30	Fluid resuscitation	Administer 10 to 20 ml/kg isotonic crystalloid cautiously
0-60	Antibiotics	Administer broad-spectrum antibiotics early
0-60	Hypoglycemia screen	Check glucose and treat promptly if low

Similar challenges exist in rural and remote areas of high-income countries. In the United States, lower emergency department pediatric readiness has been associated with increased mortality in critically ill children. Telemedicine programs in the Intermountain West have successfully bridged gaps in pediatric expertise, providing a model applicable to both domestic rural settings and international resource-limited environments⁶¹

Conclusion

Early recognition and precise, phenotype-specific management of pediatric shock are central to improving survival. Advances such as POCUS, tailored fluid strategies, and second-line agents enhance timely decision-making in advanced care settings. In resource-limited environments, the paradigm has shifted toward conservative fluid resuscitation, supported by context-adapted protocols, SBT, and innovative telemedicine solutions. Future efforts must focus on harmonizing evidence-based protocols across diverse health systems and expanding access to these innovative tools to strengthen emergency care delivery and reduce global disparities in pediatric shock outcomes.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

ACCM: American college of critical care medicine

CvO₂: mixed venous oxygen content

SaO₂: arterial oxygen saturation

WHO ETAT+: World health organization emergency triage assessment and treatment plus admission care

ORCID iDs

Eslam Abady

Kevin Thomas Mathew

Majd Oweidat

Mohammed Alsabri

Ethical Considerations

Not applicable. This article is a narrative review of published literature and does not involve human subjects, animal experiments, or primary data collection.

Author Contributions

EA and MO contributed to drafting and revising the initial version of the manuscript, and also reviewed the final manuscript. SCU, ESM, KTM, KF, FD, and MHJA contributed to drafting the initial version of the manuscript. MA, the senior and corresponding author, conceptualized and designed the study.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Weiss

Peters

Alhazzani

, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2020;21(2):e52-e106. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000002198

Davis

Carcillo

Aneja

, et al. The American college of critical care medicine clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric and neonatal septic shock: executive summary. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2017;18(9):884-890. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000001259

Kissoon

Orr

Carcillo

JA.

Updated American college of critical care medicine-pediatric advanced life support guidelines for management of pediatric and neonatal septic shock. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010;26(11):867-869. doi:10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181fb0dc0

Weiss

Balamuth

Hensley

, et al. The epidemiology of hospital death Following pediatric severe sepsis: when, why, and how children with sepsis die. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2017;18(9):823-830. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000001228

Paul

Melendez

Stack

Capraro

Monuteaux

Neuman

MI.

Improving adherence to PALS septic shock guidelines. Pediatrics. 2014;133(5):e1358-e1366. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3871

Han

Carcillo

Dragotta

, et al. Early reversal of pediatric-neonatal septic shock by community physicians is associated with improved outcome. Pediatrics. 2003;112(4):793-799. doi:10.1542/peds.112.4.793

Vincent

De Backer

Circulatory shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1726-1734. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1208943

Arora

Tantia

Physiology of oxygen transport and its determinants in intensive care unit. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2019;23(3):S183. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23272

Yager

Noviski

Shock. Pediatr Rev. 2010;31(8):311-318. doi:10.1542/pir.31-8-311

10.

Rivers

Nguyen

Havstad

, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1368-1377. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa010307

11.

Dellinger

Levy

Rhodes

, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580-637. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af

12.

Carcillo

Fields

AI.

Clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric and neonatal patients in septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(6):1365-1378. doi:10.1097/00003246-200206000-00040

13.

Belgaumi

Salik

Ur Rehman Siddiqui

Shock pathophysiology: classifications and management. In: Grawal

Waindeskar

, eds. Management of Shock–Recent Advances. IntechOpen; 2023:11-26.

14.

Sankar

Ismail

Sankar

Suresh

Meena

RS.

Fluid bolus over 15–20 versus 5–10 minutes each in the first hour of resuscitation in children with septic shock: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2017; 18(10):e435-e445. doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000001269

15.

Brissaud

Botte

Cambonie

, et al. Experts’ recommendations for the management of cardiogenic shock in children. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):14. doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0111-2

16.

Deep

Goonasekera

Wang

Brierley

Evolution of hemodynamic management in pediatric septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(6):e609-e617. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002303

17.

Smith

Lopez

Silberman

Distributive Shock. StatPearls Publishing; 2025.

18.

Oliveira

Nogueira de Sá

Oliveira

Gottschald

AFC

Moura

JDG

Shibata

ARO

, et al. Time- and fluid-sensitive resuscitation for hemodynamic support of children in septic shock: barriers to the implementation of the American college of critical care medicine/pediatric advanced life support guidelines in a pediatric intensive care unit in a developing world. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008; 24(12):810-815. doi:10.1097/PEC.0b013e31818e9f3a

19.

Brierley

Carcillo

Choong

, et al. Clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric and neonatal septic shock: 2007 update from the American college of critical care medicine. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(2):666-688. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819323c6

20.

Ranjit

Aram

Kissoon

, et al. Multimodal monitoring for hemodynamic categorization and management of pediatric septic shock: a pilot observational study. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2014;15(1):e17-e26. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000000021

21.

Miranda

Nadel

Pediatric sepsis: a summary of current definitions and management recommendations. Curr Pediatr Rep. 2023;11(2):29-39. doi:10.1007/s40124-023-00286-3

22.

Pasman

EA.

Shock in pediatrics treatment & management. eMedicine. Updated August 26, 2024. Accessed August 5, 2025. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1833578-treatment

23.

Lee

Chan

Lin

Hsia

Wang

CC.

Hemodynamic monitoring and management of pediatric septic shock. Biomed J. 2022;45(1):63-73. doi:10.1016/j.bj.2021.10.004

24.

Sankar

Das

Jain

, et al. Prevalence and outcome of diastolic dysfunction in children with fluid refractory septic shock—a prospective observational study. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2014;15(9):e370-e378. doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000000249

25.

Carcillo

Davis

Zaritsky

Role of early fluid resuscitation in pediatric septic shock. JAMA. 1991; 266(9):1242-1245.

26.

Inwald

Canter

Woolfall

, et al. Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the fluids in shock pilot trial. Arch Dis Child. 2019;104(5):426-431. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2018-314924

27.

Maitland

Kiguli

Opoka

, et al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2483-2495. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1101549

28.

Houston

George

Maitland

Implications for paediatric shock management in resource-limited settings: a perspective from the FEAST trial. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):119. doi:10.1186/s13054-018-1966-4

29.

Ramaswamy

Singhi

Jayashree

Bansal

Nallasamy

Double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing dopamine and epinephrine in pediatric fluid-refractory hypotensive septic shock. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2016;17(11):e502-e512. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000000954

30.

Ventura

Shieh

Bousso

, et al. Double-blind prospective randomized controlled trial of dopamine versus epinephrine as first-line vasoactive drugs in pediatric septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(11):2292-2302. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001260

31.

Loomba

Patel

Villarreal

Farias

Flores

Epinephrine versus dopamine in children, what is the current evidence and what do we need? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2024;29(6):578-586. doi:10.5863/1551-6776-29.6.578

32.

Biban

Gaffuri

Spaggiari

Zaglia

Serra

Santuz

Early recognition and management of septic shock in children. Pediatr Rep. 2012;4(1):e13. doi:10.4081/pr.2012.e13

33.

Scott

Donoghue

Gaieski

Marchese

Mistry

RD.

Effectiveness of physical exam signs for early recognition of sepsis in pediatric emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med. 2021;77(4):409-422. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.07.024

34.

Scott

Donoghue

Gaieski

Marchese

Mistry

RD.

The utility of early lactate testing in undifferentiated pediatric systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(11):1276-1280. doi:10.1111/acem.12014

35.

Kawasaki

Update on pediatric sepsis: a review. J Intensive Care. 2017;5:47. doi:10.1186/s40560-017-0240-1

36.

Matics

Sanchez-Pinto

LN.

Adaptation and validation of a pediatric sequential organ failure assessment score and evaluation of the sepsis-3 definitions in critically ill children. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(10):e172352. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.2352

37.

Leteurtre

Duhamel

Salleron

Grandbastien

Lacroix

Leclerc

PELOD-2: an update of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction score. Crit Care Med. 2013; 41(7):1761-1773. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a2bbd

38.

Sota

Bramnik

Gudziewski

Kneyber

Tissot

Brierley

High-stakes hormone: vasopressin use as a last-line therapy for shock in pediatrics-a narrative review. Rep. 2025;8(3):117. doi:10.3390/reports8030117

39.

Fernandez

Sepúlveda

Salas

, et al. Effects of combined vasopressin-noradrenaline in pediatric patients with refractory septic shock. Pediatr Acute Crit Care J. 2016;5:55-63. doi:10.14587/paccj.2016.11

40.

Lee

Kim

Kwon

, et al. Safety and efficacy of the off-label use of milrinone in pediatric patients with heart diseases. Korean Circ J. 2014;44(5):320-327. doi:10.4070/kcj.2014.44.5.320

41.

Martin

Weiss

SL.

Initial resuscitation and management of pediatric septic shock. Minerva Pediatr. 2015;67(2): 141-158.

42.

Otero Luna

Johnson

Funaro

, et al. Methylene blue for refractory shock in children: a systematic review and survey practice analysis. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2020; 21(6):e378-e386. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000002295

43.

Dellinger

Levy

Rhodes

, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(2):165-228. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8

44.

Rulli

Carcione

D’Amico

Quartarone

Chimenz

Gitto

Corticosteroids in pediatric septic shock: a narrative review. J Pers Med. 2024;14(12):1155. doi:10.3390/jpm14121155

45.

Menon

McNally

Choong

Sampson

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of steroids in pediatric shock. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2013;14(5):474-480. doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e31828a889c

46.

Iyer

Harrington

Fadrowski

Sibinga

Amankwah

EK.

Correlation between cosyntropin stimulation study and disease severity in children with fluid- and catecholamine-refractory shock in the pediatric and cardiovascular intensive care unit. Horm Res Paediatr. 2018;89(1):31-37. doi:10.1159/000484561

47.

Ali

Shakeel

Soomar

SM.

Need of point of care ultrasound training in pediatric emergency medicine practice: a wake-up call for the low-income countries. Glob Pediatr Health. 2023;10:2333794X231187485. doi:10.1177/2333794X231187485

48.

Polyzogopoulou

Velliou

Verras

, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound: a multimodal tool for the management of sepsis in the emergency department. Medicinar. 2023;59(6):1180. doi:10.3390/medicina59061180

49.

Fleischmann-Struzek

Goldfarb

Schlattmann

Schlapbach

Reinhart

Kissoon

The global burden of paediatric and neonatal sepsis: a systematic review. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(3):223-230. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30063-8

50.

Otieno

Were

Ahmed

Charo

Brent

Maitland

Are bedside features of shock reproducible between different observers?

Arch Dis Child. 2004;89(10):977-979. doi:10.1136/adc.2003.046870

51.

Rudd

Johnson

Agesa

, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7

52.

Khilnani

Singhi

Lodha

, et al. Pediatric sepsis guidelines: summary for resource-limited countries. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2010;14(1):41-52. doi:10.4103/0972-5229.63029

53.

Wooldridge

O’Brien

Muttalib

, et al. Challenges of implementing the paediatric surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines 2020 in resource-limited settings: a real-world view beyond the academia. An Pediatr. 2021; 92(6):954-962. doi:10.32641/andespediatr.v92i6.4030

54.

Reel

Sulemanji

Musa

Kissoon

Pediatric resuscitation guidelines for limited-resource settings. In: Slusher

Bjorklund

Lauden

, eds. Pediatric Procedural Adaptations for Low-Resource Settings. Springer; 2022;133-144.

55.

Tungal

Dhochak

Lodha

Recognizing sepsis in children in low-resourced settings: guidelines for frontline clinicians. Curr Pediatr Rep. 2023;11(2):21-28. doi:10.1007/s40124-023-00285-4

56.

Wintergerst

Buckingham

Gandrud

Wong

Kache

Wilson

DM.

Association of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose variability with morbidity and death in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):173-179. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1819

57.

Ranjit

Kissoon

Argent

, et al. Hemodynamic support for paediatric septic shock: a global perspective. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2023;7(8):588-598. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(23)00103-7

58.

Weiss

Fitzgerald

Pappachan

, et al. Global epidemiology of pediatric severe sepsis: the sepsis prevalence, outcomes, and therapies study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(10):1147-1157. doi:10.1164/rccm.201412-2323OC

59.

Wong

Cvijanovich

Anas

, et al. Improved risk stratification in pediatric septic shock using both protein and mRNA biomarkers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022; 205(5):586-594. doi:10.1164/rccm.202107-1661OC

60.

Menon

McNally

Choong

, et al. A survey of hemodynamic monitoring in Canadian pediatric intensive care units. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012;13(4):e257-e263. doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e31823c980c

61.

Ames

Davis

Marin

, et al. Emergency department pediatric readiness and mortality in critically ill children. Pediatrics. 2019;144(3):e20190568. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-0568