Abstract
Introduction Fluid resuscitation and inotropic support are essential interventions to improve cardiovascular function in patients with septic shock. However, the optimal volume of fluids and the timing of inotropic support to achieve the resolution of shock are controversial. They may depend on the availability of critical care support services. Aims To compare early versus the delayed start of epinephrine administration after fluids bolus in children with septic shock. Methods We conducted an open-label randomized trial in which patients under 18 years of age diagnosed with septic shock and arterial hypotension were treated in two Pediatric Emergency Departments in Paraguay (Hospital de Clinicas of Universidad Nacional de Asunción and Instituto Privado del Niño) between 2015 and 2020. Septic shock was defined according to the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines. All patients received antibiotics and 40 ml/kg of fluids (two boluses of 20ml/kg if there were no signs of fluid overload) during the first hour. They were then divided into two groups: Group 1 received epinephrine infusion and maintenance fluids. Group 2 received an additional 20 ml/kg of fluids and then was started on epinephrine infusion. Results Of 229 patients screened, 63 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 2.8±3.5 years. A total of 52% were female. Group 1 comprised 33 patients, and group 2 comprised a total of 30. Significant differences were found between group 1 and group 2 in the following: mortality (10% vs. 33%, p: 0.026, RR: 3.1, CI: 95%: 1-10), need for mechanical ventilation (10% vs. 41%, p: 0.006, RR: 4, CI: 95%: 1.3-12), and altered vascular hypoperfusion after one hour of interventions (7% vs. 59%, p<0,001, RR: 8.2, CI: 95%: 2-32). Conclusions Early administration of epinephrine infusion after initial fluid therapy was associated with better clinical outcomes than delayed administration.