Evidence Hub

Prevalence, mortality, and aetiology of paediatric shock in a tertiary hospital in Malawi: A cohort study

M. Kumwenda, R. Assies, G. Chathima, Harriet Khofi, J. V. van Woensel, Y. Chimalizeni, J. Langton, J. Calis

PLOS Global Public Health, 2024

12,840 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Shock is considered one of the most important mechanisms of critical illness in children. However, data on paediatric shock in sub-Saharan Africa is limited, which constrains development of effective treatment strategies. We aimed to describe the prevalence, mortality, and aetiology of paediatric shock in a tertiary hospital in Malawi. Children aged two months to 16 years presenting with shock (FEAST criteria; respiratory distress and/or impaired consciousness, and at least one sign of impaired circulation; capillary refill>3 seconds, cold extremities, weak pulse, or severe tachycardia) to the emergency department were included and followed-up prospectively using routinely collected data between February 2019 and January 2020. Prevalence, mortality and aetiology of shock were reported for both the FEAST criteria and World Health Organization (WHO) definition. The association between aetiology and mortality was assessed with univariable analysis. Of all screened admissions (N = 12,840), 679 (5.3%) children presented with shock using FEAST criteria and the mortality was 79/663 (11.9%). WHO-defined shock applied to 16/12,840 (0.1%) and the mortality was 9/15 (60.0%). Main diagnoses were viral/reactive airway diseases (40.4%), severe pneumonia (14.3%), gastroenteritis (11.3%) and presumed sepsis (5.7%). Children diagnosed with presumed sepsis and gastroenteritis had the highest odds of dying (OR 11.3; 95%-CI:4.9–25.8 and OR 4.4; 95%-CI:2.4–8.2). Considering the high mortality,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 12,840 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free