Evidence Hub

Sepsis Bundle Adherence and Early Vasopressor Administration in Pediatric Septic Shock: Secondary Analysis of Outcomes in a 2023 Multicenter Cohort in Bolivia

Raúl Copana-Olmos, N. Casson, Willmer Diaz-Villalobos, Victor Urquieta-Clavel, Mary Tejerina-Ortiz, M. Céspedes-Lesczinsky, Vladimir Aguilera-Avendaño, Maricruz Fernández-Vidal et al.

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 2025

268 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

In a cohort of children with septic shock, we evaluated the association between vasoactive agent use within 1 hour of starting our sepsis bundle and mortality. Secondarily, we assessed the relationship between sepsis bundle adherence and mortality and other outcomes.

DESIGN

Nonpreplanned, secondary analysis of a national multicenter dataset collected in a resource-limited setting.

SETTING

Dataset from 14 centers in Bolivia collected between January 2023 and December 2023.

PATIENTS

Children under 15 years old with sepsis or septic shock defined using altitude-adjusted Phoenix criteria.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We included 268 patients in this secondary analysis, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age 17 months (IQR, 6-63 mo). The sepsis bundle was used within 3 hours in 131 of 268 patients (49%). Vasopressors were used in 102 of 268 patients (38%) and 85 of 102 (83%) had received peripheral administration within the 1 hour of persistent hypotension, without any record of adverse events. Early vasopressor use within 1 hour of septic shock recognition, and antibiotic administration within 1 hour of sepsis recognition, were independently associated with lower odds (using adjusted odds ratio [aOR] and 95% CI) of mortality, respectively: 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28-0.89) and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.24-0.71; both p = 0.001). Failure to complete the sepsis bundle within 3 hours was associated with greater odds of mortality (aOR, 3.61 [95% CI, 1.64-7.91]; p =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 268 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