4.3 Article

Pediatric diabetic ketoacidosis, fluid therapy, and cerebral injury: the design of a factorial randomized controlled trial

Journal

PEDIATRIC DIABETES
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 435-446

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pedi.12027

Keywords

brain injury; Cerebral Edema; DKA

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development [1R01HD062417-01]
  2. Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health, and Human Services [U03MC00001, U03MC00003, U03MC00006, U03MC00007, U03MC00008, U03MC22684, U03MC22685]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Treatment protocols for pediatric diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) vary considerably among centers in the USA and worldwide. The optimal protocol for intravenous (IV) fluid administration is an area of particular controversy, mainly in regard to possible associations between rates of IV fluid infusion and the development of cerebral edema (CE), the most common and the most feared complication of DKA in children. Theoretical concerns about associations between osmotic fluid shifts and CE have prompted recommendations for conservative fluid infusion during DKA. However, recent data suggest that cerebral hypoperfusion may play a role in cerebral injury associated with DKA. Currently, there are no existing data from prospective clinical trials to determine the optimal fluid treatment protocol for pediatric DKA. The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network FLUID (FLuid therapies Under Investigation in DKA) study is the first prospective randomized trial to evaluate fluid regimens for pediatric DKA. This 13-center nationwide factorial design study will evaluate the effects of rehydration rate and fluid sodium content on neurological status during DKA treatment, the frequency of clinically overt CE and long-term neurocognitive outcomes following DKA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available