Application of Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scoring Systems in Children: Do Physicians Really Need Them?

BACKGROUND: A review of the scientific data reveals a lack of publications analyzing the opinions of anesthesiologists and intensivists in pediatric departments of anesthesiology, resuscitation, and intensive care on the necessity of using organ dysfunction severity scoring systems in clinical practice.

AIM: The study aimed to analyze the opinions of anesthesiologists and intensivists working in pediatric departments of anesthesiology, resuscitation, and intensive care in the Russian Federation regarding the necessity of applying multiple organ dysfunction scoring systems in clinical practice.

METHODS: The study was observational, uncontrolled, and based on a voluntary anonymous survey conducted through the website of the Association of Pediatric Anesthesiologists and Intensivists of Russia. Descriptive statistics were presented as frequencies and percentages; responses to open-ended questions were categorized based on key qualitative parameters. Pearson’s χ² test was used for comparative analysis of categorical data.

RESULTS: A total of 230 respondents participated in the survey, the majority of them were physicians from regional clinical hospitals (38.7%) with over 10 years of experience (69.6%). The most well-known and frequently used scoring systems were qSOFA, nSOFA, NEOMOD, pSOFA, and the Phoenix Sepsis Score. Regular use of multiple organ dysfunction severity scores was reported by 77 (33.5%) respondents, with the most commonly applied being the qSOFA scale, which has not been validated in the Russian clinical settings.

CONCLUSION: More than 60% of pediatric anesthesiologists and intensivists use multiple organ dysfunction scoring systems irregularly, and their use is more commonly driven by the perceived high risk of mortality than by the need to determine subsequent treatment strategies.