In the last three decades, significant advances have been made in the care of children requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT). The move from the use of only hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis to continuous venovenous hemofiltration with or without dialysis (continuous renal replacement therapy, CRRT) has become a mainstay in many intensive care units. The move to CRRT is the result of greater clinical experience as well as advances in equipment, solutions, vascular access, and anticoagulation. CRRT is the mainstay of dialysis in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) for critically ill children who often have hemodynamic compromise. The advantages of this modality include the ability to promote both solute and fluid clearance in a slow continuous manner. Though data exist suggesting that approximately 25% of children in any PICU may have some degree of renal insufficiency, the true need for RRT is approximately 4% of PICU admissions. This article will review the history as well as the progress being made in the provision of this care in children.
Child ; Critical Illness ; Dialysis ; Hemodynamics ; Hemofiltration ; Humans ; Intensive Care Units ; Pediatrics ; Peritoneal Dialysis ; Renal Dialysis ; Renal Insufficiency ; Renal Replacement Therapy

Objective. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected snorted and spit saliva in detecting COVID-19 using RT-PCR (ssRT-PCR) and lateral flow antigen test (ssLFA) versus nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR (npRT-PCR). Methods. One hundred ninety-seven symptomatic subjects for COVID-19 testing in a tertiary hospital underwent snort-spit saliva self-collection for RT-PCR and antigen testing and nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR as reference. Positivity rates, agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were estimated. Results. Estimated prevalence of COVID-19 using npRT-PCR was 9% (exact 95% CI of 5.5% - 14.1%). A higher positivity rate of 13% in the ssRT-PCR assay suggested possible higher viral RNA in the snort-spit samples. There was 92.9% agreement between ssRT-PCR and npRT-PCR (exact 95% CI of 88.4% to 96.1%; Cohen’s Kappa of 0.6435). If npRT-PCR will be assumed as reference standard, the estimated Sensitivity was 83.3% (exact 95% CI of 60.8% to 94.2%), Specificity 93.9% (exact 95% CI of 89.3% to 96.5%), Positive predictive value of 57.7% (exact 95% CI of 38.9% to 74.5%), Negative predictive value of 98.2% (exact 95% CI of 95% to 99.4%), positive likelihood ratio of 3.65 (95% CI of 7.37 to 24.9), negative likelihood ratio of 0.178 (95% CI of 0.063 to 0.499). There was 84.84% agreement (95% exact CI of 79.1% to 89.5%; Cohen’s Kappa of 0.2356) between ssLFAvs npRT-PCR, sensitivity of 38.9% (exact 95% CI of 20.3% to 61.4%), specificity of 89.4% (exact 95% CI of 84.1% to 93.1%), PPV of 26.9% (95% CI of 13.7% to 46.1%), NPV of 93.6% (exact 95% CI of 88.8% to 96.4%), LR+ of 3.67 (95% CI of 1.79 - 7.51), LR – of 0.68 (95% CI of 0.47 - 0.99). Conclusion. Our data showed that snort-spit saliva RT-PCR testing had acceptable diagnostic performance characteristics and can potentially be used as an alternative to the standard nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR test for COVID-19 in certain situations. However, our data also showed that snort-spit saliva antigen testing using lateral flow assay did not offer acceptable performance.
Saliva ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Reverse Transcription ; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction