Furthermore, in surgical patients, male gender can be an independent risk factor for developing severe infections [
15]. As shown in Table
1, the study population was divided into five age subgroups: newborn, infant, toddler, schoolchild, and adolescent. Premature infants were excluded as they are primarily treated at neonatal intensive care units. Newborns and infants comprised more than 50% of all patients included in this registry. More than 70% were younger than 6 years old. Similar results were found in an epidemiology study of severe sepsis in children in the United States, where 48% of the study population were under 12 months of age [
7]. The overall survival rate of patients included in the registry was 83%. The age group-related differences in PICU survival were not significantly different. As shown in Table
2, toddlers and schoolchildren had a high survival rate of over 85%. Lower survival rates were seen in newborns and infants. Adolescents had the lowest PICU survival of 63%. According to the literature, the highest mortality rates from sepsis are found in newborns and infants under 12 months of age. These age groups have the highest incidence of sepsis and the highest risk of sepsis-related deaths owing to low birth weight and prematurity [
7,
11]. A possible explanation for the high mortality among adolescent septic patients is that the incidence of underlying chronic diseases—such as respiratory disorders, cardiac diseases, or malignancies with immune deficiencies—increase with age. More than half of our patients 105 (54%) had underlying chronic diseases. Survival in accordance with comorbidities is also shown in Table
2. The majority of adolescents hospitalized with sepsis had chronic disorders and thus had higher rates of sepsis-related mortality [
9]. Another interesting aspect of our study was the analysis of survival rates in relation to the primary diagnoses (see Fig.
1). The study population was divided into the following primary diagnoses: infection, SIRS, sepsis, septic shock, and MOF. Fifty percent of the 201 patients in the registry were diagnosed with infections; another main diagnosis was sepsis (40%). Six percent of all patients were diagnosed with septic shock and 3% with MOF. As shown in Fig.
1, only one patient with SIRS was included in the registry. Because of the retrospective character of the study, it was not possible to ascertain whether this number is accurate; namely, that there was indeed only one SIRS patient during this 10-year study period. This underlines the problem of past sepsis definitions, as none were standardized. The various manifestations of sepsis and the multiple nonspecific definitions and terminologies made it difficult to define and categorize the septic patient. In 2005, the International Pediatric Consensus Conference (IPSCC) [
13] proposed an age-adjusted definition for sepsis. Although the authors noted that their definition required improvement, pediatric specialists began using it in daily PICU practice worldwide [
16,
17]. Regardless of the wide acceptance of the IPSCC definition in clinical settings, several studies have demonstrated its limitations [
18,
19]. As shown in this large multicenter study [
19], there was little consensus (46%) between the possible diagnosis of severe sepsis by the attending physician and the diagnosis according to the IPSCC definition. The SPROUT study investigators used a more liberal clinical approach. Since 2016, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) has been used, especially for adult patients, although SIRS is excluded in this definition [
20]. Some authors question the applicability of the Sepsis‑3 definitions in children [
21]. A study by Babay at al. published in 2005 analyzed bloodstream infections in pediatric patients and the results showed an overall mortality rate in their study population of 6% [
22]. These results are similar to our findings. As shown by Goldstein at al., the highest risk of death occurred in children with MOF [
13]. Mortality rates increase according to the severity and number of failed organs, reaching a value of around 50% when four or more organ systems are affected [
7,
23]. High mortality rates in children with septic shock are most frequently associated with MOF [
24‐
26]. All patients included in the registry received different forms of supportive care treatment (see Table
3). All the children obtained antibiotic therapy, the majority administered intravenously. The most frequently administered antimicrobials were broad-spectrum antibiotics. In most cases a combination of different antibiotics was necessary. This is in accordance with current international SSC (Surviving Sepsis Campaign) recommendations to administer an empiric first-line broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy to cover most pathogens until the causative organisms are identified and a targeted therapy is feasible [
27]. Another cornerstone of sepsis treatment is fluid resuscitation. The majority (96%) of the study population received fluid resuscitation (Table
3), with the most commonly administered being crystalloids. This conforms with the recommendation outlined in the SSC guidelines, which suggest that initial fluid resuscitation of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion crystalloid fluids should be given intravenously within the first 3 hours. There is no clear benefit of the administration of colloids compared to crystalloids in sepsis patients, thus crystalloid solutions should be the first line of choice for initial fluid resuscitation [
27]. As reflected in Table
3, more than half of the patients in the registry were treated with corticosteroids and vasopressors. The majority of the patients receiving these substances were diagnosed with septic shock or MOF. The SSC guidelines note that vasopressor and corticosteroid support combined with volume resuscitation remains a standard line of therapy in septic shock. The physiological and positive effects of vasopressors in septic shock patients have been analyzed in numerous literature reviews [
28‐
30].
Another treatment strategy we used for patients with infection or sepsis was immunoglobulin therapy. Twenty-six percent of the study population received immunoglobulin therapy. Administered immunoglobulins were primarily IgM-enriched IgG and, to a lesser extent, pure IgG immunoglobulin formulations. These were most frequently used in sepsis, septic shock, or MOF patients. Results of high-quality studies showed no statistically significant improvement of survival rates with use of immunoglobulins. At present, there is no evidence of survival benefit using immunoglobulins in sepsis patients and there is no recommendation in the SSC guidelines [
27,
31‐
34]. Only a small number of children in the registry were treated with ECMO (
n = 21); 11% of all study patients. Nine (43%) of the 21 ECMO patients survived. The median duration of ECMO was 8 (5/22) days. This therapy was most commonly used in children with sepsis (
n = 12) or MOF (
n = 3). ECMO was most frequently applied in newborns (
n = 8), infants (
n = 6), and adolescents (
n = 3), which were also the age groups with the highest incidence of sepsis. Further evaluation of ECMO is needed to improve the efficacy of this treatment strategy [
35]. In order to obtain bacteriological/virological surveillance of our patients, we use C‑reactive protein (CRP) as the first-line inflammatory biomarker. This biomarker is one of the most used in PICUs worldwide [
18]. But there are known limitations in this diagnostic pathway, mainly due to the low sensitivity in differentiating cases of severe sepsis and common bacterial infections in an isolated measurement [
36]. The most important role of CRP use is in the follow-up of sepsis children. A drop of more than 50% in CRP values on the fourth day of critical illness is associated with a good prognosis. No variations in CRP values indicate a poor therapeutic response to the antibiotic therapy [
37]. Since 2017 we have been using procalcitonin and IL‑6, both having higher a diagnostic power for determining bacterial sepsis in children compared to CRP [
38]. Due to the retrospective nature of our study there are a few limitations that should be pointed out: first, complete documentation of parameters is necessary for a coherent and sound interpretation. Relevant data, such as the daily infection surveillance, were unfortunately only partially or poorly documented. Second, it should be considered that the primary diagnoses may have been very discretional according to different healthcare providers, thus introducing a strong interpretation bias.