Retrospective cohort study identifies clinical factors related to mortality in pediatric PICS, suggesting distinct high-risk phenotypes.
Persistent inflammation, immunosuppression, and catabolism syndrome (PICS) is increasingly recognised as a critical contributor to adverse outcomes in critically ill patients, yet its clinical implications in paediatric populations remain under-explored. The aim of this study was to apply the established PICS diagnostic criteria to a cohort in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) to identify clinical factors associated with mortality and characterise phenotype with distinct outcomes. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 536 PICU patients admitted for ≥ 15 days between 2019 and 2024 at a single tertiary centre. Paediatric PICS was defined as elevated C-reactive protein (> 2.0 mg·dL–1), hypoalbuminaemia (< 3.0 g·dL–1), and lymphopenia (< 800 µL–1) on days 13–15. Twenty-two clinical variables measured at or around day 14 were analysed using principal component analysis (PCA) followed by k-means clustering of retained principal component scores. Weighted clustering using the original variables was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Survival differences between PCA-derived phenotypes were assessed using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Paediatric PICS was diagnosed in 64 patients (11.9%), who exhibited higher mortality rates (42% vs. 15%). PCA-based clustering identified three clusters (interpreted as phenotypes) with distinct mortality gradients. The first principal component represented a high-risk axis characterised by greater organ dysfunction, hyperbilirubinaemia, coagulopathy, metabolic derangement, and thrombocytopenia. A concordant high-risk phenotype was reproduced in the weighted-clustering sensitivity analysis. In the PCA-based main analysis, 1-year survival differed significantly across three clusters (log-rank χ² = 11.85, P = 0.0027). Paediatric PICS appears to be phenotypically heterogeneous and may include higher-risk phenotypes. These findings are exploratory and require external validation before clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tanimura et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: