Content uploaded by Peter John Gill
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter John Gill on Jul 25, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Capillary refill time in sick children:
a clinical guide for general practice
Susannah Fleming, Peter J Gill, Ann Van den Bruel and Matthew Thompson
Clinical Intelligence
British Journal of General Practice, November 2016 587
INTRODUCTION
Capillary refill time (CRT) is a simple and
quick test requiring minimal equipment or
time to perform. Prolonged CRT is a ‘red flag’
feature, identifying children with increased
risk of significant morbidity or mortality.1–4
Although national and international
guidelines, including National Institute for
Health and Care Excellence guidelines,
recommend the use of CRT as part of the
initial assessment of unwell children,1,2 it is
infrequently measured in general practice.5
WHAT DOES CRT MEASURE?
As there is no evidence for a relationship
between CRT and blood pressure,6 CRT
should not be used as a surrogate for blood
pressure in children. There is, however,
limited evidence to support a relationship
between CRT and arterial blood flow, as well
as other invasive cardiovascular parameters,
such as superior vena cava oxygenation
and core–peripheral temperature gap.6
Therefore, CRT is likely to have some value
as a measure of peripheral perfusion.
HOW SHOULD CRT BE MEASURED?
The choice of site (for example, finger, hand,
foot, or chest) at which CRT is measured can
result in significantly different values. CRT can
also be affected by the duration of pressure,
and the ambient and skin temperatures,
with longer duration of pressure and lower
temperatures resulting in longer CRTs.6
The use of a timer to measure CRT is
associated with greater inter-observer
reliability.6 Because a timer (for example, a
watch) is required for measurement of other
vital signs such as heart rate and respiratory
rate, it seems reasonable to recommend
its use in the measurement of CRT. A
consistent method of CRT measurement
should be adopted to ensure that repeated
measurements are comparable. We
recommend applying moderate pressure for
5 seconds on the finger (Figure 1), a technique
that is used in much of the existing literature.
We also suggest that clinicians understand
the upper limit of normal in healthy children.
Measurements of CRT should ideally be
documented as a precise time, for example,
‘4 seconds’, rather than using ambiguous
terminology such as ‘normal’ or ‘prolonged’.
Where a cut-off is used, we recommend the
use of inclusive textual descriptions, such as
‘2 seconds or less’ or ‘3 seconds or more’.
The use of mathematical inequality symbols
such as ‘<2s’ or ‘≥3s’ can lead to confusion as
measurements are made in whole seconds;
this terminology should be avoided (Box 1).
Susannah Fleming, MEng, DPhil, quantitative
researcher; Ann Van den Bruel, MD, PhD,
associate professo r, Nuffield Department of
Primary Care Health Sciences, University of
Oxford, Oxford. Peter J Gill, MD, DPhil, MSc,
paediatric resident, Department of Pediatrics,
the Hospital for Sick Children, University of
Toronto, Toronto. Matthew Thompson, MBChB,
DPhil, interim chair, Department of Family
Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Address for correspondence
Susannah Fleming, Nuffield Department of
Primary Care Health Sciences, University
of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter,
Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
E-mail: susannah.fleming@phc.ox.ac.uk
Submitted: 11 February 2016; final acceptance:
18 February 2016.
©British Journal of General Practice 2016;
66: 587–588.
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X687925
Figure 1. Measuring capillary refill time on the finger. © Nazir Hamid.
WHAT IS THE NORMAL RANGE OF CRT IN
CHILDREN?
Data on normal ranges of CRT in children
are complicated by variations in site and
pressing time.6 In healthy children, a CRT of
2 seconds or less should be expected when
measured on the finger. If the foot or chest
is used for assessment, CRTs of 4 seconds
or less should be considered normal. CRTs
in neonates (up to 7 days of age) may be
longer than in older infants and children,
with the upper limit of normal ranging from
5–7 seconds.6
There is no evidence that CRT varies
significantly with age after the neonatal
period. Studies suggest that core
temperature does not have a clinically
relevant effect on CRT; no correction
is required to take account of fever or
hypothermia.
WHAT IS THE DIAGNOSTIC AND
PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF CRT?
Studies assessing the diagnostic and
prognostic value of CRT in children typically
use cut-offs of between 2 and 3 seconds
to define a ‘prolonged’ measurement. This
is consistent with our suggested cut-off
of 3 seconds or more to define ‘abnormal’
CRT in infants and children over 7 days
of age. Despite widespread use of CRT in
primary care, there is very little evidence on
the diagnostic or prognostic value of CRT in
the primary care setting; recommendations
were largely generalised from data obtained
in emergency or secondary care.
Studies of children attending emergency
departments with vomiting and diarrhoea
show that prolonged CRT has high specificity
of between 88% and 94% for identifying
children with moderate dehydration (5% or
more).4 In addition, several studies show
that prolonged CRT has high specificity for
predicting a variety of serious conditions in
children, including meningitis, sepsis, and
hypoxia, along with the need for hospital
admission. Odds ratios of 2–5 are reported
for urinary tract infections and pneumonia,
supporting the suggestion that a prolonged
CRT is a red flag for serious illness in
children, but, importantly, a normal CRT
does not make a serious illness less likely.4
Although studies from settings with high
mortality (low income or high acuity) show
that prolonged CRT is predictive of death,
with a specificity of 92% (95% confidence
interval = 89 to 95%), we do not know if
these results apply to children in lower-
acuity settings.4 Again, sensitivity was low
(35%), meaning that a normal CRT should
not be used for reassurance.
CONCLUSION
A normal CRT test should not be used
to rule out serious illness in children.
However, a CRT of 3 seconds or more
should be considered a ‘red flag’, indicating
that a child is at higher risk of serious
illness, because the test has high specificity
and positive likelihood ratios for a variety of
serious outcomes. As there remain some
uncertainties around the reliability of CRT
measurements, it is appropriate to repeat
the measurement of an unexpectedly
abnormal CRT, paying particular attention
to ensure that it is measured correctly.
Funding
Ann Van den Bruel was supported by the
NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Cooperative
(DEC) Oxford.
Provenance
Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Competing interests
The authors have also published two
systematic reviews on the validity, normal
ranges, and diagnostic value of capillary
refill time in children, which were funded by
the European Union Seventh Framework
Programme.
Discuss this article
Contribute and read comments about
this article: bjgp.org/letters
Box 1. Recommended measurement method for CRT in children
• Use the finger as the preferred measurement site.
• Press for 5 seconds using moderate pressure.
• Ideally, measure at room temperature (20–25°C) irrespective of the child’s body temperature. Allow
time for skin temperature to acclimatise if the child has recently been moved from a warmer or colder
environment.
• Use a timer (for example, a watch) to count the seconds it takes for the finger to regain its original colour.
• An abnormal CRT in infants and children over 7 days of age is 3 seconds or more; a normal CRT is
2 seconds or less. A CRT measurement of between 2 and 3 seconds may be considered ‘borderline
abnormal’, but some healthy children may have CRT as long as 2.5 seconds.
• Record measurements using the actual number of seconds (for example, ‘4 seconds’ or ‘2 seconds or
less’) rather than using terms such as ‘prolonged’ or mathematical symbols.
REFERENCES
1. World Health Organization, Department
of Child and Adolescent Health and
Development.
Management of the child with
a serious infection or severe malnutrition:
guidelines for care at the first-referral level in
developing countries
. Geneva: WHO, 2000.
2. National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence.
Fever in under 5s: assessment
and initial management
.
CG160
. London:
NICE, 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/
guidance/cg160 (accessed 4 Oct 2016).
3. Van den Bruel A, Haj-Hassan T, Thompson
M,
et al
. European Research Network on
Recognising Serious Infection investigators.
Diagnostic value of clinical features at
presentation to identify serious infection in
children in developed countries: a systematic
review.
Lancet
2010; 375(9717): 834–845.
4. Fleming S, Gill P, Jones C,
et al.
The
diagnostic value of capillary refill time for
detecting serious illness in children: a
systematic review and meta-analysis.
PLoS
One
2015; 10(9): e0138155.
5. Blacklock C, Haj-Hassan TA, Thompson MJ.
When and how do GPs record vital signs
in children with acute infections? A cross-
sectional study.
Br J Gen Pract
2012; DOI:
10.3399/bjgp12X656810.
6. Fleming S, Gill P, Jones C,
et al.
Validity and
reliability of measurement of capillary refill
time in children: a systematic review.
Arch Dis
Child
2015; 100(3): 239–249.
588 British Journal of General Practice, November 2016