by
R. Phillip Dellinger;
Mitchell M. Levy;
Jean M. Carlet;
Julian Bion;
Margaret M. Parker;
Roman Jaeschke;
Konrad Reinhart;
Derek C. Angus;
Christian Brun-Buisson;
Richard Beale;
Thierry Calandra;
Jean-Francois Dhainaut;
Herwig Gerlach;
Maurene Harvey;
John J. Marini;
John Marshall;
Marco Ranieri;
Graham Ramsay;
Jonathan Sevransky;
B. Taylor Thompson;
Sean Townsend;
Jeffrey S. Vender;
Janice L. Zimmerman;
Jean-Louis Vincent
Objective: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock," published in 2004. Design: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. Methods: We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation [1] indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations [2] indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. Results: Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/ vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). Conclusion: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
Introduction: Patients with sepsis suffer high morbidity and mortality. We sought to conduct a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the association between hemodynamic goals of therapy and patient outcomes. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature to systematically review hemodynamic goals used in clinical trials in patients with sepsis. We searched the literature using the Pubmed (1965-June 2006), Embase (1974-June 2006), CINAHL (1982-June 2006), pre-CINAHL, and Cochrane Library (2006, issue 3) electronic databases on 1 August 2006 for the following terms: sepsis, septic shock, severe sepsis, human clinical trials. We also hand-searched references and our personal files. Studies were selected if they met all of the following criteria: randomized, controlled trial study design; enrollment of adult patients with sepsis; presence of a hemodynamic goal for patient management; > 24-hour follow-up; and survival included as an outcome. Studies were independently selected and reviewed by two investigators. Results: A total of 6,006 citations were retrieved, and 13 eligible articles were reviewed. Mean arterial pressure was a treatment goal in nine studies, and systolic blood pressure was a treatment goal in three studies. A goal for pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, central venous pressure, and cardiac index was given in four, three, and five studies, respectively. The range of hemodynamic goals used in the trials were: mean arterial pressure 60-100 mmHg, central venous pressure 6-13 mmHg, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure 13-17 mmHg, and cardiac index 3-6 l/min/m2. All trials that used a systolic blood pressure goal used 90 mmHg as the aim. Conclusion: For those trials that specify hemodynamic goals, the wide range of treatment targets suggest a lack of agreement on blood pressure and filling pressure goals for management of patients with sepsis. There was also inconsistency between trials in which measures were targeted. Further research is necessary to determine whether this lack of consistency in hemodynamic goals may contribute to heterogeneity in treatment effects for clinical trials of novel sepsis therapies.
Introduction: Randomized trials investigating neuromuscular blocking agents in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been inconclusive about effects on mortality, which is very high in this population. Uncertainty also exists about the associated risk of ICU-acquired weakness.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane (Central) database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACP Journal Club, and clinical trial registries for randomized trials investigating survival effects of neuromuscular blocking agents in adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers abstracted data and assessed methodologic quality. Primary study investigators provided additional unpublished data.Results: Three trials (431 patients; 20 centers; all from the same research group in France) met inclusion criteria for this review. All trials assessed 48-hour infusions of cisatracurium besylate. Short-term infusion of cisatracurium besylate was associated with lower hospital mortality (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.91; P = 0.005; I2 = 0). This finding was robust on sensitivity analyses. Neuromuscular blockade was also associated with lower risk of barotrauma (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.90; P = 0.02; I2 = 0), but had no effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation among survivors (MD, 0.25 days; 95% CI, 5.48 to 5.99; P = 0.93; I2 = 49%), or the risk of ICU-acquired weakness (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.41; P = 0.57; I2 = 0). Primary studies lacked protracted measurements of weakness.Conclusions: Short-term infusion of cisatracurium besylate reduces hospital mortality and barotrauma and does not appear to increase ICU-acquired weakness for critically ill adults with ARDS.
by
Derek C. Angus;
Christopher W. Seymour;
Craig Coopersmith;
Clifford Deutschman;
Michael Klompas;
Mitchell M. Levy;
Gregory Martin;
Tiffany M. Osborn;
Chanu Rhee;
R. Scott Watson
Although sepsis was described more than 2,000 years ago, and clinicians still struggle to define it, there is no "gold standard," and multiple competing approaches and terms exist. Challenges include the ever-changing knowledge base that informs our understanding of sepsis, competing views on which aspects of any potential definition are most important, and the tendency of most potential criteria to be distributed in at-risk populations in such a way as to hinder separation into discrete sets of patients. We propose that the development and evaluation of any definition or diagnostic criteria should follow four steps: 1) define the epistemologic underpinning, 2) agree on all relevant terms used to frame the exercise, 3) state the intended purpose for any proposed set of criteria, and 4) adopt a scientific approach to inform on their usefulness with regard to the intended purpose. Usefulness can be measured across six domains: 1) reliability (stability of criteria during retesting, between raters, over time, and across settings), 2) content validity (similar to face validity), 3) construct validity (whether criteria measure what they purport to measure), 4) criterion validity (how new criteria fare compared to standards), 5) measurement burden (cost, safety, and complexity), and 6) timeliness (whether criteria are available concurrent with care decisions). The relative importance of these domains of usefulness depends on the intended purpose, of which there are four broad categories: 1) clinical care, 2) research, 3) surveillance, and 4) quality improvement and audit. This proposed methodologic framework is intended to aid understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, provide a mechanism for explaining differences in epidemiologic estimates generated by different approaches, and guide the development of future definitions and diagnostic criteria.
by
Christopher W. Seymour;
Craig Coopersmith;
Clifford S Deutschman;
Foster Gesten;
Michael Klompas;
Mitchell Levy;
Gregory Martin;
Tiffany M. Osborn;
Chanu Rhee;
David Warren;
R. Scott Watson;
Derek C. Angus
The current definition of sepsis is life-threatening, acute organ dysfunction secondary to a dysregulated host response to infection. Criteria to operationalize this definition can be judged by six domains of usefulness (reliability, content, construct and criterion validity, measurement burden, and timeliness). The relative importance of these six domains depends on the intended purpose for the criteria (clinical care, basic and clinical research, surveillance, or quality improvement [QI] and audit). For example, criteria for clinical care should have high content and construct validity, timeliness, and low measurement burden to facilitate prompt care. Criteria for surveillance or QI/audit place greater emphasis on reliability across individuals and sites and lower emphasis on timeliness. Criteria for clinical trials require timeliness to ensure prompt enrollment and reasonable reliability but can tolerate high measurement burden. Basic research also tolerates high measurement burden and may not need stability over time. In an illustrative case study, we compared examples of criteria designed for clinical care, surveillance and QI/audit among 396,241 patients admitted to 12 academic and community hospitals in an integrated health system. Case rates differed four-fold and mortality three-fold. Predictably, clinical care criteria, which emphasized timeliness and low burden and therefore used vital signs and routine laboratory tests, had the greater case identification with lowest mortality. QI/audit criteria, which emphasized reliability and criterion validity, used discharge information and had the lowest case identification with highest mortality. Using this framework to identify the purpose and apply domains of usefulness can help with the evaluation of existing sepsis diagnostic criteria and provide a roadmap for future work.
Objectives: To identify circumstances in which repeated measures of organ failure would improve mortality prediction in ICU patients. Design: Retrospective cohort study, with external validation in a deidentified ICU database. Setting: Eleven ICUs in three university hospitals within an academic healthcare system in 2014. Patients: Adults (18 yr old or older) who satisfied the following criteria: 1) two of four systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria plus an ordered blood culture, all within 24 hours of hospital admission; and 2) ICU admission for at least 2 calendar days, within 72 hours of emergency department presentation. Intervention: None Measurements and Main Results: Data were collected until death, ICU discharge, or the seventh ICU day, whichever came first. The highest Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score from the ICU admission day (ICU day 1) was included in a multivariable model controlling for other covariates. The worst Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores from the first 7 days after ICU admission were incrementally added and retained if they obtained statistical significance (p < 0.05). The cohort was divided into seven subcohorts to facilitate statistical comparison using the integrated discriminatory index. Of the 1,290 derivation cohort patients, 83 patients (6.4%) died in the ICU, compared with 949 of the 8,441 patients (11.2%) in the validation cohort. Incremental addition of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment data up to ICU day 5 improved the integrated discriminatory index in the validation cohort. Adding ICU day 6 or 7 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment data did not further improve model performance. Conclusions: Serial organ failure data improve prediction of ICU mortality, but a point exists after which further data no longer improve ICU mortality prediction of early sepsis.