The management of sepsis has substantially improved over the past 15 years. In this study, early, goal-directed therapy, which focuses on the initial resuscitation efforts, was compared with usual ...care for the management of severe sepsis in the United Kingdom.
The incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults is estimated to range from 56 to 91 per 100,000 population per year.
1
Affected patients have high rates of death, complications, and resource utilization.
2
–
5
Since 2002, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) has promoted best practice, including early recognition, source control, appropriate and timely antibiotic administration, and resuscitation with intravenous fluids and vasoactive drugs.
6
–
8
Resuscitation guidance is largely based on a 2001 single-center, proof-of-concept study by Rivers et al., which indicated that protocolized delivery of 6 hours of early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) to patients presenting to the emergency department . . .
Between 2014 and 2015, 3 independent, multicenter, randomized controlled trials evaluated early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in severe sepsis and septic shock: Protocolized Care for Early Septic ...Shock (ProCESS) from the United States; Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE), and Protocolised Management in Sepsis (ProMISe) in the United Kingdom. All 3 trials confirmed that there was no survival benefit of EGDT compared to usual resuscitation. How should we define usual care for sepsis given these study findings? Furthermore, the definition of sepsis has now been updated. This article reviews key findings of these 3 trials and discusses these important issues in sepsis management.
OBJECTIVES:Compelling evidence has shown that aggressive resuscitation bundles, adequate source control, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and organ support are cornerstone for the success in the ...treatment of patients with sepsis. Delay in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy has been recognized as a risk factor for mortality. To perform a retrospective analysis on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database to evaluate the relationship between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality.
DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of a large dataset collected prospectively for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.
SETTING:One hundred sixty-five ICUs in Europe, the United States, and South America.
PATIENTS:A total of 28,150 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, from January 2005 through February 2010, were evaluated.
INTERVENTIONS:Antibiotic administration and hospital mortality.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:A total of 17,990 patients received antibiotics after sepsis identification and were included in the analysis. In-hospital mortality was 29.7% for the cohort as a whole. There was a statically significant increase in the probability of death associated with the number of hours of delay for first antibiotic administration. Hospital mortality adjusted for severity (sepsis severity score), ICU admission source (emergency department, ward, vs ICU), and geographic region increased steadily after 1 hour of time to antibiotic administration. Results were similar in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, regardless of the number of organ failure.
CONCLUSIONS:The results of the analysis of this large population of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock demonstrate that delay in first antibiotic administration was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. In addition, there was a linear increase in the risk of mortality for each hour delay in antibiotic administration. These results underscore the importance of early identification and treatment of septic patients in the hospital setting.
OBJECTIVE:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend obtaining a serum lactate measurement within 6 hours of presentation for all patients with suspected severe sepsis or septic shock. A ...lactate greater than 4 mmol/L qualifies for administration of early quantitative resuscitation therapy. We evaluated lactate elevation (with special attention to values > 4 mmol/L) and presence or absence of hypotension as a marker of clinical outcome.
DESIGN AND SETTING:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign developed a database to assess the overall effect of the sepsis bundles as a performance improvement tool for clinical practice and patient outcome. This analysis focuses on one element of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s resuscitation bundle, measuring serum lactate in adult severe sepsis or septic shock patients and its interaction with hypotension. This analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2010.
SUBJECTS:Data from 28,150 subjects at 218 sites were analyzed.
INTERVENTIONS:None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Unadjusted analysis of the 28,150 observations from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database demonstrated a significant mortality increase with the presence of hypotension in conjunction with serum lactate elevation greater than 2 mmol/L. On multivariable analysis, only lactate values greater than 4 mmol/L, in conjunction with hypotension, significantly increased mortality when compared with the referent group of lactate values less than 2 mmol/L and not hypotensive. Mortality was 44.5% in patients with combined lactate greater than 4 mmol/L and hypotension when compared with 29% mortality in patients not meeting either criteria.
CONCLUSIONS:Serum lactate was commonly measured within 6 hours of presentation in the management of severe sepsis or septic shock in this subset analysis of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database in accordance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Our results demonstrate that elevated lactate levels are highly associated with in-hospital mortality. However, only patients who presented with lactate values greater than 4 mmol/L, with and without hypotension, are significantly associated with in-hospital mortality and is associated with a significantly higher risk than intermediate levels (2–3 and 3–4 mmol/L). This supports the use of the cutoff of greater than 4 mmol/L as a qualifier for future clinical trials in severe sepsis or septic shock in patient populations who use quantitative resuscitation and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles as standard of care.
To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.
A consensus committee of 68 international experts ...representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.
The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations.
Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).
Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
Purpose
We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians’ practices.
Methods
This is a narrative review by a ...multidisciplinary, multinational—from six continents—panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists.
Results and conclusions
Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OBVAL, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Objective
To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008.
Design
A consensus committee of 68 international ...experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.
Methods
The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations.
Results
Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pa
o
2
/Fi
o
2
ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient
without
ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients
with
early ARDS and a Pa
o
2
/F
i
o
2
<150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C).
Conclusions
Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
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.
OBJECTIVES:In accordance with Rory’s Regulations, hospitals across New York State developed and implemented protocols for sepsis recognition and treatment to reduce variations in evidence informed ...care and preventable mortality. The New York Department of Health sought to develop a risk assessment model for accurate and standardized hospital mortality comparisons of adult septic patients across institutions using case-mix adjustment.
DESIGN:Retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data.
PATIENTS:Data from 43,204 severe sepsis and septic shock patients from 179 hospitals across New York State were evaluated.
SETTINGS:Prospective data were submitted to a database from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015.
INTERVENTIONS:None.
MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS:Maximum likelihood logistic regression was used to estimate model coefficients used in the New York State risk model. The mortality probability was estimated using a logistic regression model. Variables to be included in the model were determined as part of the model-building process. Interactions between variables were included if they made clinical sense and if their p values were less than 0.05. Model development used a random sample of 90% of available patients and was validated using the remaining 10%. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit p values were considerably greater than 0.05, suggesting good calibration. Areas under the receiver operator curve in the developmental and validation subsets were 0.770 (95% CI, 0.765–0.775) and 0.773 (95% CI, 0.758–0.787), respectively, indicating good discrimination. Development and validation datasets had similar distributions of estimated mortality probabilities. Mortality increased with rising age, comorbidities, and lactate.
CONCLUSIONS:The New York Sepsis Severity Score accurately estimated the probability of hospital mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock patients. It performed well with respect to calibration and discrimination. This sepsis-specific model provides an accurate, comprehensive method for standardized mortality comparison of adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
PDF
