Purpose
To determine the association between compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) performance bundles and mortality.
Design
Compliance with the SSC performance bundles, which are based ...on the 2004 SSC guidelines, was measured in 29,470 subjects entered into the SSC database from January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2012. Compliance was defined as evidence that all bundle elements were achieved.
Setting
Two hundred eighteen community, academic, and tertiary care hospitals in the United States, South America, and Europe.
Patients
Patients from the emergency department, medical and surgical wards, and ICU who met diagnosis criteria for severe sepsis and septic shock.
Methods
A multifaceted, collaborative change intervention aimed at facilitating adoption of the SSC resuscitation and management bundles was introduced. Compliance with the SSC bundles and associated mortality rate was the primary outcome variable.
Results
Overall lower mortality was observed in high (29.0 %) versus low (38.6 %) resuscitation bundle compliance sites (
p
< 0.001) and between high (33.4 %) and low (32.3 %) management bundle compliance sites (
p
= 0.039). Hospital mortality rates dropped 0.7 % per site for every 3 months (quarter) of participation (
p
< 0.001). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay decreased 4 % (95 % CI 1–7 %;
p
= 0.012) for every 10 % increase in site compliance with the resuscitation bundle.
Conclusions
This analysis demonstrates that increased compliance with sepsis performance bundles was associated with a 25 % relative risk reduction in mortality rate. Every 10 % increase in compliance and additional quarter of participation in the SSC initiative was associated with a significant decrease in the odds ratio for hospital mortality. These results demonstrate that performance metrics can drive change in clinical behavior, improve quality of care, and may decrease mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
OBJECTIVE:To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock2012.”
DESIGN:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 ...international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.
METHODS:The panel consisted of five sectionshemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.
RESULTS:The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.
CONCLUSIONS:Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with 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 these critically ill patients with high mortality.
OBJECTIVE:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC or “the Campaign”) developed guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. A performance improvement initiative targeted changing clinical ...behavior (process improvement) via bundles based on key SSC guideline recommendations.
DESIGN AND SETTING:A multifaceted intervention to facilitate compliance with selected guideline recommendations in the intensive care unit, emergency department, and wards of individual hospitals and regional hospital networks was implemented voluntarily in the United States, Europe, and South America. Elements of the guidelines were “bundled” into two sets of targets to be completed within 6 hrs and within 24 hrs. An analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2008.
SUBJECTS:A total of 15,022 subjects.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Data from 15,022 subjects at 165 sites were analyzed to determine the compliance with bundle targets and association with hospital mortality. Compliance with the entire resuscitation bundle increased linearly from 10.9% in the first site quarter to 31.3% by the end of 2 yrs (p < .0001). Compliance with the entire management bundle started at 18.4% in the first quarter and increased to 36.1% by the end of 2 yrs (p = .008). Compliance with all bundle elements increased significantly, except for inspiratory plateau pressure, which was high at baseline. Unadjusted hospital mortality decreased from 37% to 30.8% over 2 yrs (p = .001). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality improved the longer a site was in the Campaign, resulting in an adjusted absolute drop of 0.8% per quarter and 5.4% over 2 yrs (95% confidence interval, 2.5–8.4).
CONCLUSIONS:The Campaign was associated with sustained, continuous quality improvement in sepsis care. Although not necessarily cause and effect, a reduction in reported hospital mortality rates was associated with participation. The implications of this study may serve as an impetus for similar improvement efforts.
Objective
To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”.
Design
A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 ...international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.
Methods
The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.
Results
The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.
Conclusions
Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with 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 these critically ill patients with high mortality.
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of ...patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.
OBJECTIVEIn 1991, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) convened a “Consensus Conference,” the goals of which were “to provide a conceptual ...and a practical framework to define the systemic inflammatory response to infection, which is a progressive injurious process that falls under the generalized term ‘sepsis’ and includes sepsis-associated organ dysfunction as well.” The general definitions introduced as a result of that conference have been widely used in practice and have served as the foundation for inclusion criteria for numerous clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, there has been an impetus from experts in the field to modify these definitions to reflect our current understanding of the pathophysiology of these syndromes.
DESIGNSeveral North American and European intensive care societies agreed to revisit the definitions for sepsis and related conditions. This conference was sponsored by the SCCM, The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Surgical Infection Society (SIS).
METHODSThe conference was attended by 29 participants from Europe and North America. In advance of the conference, five subgroups were formed to evaluate the following areassigns and symptoms of sepsis, cell markers, cytokines, microbiologic data, and coagulation parameters. The subgroups corresponded electronically before the conference and met in person during the conference. A spokesperson for each group presented the deliberation of each group to all conference participants during a plenary session. A writing committee was formed at the conference and developed the current article based on executive summary documents generated by each group and the plenary group presentations. The present article serves as the final report of the 2001 International Sepsis Definitions Conference.
CONCLUSIONThis document reflects a process whereby a group of experts and opinion leaders revisited the 1992 sepsis guidelines and found that apart from expanding the list of signs and symptoms of sepsis to reflect clinical bedside experience, no evidence exists to support a change to the definitions. This lack of evidence serves to underscore the challenge still present in diagnosing sepsis in 2003 for clinicians and researchers and also provides the basis for introducing PIRO as a hypothesis-generating model for future research.
OBJECTIVES:To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing “Family Care Rituals” as a means of engaging family members in the care of patients admitted to the ICU with a high risk of ICU ...mortality on outcomes including stress-related symptoms in family members.
DESIGN:Prospective, before-and-after intervention evaluation.
SETTING:Two U.S. academic medical ICU’s, and one Italian academic medical/surgical ICU.
SUBJECTS:Family members of patients who had an attending predicted ICU mortality of greater than 30% within the first 24 hours of admission.
INTERVENTIONS:A novel intervention titled “Family Care Rituals” during which, following a baseline observation period, family members enrolled in the intervention phase were given an informational booklet outlining opportunities for engagement in care of the patient during their ICU stay.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Primary outcome was symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in family members 90 days after patient death or ICU discharge. Secondary outcomes included symptoms of depression, anxiety, and family satisfaction. At 90-day follow-up, 131 of 226 family members (58.0%) responded preintervention and 129 of 226 family members (57.1%) responded postintervention. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly higher preintervention than postintervention (39.2% vs 27.1%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.58; p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in symptoms of depression (26.5% vs 25.2%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.93; p = 0.818), anxiety (41.0% vs 45.5%; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.20; p = 0.234), or mean satisfaction scores (85.1 vs 89.0; unadjusted odds ratio, 3.85; p = 0.052) preintervention versus postintervention 90 days after patient death or ICU discharge.
CONCLUSIONS:Offering opportunities such as family care rituals for family members to be involved with providing care for family members in the ICU was associated with reduced symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. This intervention may lessen the burden of stress-related symptoms in family members of ICU patients.
Objective
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC or “the Campaign”) developed guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. A performance improvement initiative targeted changing clinical ...behavior (process improvement) via bundles based on key SSC guideline recommendations on process improvement and patient outcomes.
Design and setting
A multifaceted intervention to facilitate compliance with selected guideline recommendations in the ICU, ED, and wards of individual hospitals and regional hospital networks was implemented voluntarily in the US, Europe, and South America. Elements of the guidelines were “bundled” into two sets of targets to be completed within 6 h and within 24 h. An analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2008.
Main results
Data from 15,022 subjects at 165 sites were analyzed to determine the compliance with bundle targets and association with hospital mortality. Compliance with the entire resuscitation bundle increased linearly from 10.9% in the first site quarter to 31.3% by the end of 2 years (
P
< 0.0001). Compliance with the entire management bundle started at 18.4% in the first quarter and increased to 36.1% by the end of 2 years (
P
= 0.008). Compliance with all bundle elements increased significantly, except for inspiratory plateau pressure, which was high at baseline. Unadjusted hospital mortality decreased from 37 to 30.8% over 2 years (
P
= 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality improved the longer a site was in the Campaign, resulting in an adjusted absolute drop of 0.8% per quarter and 5.4% over 2 years (95% CI, 2.5–8.4%).
Conclusions
The Campaign was associated with sustained, continuous quality improvement in sepsis care. Although not necessarily cause and effect, a reduction in reported hospital mortality rates was associated with participation. The implications of this study may serve as an impetus for similar improvement efforts.
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 Grades of Recommendation, 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. 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 before 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 postoperative 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 gastrointestinal 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); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B).
CONCLUSIONS: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.
The meta-analysis of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) by Gu and colleagues in the previous issue of Critical Care adds to the ongoing controversy about the value of EGDT for resuscitating patients ...with severe sepsis and septic shock. The results of the ProCESS (protocolized care for early septic shock) and ARISE (Australasian resuscitation in sepsis evaluation) trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of EGDT or protocolized resuscitation when compared with 'usual care'. The questions are the following: What is 'usual' care? What is 'real world' care? Do the results of a robust and well-conducted randomized controlled trial--in which many patients may be excluded for a variety of reasons--reflect the care given to patients on a daily basis in our emergency departments and intensive care units? Of course, there are no obvious answers to these questions, and many clinicians look forward to managing these patients without protocols. For now, the data do seem to support the management of patients with septic shock without mandated central lines or protocols. Does this mean we should go back to the era of 'do whatever you want'? No consensus exists among clinicians regarding optimal hemodynamic monitoring, and to date no method has been proven to be superior. Given the amount of fluids given prior to randomization in the ProCESS and ARISE trials, 'usual care' appears to now include aggressive, early fluid resuscitation with at least 20 mL/kg of crystalloid and rapid administration of appropriate antibiotics. Certainly, this reflects the impact of the original trial by Rivers and colleagues and the broad-based implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines and bundles. If this continues to define 'usual care', then perhaps it is no longer necessary to mandate specific protocols for resuscitation, as it appears that standard sepsis management has evolved to be consistent with published protocols.
PDF
