To quantify the incidence of anemia and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practice in critically ill patients and to examine the relationship of anemia and RBC transfusion to clinical outcomes.
...Prospective, multiple center, observational cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the United States. Enrollment period was from August 2000 to April 2001. Patients were enrolled within 48 hrs of ICU admission. Patient follow-up was for 30 days, hospital discharge, or death, whichever occurred first.
A total of 284 ICUs (medical, surgical, or medical-surgical) in 213 hospitals participated in the study.
A total of 4,892 patients were enrolled in the study.
The mean hemoglobin level at baseline was 11.0 +/- 2.4 g/dL. Hemoglobin level decreased throughout the duration of the study. Overall, 44% of patients received one or more RBC units while in the ICU (mean, 4.6 +/- 4.9 units). The mean pretransfusion hemoglobin was 8.6 +/- 1.7 g/dL. The mean time to first ICU transfusion was 2.3 +/- 3.7 days. More RBC transfusions were given in study week 1; however, in subsequent weeks, subjects received one to two RBC units per week while in the ICU. The number of RBC transfusions a patient received during the study was independently associated with longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay and an increase in mortality. Patients who received transfusions also had more total complications and were more likely to experience a complication. Baseline hemoglobin was related to the number of RBC transfusions, but it was not an independent predictor of length of stay or mortality. However, a nadir hemoglobin level of <9 g/dL was a predictor of increased mortality and length of stay.
Anemia is common in the critically ill and results in a large number of RBC transfusions. Transfusion practice has changed little during the past decade. The number of RBC units transfused is an independent predictor of worse clinical outcome.
Fluid and vasopressor management in septic shock remains controversial. In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy of dynamic measures (stroke volume change during passive leg ...raise) to guide resuscitation and improve patient outcome.
Will resuscitation that is guided by dynamic assessments of fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock improve patient outcomes?
We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial at 13 hospitals in the United States and United Kingdom. Patients presented to EDs with sepsis that was associated hypotension and anticipated ICU admission. Intervention arm patients were assessed for fluid responsiveness before clinically driven fluid bolus or increase in vasopressors occurred. The protocol included reassessment and therapy as indicated by the passive leg raise result. The control arm received usual care. The primary clinical outcome was positive fluid balance at 72 hours or ICU discharge, whichever occurred first.
In modified intent-to-treat analysis that included 83 intervention and 41 usual care eligible patients, fluid balance at 72 hours or ICU discharge was significantly lower (-1.37 L favoring the intervention arm; 0.65 ± 2.85 L intervention arm vs 2.02 ± 3.44 L usual care arm; P = .021. Fewer patients required renal replacement therapy (5.1% vs 17.5%; P = .04) or mechanical ventilation (17.7% vs 34.1%; P = .04) in the intervention arm compared with usual care. In the all-randomized intent-to-treat population (102 intervention, 48 usual care), there were no significant differences in safety signals.
Physiologically informed fluid and vasopressor resuscitation with the use of the passive leg raise-induced stroke volume change to guide management of septic shock is safe and demonstrated lower net fluid balance and reductions in the risk of renal and respiratory failure. Dynamic assessments to guide fluid administration may improve outcomes for patients with septic shock compared with usual care.
NCT02837731.
The optimal fluid management for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains unknown. Liberal fluid management may improve cardiac function and end-organ perfusion, but may lead to increased ...pulmonary edema and inhibit gas exchange. Trials suggest that conservative fluid management leads to better clinical outcomes, although prospective randomized, controlled trials have not demonstrated mortality benefit. Recent discoveries suggest there is large heterogeneity in ARDS, and varying phenotypes of ARDS respond differently to fluid treatments. Future advances in management will require real-time assignment of ARDS phenotypes, which may facilitate inclusion into clinical trials by ARDS phenotype and guide development of targeted therapies.
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.
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 three months (quarter) of participation (p < 0.001). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay decreased 4% (95% CI1% - 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.
Sepsis is common, deadly, and heterogenous. Prior analyses of patients with sepsis and septic shock in New York State showed a risk-adjusted association between more rapid antibiotic administration ...and bundled care completion, but not an intravenous fluid bolus, with reduced in-hospital mortality. However, it is unknown if clinically identifiable sepsis subtypes modify these associations.
Secondary analysis of patients with sepsis and septic shock enrolled in the New York State Department of Health cohort from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Patients were classified as clinical sepsis subtypes (α, β, γ, δ-types) using the Sepsis ENdotyping in Emergency CAre (SENECA) approach. Exposure variables included time to 3-h sepsis bundle completion, antibiotic administration, and intravenous fluid bolus completion. Then logistic regression models evaluated the interaction between exposures, clinical sepsis subtypes, and in-hospital mortality.
55,169 hospitalizations from 155 hospitals were included (34% α, 30% β, 19% γ, 17% δ). The α-subtype had the lowest (N = 1,905, 10%) and δ-subtype had the highest (N = 3,776, 41%) in-hospital mortality. Each hour to completion of the 3-h bundle (aOR, 1.04 95%CI, 1.02-1.05) and antibiotic initiation (aOR, 1.03 95%CI, 1.02-1.04) was associated with increased risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. The association differed across subtypes (p-interactions < 0.05). For example, the outcome association for the time to completion of the 3-h bundle was greater in the δ-subtype (aOR, 1.07 95%CI, 1.05-1.10) compared to α-subtype (aOR, 1.02 95%CI, 0.99-1.04). Time to intravenous fluid bolus completion was not associated with risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.99 95%CI, 0.97-1.01) and did not differ among subtypes (p-interaction = 0.41).
Timely completion of a 3-h sepsis bundle and antibiotic initiation was associated with reduced risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality, an association modified by clinically identifiable sepsis subtype.
Providing Compassionate Care in the ICU Curtis, J Randall; Levy, Mitchell M
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine,
05/2022, Letnik:
205, Številka:
9
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Curtis and Levy discuss the strengths and limitations of educational institutions and professional societies for educating and supporting critical care clinicians in providing compassionate care in ...the ICU. The first principle is that to be compassionate to others, clinicians must be kind to and trust themselves. Being calm and compassionate when confronted by an angry family member upset with their care, when they are working hard to do their best, can test the patience of even the most compassionate ICU clinician. The second principle is being willing to be vulnerable. Effective empathy involves allowing ourselves to be vulnerable to the grief and tragedy experienced by a patient or family member while also recognizing that we have an important job to do. The final principle is a willingness to be wrong. Their professional world is marked too often by a reluctance to admit they are wrong or to receive constructive feedback.
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.
PDF
