OBJECTIVE:To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.
DESIGN:A consensus committee of 16 international experts ...representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.
METHODS:Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/CCM/D636) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroupsinfection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.
RESULTS:The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; 2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; 3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; 4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; 5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and 6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?
CONCLUSIONS:While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.
In 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.
Several North American and European intensive care societies agreed to revisit the definitions for sepsis and related conditions. This conference was sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (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).
29 participants attended the conference from Europe and North America. In advance of the conference, subgroups were formed to evaluate the following areas: signs and symptoms of sepsis, cell markers, cytokines, microbiologic data, and coagulation parameters. The present manuscript serves as the final report of the 2001 International Sepsis Definitions Conference.
1. Current concepts of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock remain useful to clinicians and researchers. 2. These definitions do not allow precise staging or prognostication of the host response to infection. 3. While SIRS remains a useful concept, the diagnostic criteria for SIRS published in 1992 are overly sensitive and non-specific. 4. An expanded list of signs and symptoms of sepsis may better reflect the clinical response to infection. 6. PIRO, a hypothetical model for staging sepsis is presented, which, in the future, may better characterize the syndrome on the basis of predisposing factors and premorbid conditions, the nature of the underlying infection, the characteristics of the host response, and the extent of the resultant organ dysfunction.
In 2013, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) began a mandatory state-wide initiative to improve early recognition and treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock.
This study examines ...protocol initiation, 3-hour and 6-hour sepsis bundle completion, and risk-adjusted hospital mortality among adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
Cohort analysis included all patients from all 185 hospitals in New York State reported to the NYSDOH from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. A total of 113,380 cases were submitted to NYSDOH, of which 91,357 hospitalizations from 183 hospitals met study inclusion criteria. NYSDOH required all hospitals to submit and follow evidence-informed protocols (including elements of 3-h and 6-h sepsis bundles: lactate measurement, early blood cultures and antibiotic administration, fluids, and vasopressors) for early identification and treatment of severe sepsis or septic shock.
Compliance with elements of the sepsis bundles and risk-adjusted mortality were studied. Of 91,357 patients, 74,293 (81.3%) had the sepsis protocol initiated. Among these individuals, 3-hour bundle compliance increased from 53.4% to 64.7% during the study period (P < 0.001), whereas among those eligible for the 6-hour bundle (n = 35,307) compliance increased from 23.9% to 30.8% (P < 0.001). Risk-adjusted mortality decreased from 28.8% to 24.4% (P < 0.001) in patients among whom a sepsis protocol was initiated. Greater hospital compliance with 3-hour and 6-hour bundles was associated with shorter length of stay and lower risk and reliability-adjusted mortality.
New York's statewide initiative increased compliance with sepsis-performance measures. Risk-adjusted sepsis mortality decreased during the initiative and was associated with increased hospital-level compliance.
Clarifying Sepsis Management Levy, Mitchell M
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine,
06/2016, Letnik:
193, Številka:
11
Journal Article
Critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) are thought to gain an added survival benefit from management by critical care physicians, but evidence of this benefit is scant.
To ...examine the association between hospital mortality in critically ill patients and management by critical care physicians.
Retrospective analysis of a large, prospectively collected database of critically ill patients.
123 ICUs in 100 U.S. hospitals.
101,832 critically ill adults.
Through use of a random-effects logistic regression, investigators compared hospital mortality between patients cared for entirely by critical care physicians and patients cared for entirely by non-critical care physicians. An expanded Simplified Acute Physiology Score was used to adjust for severity of illness, and a propensity score was used to adjust for differences in the probability of selective referral of patients to critical care physicians.
Patients who received critical care management (CCM) were generally sicker, received more procedures, and had higher hospital mortality rates than those who did not receive CCM. After adjustment for severity of illness and propensity score, hospital mortality rates were higher for patients who received CCM than for those who did not. The difference in adjusted hospital mortality rates was less for patients who were sicker and who were predicted by propensity score to receive CCM.
Residual confounders for illness severity and selection biases for CCM might exist that were inadequately assessed or recognized.
In a large sample of ICU patients in the United States, the odds of hospital mortality were higher for patients managed by critical care physicians than those who were not. Additional studies are needed to further evaluate these results and clarify the mechanisms by which they might occur.
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:Time to clearance of pathogens is probably critical to outcome in septic shock. Current guidelines recommend intervention for source control within 12 hours after diagnosis. We aimed to ...determine the epidemiology of source control in the management of sepsis and to analyze the impact of timing to source control on mortality.
DESIGN:Prospective observational analysis of the Antibiotic Intervention in Severe Sepsis study, a Spanish national multicenter educational intervention to improve antibiotherapy in sepsis.
SETTING:Ninety-nine medical-surgical ICUs in Spain.
PATIENTS:We enrolled 3,663 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock during three 4-month periods between 2011 and 2013.
INTERVENTIONS:Source control and hospital mortality.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:A total of 1,173 patients (32%) underwent source control, predominantly for abdominal, urinary, and soft-tissue infections. Compared with patients who did not require source control, patients who underwent source control were older, with a greater prevalence of shock, major organ dysfunction, bacteremia, inflammatory markers, and lactic acidemia. In addition, compliance with the resuscitation bundle was worse in those undergoing source control. In patients who underwent source control, crude ICU mortality was lower (21.2% vs 25.1%; p = 0.010); after adjustment for confounding factors, hospital mortality was also lower (odds ratio, 0.809 95% CI, 0.658–0.994; p = 0.044). In this observational database analysis, source control after 12 hours was not associated with higher mortality (27.6% vs 26.8%; p = 0.789).
CONCLUSIONS:Despite greater severity and worse compliance with resuscitation bundles, mortality was lower in septic patients who underwent source control than in those who did not. The time to source control could not be linked to survival in this observational database.
PDF
