Introduction
Despite evidence demonstrating the value of performance initiatives, marked differences remain between hospitals in the delivery of care for patients with sepsis. The aims of this study ...were to improve our understanding of how compliance with the 3-h and 6-h Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) bundles are used in different geographic areas, and how this relates to outcome.
Methods
This was a global, prospective, observational, quality improvement study of compliance with the SSC bundles in patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock.
Results
A total of 1794 patients from 62 countries were enrolled in the study with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Overall compliance with all the 3-h bundle metrics was 19 %. This was associated with lower hospital mortality than non-compliance (20 vs. 31 %,
p
< 0.001). Overall compliance with all the 6-h bundle metrics was 36 %. This was associated with lower hospital mortality than non-compliance (22 vs. 32 %,
p
< 0.001). After adjusting the crude mortality differences for ICU admission, sepsis status (severe sepsis or septic shock), location of diagnosis, APACHE II score and country, compliance remained independently associated with improvements in hospital mortality for both the 3-h bundle (OR = 0.64 (95 % CI 0.47−0.87),
p
= 0.004)) and 6-h bundle (OR = 0.71 (95 % CI 0.56−0.90),
p
= 0.005)).
Discussion
Compliance with all of the evidence-based bundle metrics was not high. Patients whose care included compliance with all of these metrics had a 40 % reduction in the odds of dying in hospital with the 3-h bundle and 36 % for the 6-h bundle.
Background
Few specific medications have been proven effective for the treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we tested whether high-dose vitamin C infusion was ...effective for severe COVID-19.
Methods
This randomized, controlled, clinical trial was performed at 3 hospitals in Hubei, China. Patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the ICU were randomly assigned in as 1:1 ratio to either the high-dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) or the placebo. HDIVC group received 12 g of vitamin C/50 ml every 12 h for 7 days at a rate of 12 ml/hour, and the placebo group received bacteriostatic water for injection in the same way within 48 h of arrival to ICU. The primary outcome was invasive mechanical ventilation-free days in 28 days (IMVFD28). Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, organ failure (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score), and inflammation progression (interleukin-6).
Results
Only 56 critical COVID-19 patients were ultimately recruited due to the early control of the outbreak. There was no difference in IMVFD28 between two groups (26.0 9.0–28.0 in HDIVC vs 22.0 8.50–28.0 in control,
p
= 0.57). HDIVC failed to reduce 28-day mortality (
P
= 0.27). During the 7-day treatment period, patients in the HDIVC group had a steady rise in the PaO
2
/FiO
2
(day 7: 229 vs. 151 mmHg, 95% CI 33 to 122,
P
= 0.01), which was not observed in the control group. IL-6 in the HDIVC group was lower than that in the control group (19.42 vs. 158.00; 95% CI -301.72 to -29.79;
P
= 0.04) on day 7.
Conclusion
This pilot trial showed that HDIVC failed to improve IMVFD28, but might show a potential signal of benefit in oxygenation for critically ill patients with COVID-19 improving PaO2/FiO2 even though.
To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Catecholamines are used to increase cardiac output and blood pressure, aiming ultimately at restoring/improving tissue perfusion. While intuitive in its concept, this approach nevertheless implies to ...be effective that regional organ perfusion would increase in parallel to cardiac output or perfusion pressure and that the catecholamine does not have negative effects on the microcirculation. Inotropic agents may be considered in some conditions, but it requires prior optimization of cardiac preload. Alternative approaches would be either to minimize exposure to vasopressors, tolerating hypotension and trying to prioritize perfusion but this may be valid as long as perfusion of the organ is preserved, or to combine moderate doses of vasopressors to vasodilatory agents, especially if these are predominantly acting on the microcirculation. In this review, we will discuss the pros and cons of the use of catecholamines and alternative agents for improving tissue perfusion in septic shock.
Clinical and pathophysiological understanding of septic shock has progressed exponentially in the previous decades, translating into a steady decrease in septic shock-related morbidity and mortality. ...Even though large randomized, controlled trials have addressed fundamental aspects of septic shock resuscitation, many questions still exist. In this review, we will describe the current standards of septic shock resuscitation, but the emphasis will be placed on evolving concepts in different domains such as clinical resuscitation targets, adequate use of fluids and vasoactive drugs, refractory shock, and the use of extracorporeal therapies. Multiple research opportunities remain open, and collaborative endeavors should be performed to fill in these gaps.
Purpose
Echocardiography is a common tool for cardiac and hemodynamic assessments in critical care research. However, interpretation (and applications) of results and between-study comparisons are ...often difficult due to the lack of certain important details in the studies. PRICES (Preferred Reporting Items for Critical care Echocardiography Studies) is a project endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and conducted by the Echocardiography Working Group, aiming at producing recommendations for standardized reporting of critical care echocardiography (CCE) research studies.
Methods
The PRICE panel identified lists of clinical and echocardiographic parameters (the “items”) deemed important in four main areas of CCE research: left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions, right ventricular function and fluid management. Each item was graded using a critical index (CI) that combined the relative importance of each item and the fraction of studies that did not report it, also taking experts’ opinion into account.
Results
A list of items in each area that deemed essential for the proper interpretation and application of research results is recommended. Additional items which aid interpretation were also proposed.
Conclusion
The PRICES recommendations reported in this document, as a checklist, represent an international consensus of experts as to which parameters and information should be included in the design of echocardiography research studies. PRICES recommendations provide guidance to scientists in the field of CCE with the objective of providing a recommended framework for reporting of CCE methodology and results.
The central venous pressure (CVP) is the most frequently used variable to guide fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients, although its use has been challenged. In this viewpoint, we use a ...question and answer format to highlight the potential advantages and limitations of using CVP measurements to guide fluid resuscitation.
The present review discusses the current role of microcirculatory assessment in the hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients.
Videomicroscopic techniques have demonstrated that microvascular ...perfusion is altered in critically ill patients, and especially in sepsis. These alterations are associated with organ dysfunction and poor outcome. Handheld microscopes can easily be applied on the sublingual area of critically ill patients. Among the specific limitations of these techniques, the most important is that these can mostly investigate the sublingual microcirculation. The representativity of the sublingual area may be questioned, especially as some areas may sometimes be more affected than the sublingual area. Also, evaluation of the sublingual area may be difficult in nonintubated hypoxemic patients. Alternative techniques include vasoreactivity tests using either transient occlusion or performing a thermal challenge. These techniques evaluate the maximal dilatory properties of the microcirculation but do not really evaluate the actual microvascular perfusion. Focusing on the glycocalyx may be another option, especially with biomarkers of glycocalyx degradation and shedding. Evaluation of the glycocalyx is still largely experimental, with different tools still in investigation and lack of therapeutic target. Venoarterial differences in PCO2 are inversely related with microvascular perfusion, and can thus be used as surrogate for microcirculation assessment. Several limitations prevent the regular use in clinical practice. The first is the difficult use of some of these techniques outside research teams, whereas nurse-driven measurements are probably desired. The second important limitation for daily practice use is the lack of uniformly defined endpoint. The final limitation is that therapeutic interventions affecting the microcirculation are not straightforward.
Clinical and biological surrogates of microcirculatory assessment can be used at bedside. The role of microvideoscopic techniques is still hampered by the lack of clearly defined targets as well as interventions specifically targeting the microcirculation.
PDF
