Summary Background Mortality from severe sepsis and septic shock differs across continents, countries, and regions. We aimed to use data from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) to compare models of ...care and outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the USA and Europe. Methods The SSC was introduced into more than 200 sites in Europe and the USA. All patients identified with severe sepsis and septic shock in emergency departments or hospital wards and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), and those with sepsis in ICUs were entered into the SSC database. Patients entered into the database from its launch in January, 2005, through January, 2010, in units with at least 20 patients and 3 months of enrolment of patients were included in this analysis. Patients included in the cohort were limited to those entered in the first 4 years at every site. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate the hospital mortality odds ratio (OR) for Europe relative to the USA. We used random-effects linear regression to find the relation between lengths of stay in hospital and ICU and geographic region. Findings 25 375 patients were included in the cohort. The USA included 107 sites with 18 766 (74%) patients, and Europe included 79 hospital sites with 6609 (26%) patients. In the USA, 12 218 (65·1%) were admitted to the ICU from the emergency department whereas in Europe, 3405 (51·5%) were admitted from the wards. The median stay on the hospital wards before ICU admission was longer in Europe than in the USA (1·0 vs 0·1 days, difference 0·9, 95% CI 0·8–0·9). Raw hospital mortality was higher in Europe than in the USA (41·1% vs 28·3%, difference 12·8, 95% CI 11·5–14·7). The median length of stay in ICU (7·8 vs 4·2 days, 3·6, 3·3–3·7) and hospital (22·8 vs 10·5 days, 12·3, 11·9–12·8) was longer in Europe than in the USA. Adjusted mortality in Europe was not significantly higher than that in the USA (32·3% vs 31·3%, 1·0, −1·7 to 3·7, p=0·468). Complete compliance with all applicable elements of the sepsis resuscitation bundle was higher in the USA than in Europe (21·6% vs 18·4%, 3·2, 2·2–4·4). Interpretation The significant difference in unadjusted mortality and the fact that this difference disappears with severity adjustment raise important questions about the effect of the approach to critical care in Europe compared with that in the USA. The effect of ICU bed availability on outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock requires further investigation. Funding Eli Lilly Co, Baxter Lifesciences, Philips Medical Systems, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.
Objective
Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician ...regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock.
Methods
The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575–590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact.
Results
Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring.
Conclusions
This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.
Over 100 algorithms have been proposed to estimate respiratory rate (RR) from the electrocardiogram (ECG) and photoplethysmogram (PPG). As they have never been compared systematically it is unclear ...which algorithm performs the best. Our primary aim was to determine how closely algorithms agreed with a gold standard RR measure when operating under ideal conditions. Secondary aims were: (i) to compare algorithm performance with IP, the clinical standard for continuous respiratory rate measurement in spontaneously breathing patients; (ii) to compare algorithm performance when using ECG and PPG; and (iii) to provide a toolbox of algorithms and data to allow future researchers to conduct reproducible comparisons of algorithms. Algorithms were divided into three stages: extraction of respiratory signals, estimation of RR, and fusion of estimates. Several interchangeable techniques were implemented for each stage. Algorithms were assembled using all possible combinations of techniques, many of which were novel. After verification on simulated data, algorithms were tested on data from healthy participants. RRs derived from ECG, PPG and IP were compared to reference RRs obtained using a nasal-oral pressure sensor using the limits of agreement (LOA) technique. 314 algorithms were assessed. Of these, 270 could operate on either ECG or PPG, and 44 on only ECG. The best algorithm had 95% LOAs of −4.7 to 4.7 bpm and a bias of 0.0 bpm when using the ECG, and −5.1 to 7.2 bpm and 1.0 bpm when using PPG. IP had 95% LOAs of −5.6 to 5.2 bpm and a bias of −0.2 bpm. Four algorithms operating on ECG performed better than IP. All high-performing algorithms consisted of novel combinations of time domain RR estimation and modulation fusion techniques. Algorithms performed better when using ECG than PPG. The toolbox of algorithms and data used in this study are publicly available.
Uncertainty exists about the most effective route for delivery of early nutritional support in critically ill adults. We hypothesized that delivery through the parenteral route is superior to that ...through the enteral route.
We conducted a pragmatic, randomized trial involving adults with an unplanned admission to one of 33 English intensive care units. We randomly assigned patients who could be fed through either the parenteral or the enteral route to a delivery route, with nutritional support initiated within 36 hours after admission and continued for up to 5 days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days.
We enrolled 2400 patients; 2388 (99.5%) were included in the analysis (1191 in the parenteral group and 1197 in the enteral group). By 30 days, 393 of 1188 patients (33.1%) in the parenteral group and 409 of 1195 patients (34.2%) in the enteral group had died (relative risk in parenteral group, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.08; P=0.57). There were significant reductions in the parenteral group, as compared with the enteral group, in rates of hypoglycemia (44 patients 3.7% vs. 74 patients 6.2%; P=0.006) and vomiting (100 patients 8.4% vs. 194 patients 16.2%; P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the parenteral group and the enteral group in the mean number of treated infectious complications (0.22 vs. 0.21; P=0.72), 90-day mortality (442 of 1184 patients 37.3% vs. 464 of 1188 patients 39.1%, P=0.40), in rates of 14 other secondary outcomes, or in rates of adverse events. Caloric intake was similar in the two groups, with the target intake not achieved in most patients.
We found no significant difference in 30-day mortality associated with the route of delivery of early nutritional support in critically ill adults. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research; CALORIES Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN17386141.).
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.
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
Our objective was to revise the definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using a conceptual model incorporating reliability and validity, and a novel iterative approach with ...formal evaluation of the definition.
Methods
The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine identified three chairs with broad expertise in ARDS who selected the participants and created the agenda. After 2 days of consensus discussions a draft definition was developed, which then underwent empiric evaluation followed by consensus revision.
Results
The Berlin Definition of ARDS maintains a link to prior definitions with diagnostic criteria of timing, chest imaging, origin of edema, and hypoxemia. Patients may have ARDS if the onset is within 1 week of a known clinical insult or new/worsening respiratory symptoms. For the bilateral opacities on chest radiograph criterion, a reference set of chest radiographs has been developed to enhance inter-observer reliability. The pulmonary artery wedge pressure criterion for hydrostatic edema was removed, and illustrative vignettes were created to guide judgments about the primary cause of respiratory failure. If no risk factor for ARDS is apparent, however, objective evaluation (e.g., echocardiography) is required to help rule out hydrostatic edema. A minimum level of positive end-expiratory pressure and mutually exclusive PaO
2
/FiO
2
thresholds were chosen for the different levels of ARDS severity (mild, moderate, severe) to better categorize patients with different outcomes and potential responses to therapy.
Conclusions
This panel addressed some of the limitations of the prior ARDS definition by incorporating current data, physiologic concepts, and clinical trials results to develop the Berlin definition, which should facilitate case recognition and better match treatment options to severity in both research trials and clinical practice.
PDF
