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. 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 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 Pao
 2/Fio
 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 Pao
 2/Fi
 o
 2 180 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). 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/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-229kg8suph.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012

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.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-lbjfg8yybt.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

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. 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. 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. 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). 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.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

To develop management guidelines for severe sepsis and septic shock that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and improve outcome in severe sepsis. The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built upon a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along 5 levels to create recommendation grades from A–E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations were provided to contrast adult and pediatric management. Participants included 44 critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations. A total of 46 recommendations plus pediatric management considerations. Evidence-based recommendations can be made regarding many aspects of the acute management of sepsis and septic shock that will hopefully translate into improved outcomes for the critically ill patient. The impact of these guidelines will be formally tested and guidelines updated annually, and even more rapidly when some important new knowledge becomes available.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-guidelines-for-management-of-2my3xcb472.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock

Infectious Diseases Society of America.

In 1994, the American Society of Anesthesiologists established the Task Force on Blood Component Therapy to develop evidence‐based indications for transfusing red blood cells, platelets, fresh‐frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate in perioperative and peripartum settings. The guidelines were developed according to an explicit methodology. The principal conclusions of the task force are that red blood cell transfusions should not be dictated by a single hemoglobin \"trigger\" but instead should be based on the patient's risks of developing complications of inadequate oxygenation. Red blood cell transfusion is rarely indicated when the hemoglobin concentration is greater than 10 g/dL and is almost always indicated when it is less than 6 g/dL. The indications for autologous transfusion may be more liberal than for allogeneic (homologous) transfusion. The risks of bleeding in surgical and obstetric patients are determined by the extent and type of surgery, the ability to control bleeding, the actual and anticipated rate of bleeding, and the consequences of uncontrolled bleeding. Prophylactic platelet transfusion is ineffective when thrombocytopenia is due to increased platelet destruction. Surgical and obstetric patients with microvascular bleeding usually require platelet transfusion if the platelet count is less than 50 x 109 /l and rarely require therapy if it is greater than 100 x 10 sup 9 /l. Fresh‐frozen plasma is indicated for urgent reversal of warfarin therapy, correction of known coagulation factor deficiencies for which specific concentrates are unavailable, and correction of microvascular bleeding when prothrombin and partial thromboplastin times are > 1.5 times normal. It is contraindicated for augmentation of plasma volume or albumin concentration. Cryoprecipitate should be considered for patients with von Willebrand's disease unresponsive to desmopressin, bleeding patients with von Willebrand's disease, and bleeding patients with fibrinogen levels below 80–100 mg/dL. The task force recommends careful adherence to proper indications for blood component therapy to reduce the risks of transfusion.

Practice guidelines for blood component therapy: A report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Blood Component Therapy

Practice guidelines for perioperative blood transfusion and adjuvant therapies: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on perioperative blood transfusion and adjuvant therapies

Editor’s PerspectiveWhat We Already Know about This TopicThe ability to predict postinduction hypotension remains limited and challenging due to the multitude of data elements that may be consideredNovel machine-learning algorithms may offer a systematic approach to predict postinduction hypotension

/pdf/supervised-machine-learning-predictive-analytics-for-u4bj4w4v79.pdf

Supervised Machine-learning Predictive Analytics for Prediction of Postinduction Hypotension

An estimated 290,000 surgical site infections occur after a procedure in the United States annually, accounting for 22% of all healthcare associated infections [1]. Deep surgical site infections (SSI) after arthroplasty or spine fusion surgery complicate up to 2% of cases, and result in revision surgery and prolonged antibiotic use [2, 3]. The patient morbidity and healthcare system cost is tremendous, with an estimated $566 million spent annually in hospital treatment costs for arthroplasty SSI alone [4]. Staphylococcus aureus is a frequent and feared cause of these infections, given its unique pathogenicity and ability to adhere to prosthetic material [5, 6]. Studies indicate S. aureus colonization prior to surgery is a risk of subsequent infection, with the nasal mucosa serving as a reservoir for S. aureus colonization and a source of secondary transmission to other body sites [7, 8].

Prevention of SSI by treatment of S. aureus colonization with intranasal topical mupirocin has been studied. A short-term suppression rate of 83% after multiple doses of nasal mupirocin was achieved in one randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 891 S. aureus colonized patients, resulting in a statistically significant reduction of invasive S. aureus infection [9]. Several controlled trials suggest a reduction in SSI with the use of pre-operative topical antiseptics [10, 11]. When nasal mupirocin was combined with use of chlorhexidine soap in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 808 S. aureus colonized surgical patients, a significant reduction in deep S. aureus SSI was realized [12].

To reduce the risk of SSI after arthroplasty and spine fusion surgery at our institution, we historically provided a prescription for brand mupirocin ointment specifically formulated for application on intranasal mucosal surfaces twice a day for the five days prior to surgery, and instructions for the use of chlorhexidine soap the evening before surgery. After implementation of this protocol, we conducted an anonymous patient survey to measure compliance. Although 94% of patients used the chlorhexidine soap, only 86% applied the mupirocin ointment and 8% of patients stated they found it hard or very hard to purchase the mupirocin due to cost [13]. The brand nasal mupirocin ointment specifically produced for application on intranasal mucosal surfaces is only formulation currently available; although generic mupirocin ointment for topical use on skin is available at less cost, application of this formulation on mucosal surfaces may cause irritation. Our survey results, plus reports of emerging mupirocin resistance, led us to search for alternatives [14–19]. Povidone-iodine solution is a broad-spectrum antiseptic suitable for suppression of S. aureus in nasal secretions [20]. In contrast to the application of nasal mupirocin antibiotic ointment to eradicate S. aureus in the nares before surgery, the application of povidone iodine is intended to transiently suppress S. aureus in the nares during surgery. Our hypothesis was a one-time application of nasal povidone iodine just prior to surgery would be as effective as twice daily applications of nasal mupirocin during the five days before surgery in preventing SSI, and provide a more convenient option for patients at lower cost.

/pdf/preventing-surgical-site-infections-a-randomized-open-label-x0o8e3b13i.pdf

Preventing surgical site infections: a randomized, open-label trial of nasal mupirocin ointment and nasal povidone-iodine solution.

Background:As specialists in perioperative medicine, anesthesiologists are well equipped to design and oversee the preoperative patient preparation process; however, the impact of an anesthesiologist-led preoperative evaluation clinic (PEC) on clinical outcomes has yet to be fully elucidated. The au

Andrew D. Rosenberg

Papers

Practice guidelines for blood component therapy: A report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Blood Component Therapy

Practice guidelines for perioperative blood transfusion and adjuvant therapies: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on perioperative blood transfusion and adjuvant therapies

Supervised Machine-learning Predictive Analytics for Prediction of Postinduction Hypotension

Preventing surgical site infections: a randomized, open-label trial of nasal mupirocin ointment and nasal povidone-iodine solution.

Preoperative Evaluation Clinic Visit Is Associated with Decreased Risk of In-hospital Postoperative Mortality.