Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2492881/jsc160002.pdf

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

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.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00134-017-4683-6.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jth.14817

Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis

Importance Septic shock currently refers to a state of acute circulatory failure associated with infection. Emerging biological insights and reported variation in epidemiology challenge the validity of this definition. Objective To develop a new definition and clinical criteria for identifying septic shock in adults. Design, Setting, and Participants The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine convened a task force (19 participants) to revise current sepsis/septic shock definitions. Three sets of studies were conducted: (1) a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in adults published between January 1, 1992, and December 25, 2015, to determine clinical criteria currently reported to identify septic shock and inform the Delphi process; (2) a Delphi study among the task force comprising 3 surveys and discussions of results from the systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies to achieve consensus on a new septic shock definition and clinical criteria; and (3) cohort studies to test variables identified by the Delphi process using Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) (2005-2010; n = 28 150), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) (2010-2012; n = 1 309 025), and Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) (2009-2013; n = 1 847 165) electronic health record (EHR) data sets. Main Outcomes and Measures Evidence for and agreement on septic shock definitions and criteria. Results The systematic review identified 44 studies reporting septic shock outcomes (total of 166 479 patients) from a total of 92 sepsis epidemiology studies reporting different cutoffs and combinations for blood pressure (BP), fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, serum lactate level, and base deficit to identify septic shock. The septic shock–associated crude mortality was 46.5% (95% CI, 42.7%-50.3%), with significant between-study statistical heterogeneity ( I 2  = 99.5%; τ 2  = 182.5; P Conclusions and Relevance Based on a consensus process using results from a systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies, septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. Adult patients with septic shock can be identified using the clinical criteria of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L after adequate fluid resuscitation.

/pdf/developing-a-new-definition-and-assessing-new-clinical-24q0ym7yof.pdf

Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

Sepsis, a syndrome of physiologic, pathologic, and biochemical abnormalities induced by infection, is a major public health concern, accounting for more than $20 billion (5.2%) of total US hospital costs in 2011.The reported incidence of sepsis is increasing, likely reflecting aging populations with more comorbidities, greater recognition, and, in some countries, reimbursement-favorable coding. Although the true incidence is unknown, conservative estimates indicate that sepsis is a leading cause of mortality and critical illness worldwide. JMS 2015;18(2):162-164

/pdf/the-third-international-consensus-definitions-for-sepsis-and-3eb5ncjsr0.pdf

Introduction: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is one of the leading causes for hospital admissions in gastroenterology wards all over the world. Patients usually present with hematochezia or bloody diarrhea. Colonoscopy is usually the initial diagnostic intervention followed by other more sophisticated tests. Bleeding may stop spontaneously, but evaluation is important because patients may harbor a sinister lesion like cancer. Aim of the Study: To determine the various etiologies, clinical presentations, a diagnostic test used and treatments received by LGIB patients admitted in our department. Materials and Methods: A total of 300 cases were studied which included 180 retrospective cases and 120 prospective cases. For retrospective cases, all the information was obtained by analyzing their case records while as prospective patients were managed as per a predefined protocol and details of various investigations and treatments documented. Results: Most commonly affected was elderly population (>60 years), constituting 40% (120/300) of studied population. Males constituted 59% (177/300) and females 41% (123/300). The most common clinical presentation of LGIB in our patients was hematochezia (63.6%, 191/300). Growth/polyp was the most common finding on colonoscopic examination seen in 29.3% ( n = 88) patients. Inflammatory lesions were seen in 77 out of 239 (25.7%) patients. Wireless capsule endoscopy was positive in 13 out of 24 patients (54%). Computed tomography (CT) enterography showed positive results in 6 out of 25 (24%) cases. Red blood cell scan was done in seven patients while as CT angiography in in four patients. Therapeutic endoscopy was successful in 115 out of 239 patients with positive colonoscopy, polypectomy was the commonest procedure performed. Medical management was carried out in 34.6% patients. Surgical treatment was offered to 21% patients. Conclusion: Colonoscopy is the initial and most common investigation used in the evaluation of GI bleed. A polyp is the most common diagnosis while as polypectomy the most common therapeutic procedure.

/pdf/etiology-clinical-presentation-diagnosis-and-management-of-1mmzv7p6gt.pdf

Etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of lower gastrointestinal bleed in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India: A retro-prospective study

Introduction ATT remains the standard treatment for tuberculosis. Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) has been a long-standing concern in the treatment of tuberculosis (TB) infection. Aims and objectives To study the occurrence and risk factors of DILI in patients on ATT by regular clinical and biochemical monitoring. Materials and methods 200 patients, in whom ATT was started, were enrolled in the study. None of the patients with established risk factor for DILI as recognized by ATS guidelines was included in our study population. Regular clinical and liver function test monitoring was done at the commencement of ATT and then at 2, 4, and 8 weeks in the intensive phase subsequently at 4 and 6 months. Results DILI developed in 16 patients. Among those, 10 patients (62.5%) developed early DILI and 6 patients (37.5%) developed late DILI. Female gender and extrapulmonary tuberculosis were found to be associated with increased risk of ATT-induced DILI, whereas age, BMI, and serum albumin were not found to significantly increase DILI risk. Conclusion DILI is a common problem among patients on ATT in our population. Early detection not only reduces the risk of developing Hepatic Failure but also prevents mortality.

Novel risk factors and early detection of anti tubercular treatment induced liver injury-Looking beyond American Thoracic Society Guidelines.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom syndrome (DRESS) is a hypersensitivity drug reaction, most frequently associated with antiepileptic drugs, characterized by skin rash, fever, pharyngitis, lymphadenopathy, and visceral organ involvement, typically presenting within 8 weeks of initiation of therapy. Management involves prompt withdrawal of the offending drug and use of systemic corticosteroids. We here present a rare case of DRESS secondary to levetiracetam. Only few case reports of DRESS secondary to levetiracetam have been published so far.

Levetiracetam induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom syndrome

Background: In spite of the wide range of intestinal anastomotic techniques, surgeons are still not so confident with colorectal anastomosis. Invention of surgical staplers has provided some procedural advantages and sense of security to surgeons as well as to patients, in respect to sphincter-saving procedures and thereby improving the quality of life. Outcome measures of applying these devices should be evaluated to see its efficacy and cost-effectiveness over conventional handsewn technique in treatment plan. The result of such comparative study may help surgeons to improve results of their technique. The aim of this prospective study is to observe the results of using stapler in comparison to handsewn colorectal anastomosis. Patients and Methods: A total of 60 patients were selected, of which 30 underwent “stapled” and 30 underwent “handsewn” anastomosis. The two groups were compared on the following points (i) mean operating time (min), (ii) resumption of oral feeding, (iii) wound infection rate, (iv) anastomotic leak rate, (v) duration of hospital stay and return to work in days. The procedures were evaluated and presented. Results: The stapling procedure took shorter operative time compared to the handsewn anastomosis with a mean of 123 ± 21.1 min and 161.5 ± 27.8 min respectively (P 0.0137). Conclusion: Application of the stapler in treating lower gastrointestinal malignancies demonstrated better effects in terms of mean operating time, resumption of oral feeds, and hospital stay.

Basharat Ahmad Kasana

Papers

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

Etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of lower gastrointestinal bleed in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India: A retro-prospective study

Novel risk factors and early detection of anti tubercular treatment induced liver injury-Looking beyond American Thoracic Society Guidelines.

Levetiracetam induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom syndrome

Surgical outcome of stapled and handsewn anastomosis in lower gastrointestinal malignancies: A prospective study