Objective:To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008.Design:A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at ke

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012.

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

There is no consensus definition of acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients. More than 30 different definitions have been used in the literature, creating much confusion and making comparisons difficult. Similarly, strong debate exists on the validity and clinical relevance of animal models of ARF; on choices of fluid management and of end-points for trials of new interventions in this field; and on how information technology can be used to assist this process. Accordingly, we sought to review the available evidence, make recommendations and delineate key questions for future studies. We undertook a systematic review of the literature using Medline and PubMed searches. We determined a list of key questions and convened a 2-day consensus conference to develop summary statements via a series of alternating breakout and plenary sessions. In these sessions, we identified supporting evidence and generated recommendations and/or directions for future research. We found sufficient consensus on 47 questions to allow the development of recommendations. Importantly, we were able to develop a consensus definition for ARF. In some cases it was also possible to issue useful consensus recommendations for future investigations. We present a summary of the findings. (Full versions of the six workgroups' findings are available on the internet at http://www.ADQI.net
 ) Despite limited data, broad areas of consensus exist for the physiological and clinical principles needed to guide the development of consensus recommendations for defining ARF, selection of animal models, methods of monitoring fluid therapy, choice of physiological and clinical end-points for trials, and the possible role of information technology.

/pdf/acute-renal-failure-definition-outcome-measures-animal-3m4l0j5jsf.pdf

Acute renal failure - definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group.

The acute respiratory distress syndrome is a common, devastating clinical syndrome of acute lung injury that affects both medical and surgical patients. Since the last review of this syndrome appeared in the Journal, 1 more uniform definitions have been devised and important advances have occurred in the understanding of the epidemiology, natural history, and pathogenesis of the disease, leading to the design and testing of new treatment strategies. This article provides an overview of the definitions, clinical features, and epidemiology of the acute respiratory distress syndrome and discusses advances in the areas of pathogenesis, resolution, and treatment. Historical Perspective and Definitions . . .

/pdf/the-acute-respiratory-distress-syndrome-4dksnctehq.pdf

The acute respiratory distress syndrome

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

We performed a randomized, prospective trial to evaluate whether fluid management that emphasized diuresis and fluid restriction in patients with pulmonary edema could affect the development or resolution of extravascular lung water (EVLW), as well as time on mechanical ventilation and time in the intensive care unit (ICU), in critically ill patients requiring pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC). PAC was performed on 101 patients. A total of 52 patients were randomized to an EVLW management group using a protocol based on bedside indicator-dilution measurements of EVLW. The other 49 patients were randomized to a wedge pressure (WP) management group in whom fluid management decisions were guided by WP measurements. A total of 89 patients had pulmonary edema (defined as EVLW greater than 7 ml/kg ideal body weight). Except for a clinically unimportant difference in mean age, the two groups were entirely comparable at baseline. The study groups were managed differently, as evidenced by cumulative input-output of 2,239 +/- 3,695 ml (median = 1,600 ml) in the WP group versus 142 +/- 3,632 ml (median = 754 ml) in the EVLW group (p = 0.001). EVLW decreased significantly, and ventilator-days and ICU days were significantly shorter only in patients from the EVLW group. No clinically significant adverse effect occurred as a result of following the EVLW group algorithm. Thus, a lower positive fluid balance, especially in patients with pulmonary edema regardless of cause, is associated with reduced EVLW, ventilator-days, and ICU days.

Improved Outcome Based on Fluid Management in Critically III Patients Requiring Pulmonary Artery Catheterization

In this review we evaluate specific therapeutic strategies for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)1,2 and make recommendations on their use. We begin with a brief overview of the laboratory tests used to evaluate suspected cases of the syndrome, because these often dictate the subsequent therapeutic approaches. The clinical features, pathogenesis, and pathologic features of ARDS have been reviewed extensively elsewhere.3–18 We recognize that the understanding of ARDS and its optimal clinical management will continue to advance and that our recommendations will therefore be modified. Definition of ARDS The recent European–American Consensus Conference on ARDS developed the following . . .

The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Although pulmonary artery (PA) catheterization is frequently employed in the management of critically ill patients, there is little documentation that the information obtained alters patient management. This study evaluated prospectively this question in 103 PA catheterizations. Before catheterization, physicians were asked to predict the range of several hemodynamic variables, the presumed diagnosis, and their plan for therapy. After catheterization, each chart was reviewed. The hemodynamics at the time of catheterization and therapy within 8 h of catheterization were noted. Pulmonary artery occlusive (wedge) pressure (WP) was correctly predicted 30% of the time. Cardiac output, systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and right atrial pressure (RAP) were correctly predicted approximately 50% of the time. There was no significant difference in the ability to predict hemodynamics of subgroups with either hypotension or impaired oxygenation. After catheterization, planned therapy was altered in 58% of the cases. Unanticipated therapy was added in 30% of the cases. This study documents the difficulty of predicting accurately hemodynamics based solely on clinical evaluation. Thus, the information obtained by catheterization often leads to alterations in the therapeutic plan. We suggest that PA catheterization is both indicated and useful in the management of critically ill patients.

Clinical evaluation compared to pulmonary artery catheterization in the hemodynamic assessment of critically ill patients

Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) is the major obstacle to long-term survival after lung transplantation, in part because its pathogenesis is poorly understood and treatment options are limited. To identify unique risk factors for BOS and death, we performed a retrospective cohort study on 259 consecutive adult lung transplant recipients over a 5-year period. The demographic and clinical characteristics of this population were analyzed for an association between BOS or death and potential risk factors, including community-acquired respiratory viral (CARV) infections, acute rejection, and cytomegalovirus pneumonitis. Respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza, influenza, and adenovirus accounted for 21 CARV infections. Univariate and multivariate time-dependent Cox regression analyses demonstrated that this CARV group was more likely to develop BOS, death, and death from BOS. Furthermore, these trends were more pronounced in patients with evidence of lower respiratory tract-CARV (lower-CARV) infections. Notably, the CARV and lower-CARV infections were risk factors for BOS, death, and death from BOS distinct from the risk attributable to acute rejection. Identification of CARV and lower-CARV infections as BOS and mortality risk factors has important clinical implications and may provide insight into disease pathogenesis and accelerate the development of novel treatment strategies to modify post-CARV BOS.

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.200310-1359OC

Daniel P. Schuster

Papers

Improved Outcome Based on Fluid Management in Critically III Patients Requiring Pulmonary Artery Catheterization

The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Clinical evaluation compared to pulmonary artery catheterization in the hemodynamic assessment of critically ill patients

Respiratory Viral Infections Are a Distinct Risk for Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome and Death

ARDS: clinical lessons from the oleic acid model of acute lung injury.