tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

/pdf/kdigo-clinical-practice-guidelines-for-acute-kidney-injury-27tybolw7l.pdf

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

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

A b s t r ac t Background The role of intensive insulin therapy in patients with severe sepsis is uncertain. Fluid resuscitation improves survival among patients with septic shock, but evidence is lacking to support the choice of either crystalloids or colloids. Methods In a multicenter, two-by-two factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to receive either intensive insulin therapy to maintain euglycemia or conventional insulin therapy and either 10% pentastarch, a low-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (HES 200/0.5), or modified Ringer’s lactate for fluid resuscitation. The rate of death at 28 days and the mean score for organ failure were coprimary end points. Results The trial was stopped early for safety reasons. Among 537 patients who could be evaluated, the mean morning blood glucose level was lower in the intensive-therapy group (112 mg per deciliter [6.2 mmol per liter]) than in the conventional-therapy group (151 mg per deciliter [8.4 mmol per liter], P<0.001). However, at 28 days, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death or the mean score for organ failure. The rate of severe hypoglycemia (glucose level, ≤40 mg per deciliter [2.2 mmol per liter]) was higher in the intensive-therapy group than in the conventional-therapy group (17.0% vs. 4.1%, P<0.001), as was the rate of serious adverse events (10.9% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.01). HES therapy was associated with higher rates of acute renal failure and renal-replacement therapy than was Ringer’s lactate. Conclusions The use of intensive insulin therapy placed critically ill patients with sepsis at increased risk for serious adverse events related to hypoglycemia. As used in this study, HES was harmful, and its toxicity increased with accumulating doses. (ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT00135473.)

/pdf/intensive-insulin-therapy-and-pentastarch-resuscitation-in-386eht3k3e.pdf

Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis.

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.Design:Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, s

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1ovskq8fjd.pdf

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

BACKGROUND: The influence of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions on renal function is controversial. We investigated the effect of HES administration on renal function in critically ill patients enrolled in a large multicentre observational European study. METHODS: All adult patients admitted to the 198 participating intensive care units (ICUs) during a 15-day period were enrolled. Prospectively collected data included daily fluid administration, urine output, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, serum creatinine levels, and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) during the ICU stay. RESULTS: Of 3147 patients, 1075 (34%) received HES. Patients who received HES were older [mean (SD): 62 (SD 17) vs 60 (18) years, P = 0.022], more likely to be surgical admissions, had a higher incidence of haematological malignancy and heart failure, higher SAPS II [40.0 (17.0) vs 34.7 (16.9), P 1 (P < 0.01 for renal SOFA 2, 3, and 4 with renal SOFA = 0 as a reference) were all associated with a higher need for RRT. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, haematological cancer, the presence of sepsis, cardiovascular failure, and baseline renal function as assessed by the SOFA score were independent risk factors for the subsequent need for RRT in the ICU. The administration of HES had no influence on renal function or the need for RRT in the ICU.

Effects of hydroxyethyl starch administration on renal function in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND\nThe influence of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions on renal function is controversial. We investigated the effect of HES administration on renal function in critically ill patients enrolled in a large multicentre observational European study.\n\n\nMETHODS\nAll adult patients admitted to the 198 participating intensive care units (ICUs) during a 15-day period were enrolled. Prospectively collected data included daily fluid administration, urine output, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, serum creatinine levels, and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) during the ICU stay.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf 3147 patients, 1075 (34%) received HES. Patients who received HES were older [mean (SD): 62 (SD 17) vs 60 (18) years, P = 0.022], more likely to be surgical admissions, had a higher incidence of haematological malignancy and heart failure, higher SAPS II [40.0 (17.0) vs 34.7 (16.9), P < 0.001] and SOFA [6.2 (3.7) vs 5.0 (3.9), P < 0.001] scores, and less likely to be receiving RRT (2 vs 4%, P < 0.001) than those who did not receive HES. The renal SOFA score increased significantly over the ICU stay independent of the type of fluid administered. Although more patients who received HES needed RRT than non-HES patients (11 vs 9%, P = 0.006), HES administration was not associated with an increased risk for subsequent RRT in a multivariable analysis [odds ratio (OR): 0.417, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05-3.27, P = 0.406]. Sepsis (OR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.37-3.02, P < 0.001), cardiovascular failure (OR: 6.88, 95% CI: 4.49-10.56, P < 0.001), haematological cancer (OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.28-6.25, P = 0.01), and baseline renal SOFA scores > 1 (P < 0.01 for renal SOFA 2, 3, and 4 with renal SOFA = 0 as a reference) were all associated with a higher need for RRT.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nIn this observational study, haematological cancer, the presence of sepsis, cardiovascular failure, and baseline renal function as assessed by the SOFA score were independent risk factors for the subsequent need for RRT in the ICU. The administration of HES had no influence on renal function or the need for RRT in the ICU.

Fernando Suárez Sipmann

Papers

Effects of hydroxyethyl starch administration on renal function in critically ill patients

Effects of hydroxyethyl starch administration on renal function in critically ill patients.: 249-t