Author
Jean Daniel Chiche
Bio: Jean Daniel Chiche is an academic researcher from Paris Descartes University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Surviving Sepsis Campaign & Sepsis. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 6 publications receiving 5538 citations.
Papers
More filters
St George's Hospital1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Hebron University6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University Hospital8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Pittsburgh11, Saint Thomas - West Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Cooper University Hospital17, University of Mississippi Medical Center18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Federal University of São Paulo21, Regions Hospital22, St. Michael's Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Ottawa Hospital25, University of Sydney26, Mount Sinai Hospital27, University of New South Wales28, Fujita Health University29, Christiana Care Health System30, Stanford University31, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology32, University of Kansas33, Harvard University34, California Pacific Medical Center35, University of Amsterdam36, Houston Methodist Hospital37
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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.
4,303 citations
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Autonomous University of Barcelona6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, University of Toronto10, University of Pittsburgh11, St Thomas' Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Rowan University17, University of Mississippi18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul21, Federal University of São Paulo22, Regions Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, University of Ottawa25, University of Sydney26, University of New South Wales27, Fujita Health University28, University of Copenhagen29, Sapienza University of Rome30, Christiana Care Health System31, Stanford University32, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology33, University of Kansas34, Harvard University35, California Pacific Medical Center36, University of Amsterdam37, Université libre de Bruxelles38, Houston Methodist Hospital39
TL;DR: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was assembled at key international meetings (forSurviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012 as discussed by the authors ).
Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.”Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for
2,414 citations
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, Ohio State University2, King's College London3, Université libre de Bruxelles4, Tata Memorial Hospital5, Peking Union Medical College Hospital6, New York University7, University of Barcelona8, University of Queensland9, Federal University of São Paulo10, University of Kansas11, Sultanah Aminah Hospital12, Brown University13
TL;DR: Patients whose care included compliance with all of the evidence-based bundle metrics had a 40 % reduction in the odds of dying in hospital with the 3-h bundle and 36 % for the 6-h bundles.
Abstract: 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. This was a global, prospective, observational, quality improvement study of compliance with the SSC bundles in patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock. 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)). 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.
330 citations
University of Pittsburgh1, University of California, Los Angeles2, Imperial College Healthcare3, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences4, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences5, St. Michael's Hospital6, Monash University7, Paris Descartes University8, University of Amsterdam9, University of Antwerp10, Princess Alexandra Hospital11, Université de Sherbrooke12, University of Western Australia13, University of Toronto14, Wellington Management Company15, University of British Columbia16, University College Dublin17, University of Auckland18, Wellington Hospital19, Utrecht University20, Auckland City Hospital21, St John of God Subiaco Hospital22
TL;DR: A large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia is presented.
Abstract: There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).
222 citations
TL;DR: In multivariable analysis, older age, greater severity scores atICU admission, and hematologic malignancy or liver disease were independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death, whereas influenza vaccination prior to ICU admission and adequate antibiotic administration on ICU admitted were associated with a lower risk.
Abstract: In both the original publication (DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-4206-2) and the first erratum (DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4317-4), the members of the IC-GLOSSARI Investigators and the ESICM Trials Group were provided in such a way that they could not be indexed as collaborators on PubMed. The publisher apologizes for these errors and is pleased to list the members of the groups here.
22 citations
Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.
9,618 citations
TL;DR: The 11th edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine welcomes Anthony Fauci to its editorial staff, in addition to more than 85 new contributors.
Abstract: The 11th edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine welcomes Anthony Fauci to its editorial staff, in addition to more than 85 new contributors. While the organization of the book is similar to previous editions, major emphasis has been placed on disorders that affect multiple organ systems. Important advances in genetics, immunology, and oncology are emphasized. Many chapters of the book have been rewritten and describe major advances in internal medicine. Subjects that received only a paragraph or two of attention in previous editions are now covered in entire chapters. Among the chapters that have been extensively revised are the chapters on infections in the compromised host, on skin rashes in infections, on many of the viral infections, including cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus, on sexually transmitted diseases, on diabetes mellitus, on disorders of bone and mineral metabolism, and on lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly. The major revisions in these chapters and many
6,968 citations
St George's Hospital1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Hebron University6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University Hospital8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Pittsburgh11, Saint Thomas - West Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Cooper University Hospital17, University of Mississippi Medical Center18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Federal University of São Paulo21, Regions Hospital22, St. Michael's Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Ottawa Hospital25, University of Sydney26, Mount Sinai Hospital27, University of New South Wales28, Fujita Health University29, Christiana Care Health System30, Stanford University31, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology32, University of Kansas33, Harvard University34, California Pacific Medical Center35, University of Amsterdam36, Houston Methodist Hospital37
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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.
4,303 citations
TL;DR: Despite rigorous global containment and quarantine efforts, the incidence of COVID-19 continues to rise, with 90,870 laboratory-confirmed cases and over 3,000 deaths worldwide.
4,124 citations
Journal Article•
3,097 citations