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

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.

https://cobe.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2014/10/GRADE-guidelines-32.pdf

GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence

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

A structured and standardized approach to the diagnosis of brain death is essential to ensure that patients are appropriately classified. This involves a physical exam to establish coma and exclude reversible causes of coma, a comprehensive evaluation of the cranial nerves, and an apnea test. The inability to perform any of the physical exam elements necessitates the use of confirmatory studies. Management of the potential organ donor commences after the diagnosis of brain death is established. Donation after cardiac death should be considered in patients whose prognosis is futile and in whom care is to be withdrawn. Specific donor management goals have been established and have been associated with greater organ procurement. Hemodynamic management forms the cornerstone of brain-dead donor management. Echocardiography should be performed in all potential donors to evaluate cardiac function. Fluid resuscitation is frequently necessary as potential donors tend to be intravascularly volume depleted. Vasopressors should be used to support acceptable blood pressure and hemodynamic profiles. Donor lung management should utilize a lung protective strategy with ventilatory manipulations undertaken to ensure adequate systemic oxygenation and lung expansion. A coordinated donor management approach utilizing intensivists and OPO coordinators has been shown to more effectively manage the donation process, resulting in more organs procured and transplanted.

Brain Death and Management of the Potential Organ Donor

A 27-year-old female with acute monocytic leukaemia (M5) developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Because of refractory hypoxaemia and severe barotrauma during conventional mechanical ventilation, the patient was switched to high frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) as a salvage therapy. Her refractory hypoxaemia improved temporarily but worsened again. Approval of the Institutional Review Board and the Food and Drug Administration was obtained to use nitric oxide (NO) with HFJV on a compassionate basis considering the grave situation. The NO delivery system was connected to the secondary flow circuit of the HFJV immediately after the humidifier. We measured the concentration of NO at least every hour by inserting a 7-Fr catheter connected to a McNeill analyzer into the endotracheal tube. Despite improvement of oxygenation, the patient's respiratory status deteriorated further and she died. In this case we were able to achieve reliable and constant levels of NO. The purpose of this report is to discuss the technical aspects and pitfalls of this method.

The feasibility of nitric oxide delivery with high frequency jet ventilation.

Objective: To examine the effect of obesity on mortality and healthcare resource utilization, including cost, in a heterogenous group of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with respiratory failure.Design: Retrospective cohort reviewSetting: A 24-bed University adult non-cardiac medical and surgical ICUPatients and Participants: Patients >16 years-of-age admitted to the ICU Monday through Friday from January 2, 1999 to January 1, 2000. Patients with respiratory failure (N=201) were retrospectively identified and grouped as underweight (BMI 30 kg/m). Underweight patients and those undergoing routine post-operative ventilator weaning were excluded.Interventions: NoneMeasurements: Measured dependent variables included ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU and hospital mortality, cost per admission, and discharge disposition. Discharge locations were as follows: home, home with home health or skilled nursing facility (SNF)[equivalent to nursing home for our analyses], long-term acute care facility (LTACH) [facilities designed for long-term patients who require prolonged ventilator weaning or other high-level care], or hospice. APACHE III scores were used to calculate predicted ICU and hospital mortality, and ICU and hospital LOS. The total cost for each patient was the sum of all direct and indirect costs excluding physician professional fees.Results: Groups were evenly matched for severity of illness, chronic health, and case mix. Obese patients had a lower PaO2:FiO2 ratio (214+133 vs. 173+108, p=0.04). Patients with primary respiratory failure were less sick than those without a primary respiratory cause (predicted mortality 30.9-31.4% vs. 43.9-44.8%). There were no differences in mortality, ICU or hospital LOS, or cost between the normal weight and obese patients. The results of multivariate analysis failed to show a significant association between obesity and mortality, LOS, cost, or disability among survivors.Conclusions: Obese patients in the ICU requiring mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure have similar mortality, LOS, and cost outcomes as normal weight patients. In addition, have similar levels of disability independent of BM

/pdf/intensive-care-unit-outcomes-are-not-adversely-affected-by-a4ydpy1a9x.pdf

Kenneth E. Wood

Papers

Brain Death and Management of the Potential Organ Donor

The feasibility of nitric oxide delivery with high frequency jet ventilation.

Intensive Care Unit Outcomes Are Not Adversely Affected by Obesity in Patients with Respiratory Failure

Medical Management of the Deceased Donor in Solid Organ Transplantation

Size does matter (not).