Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1trp1tl9am.pdf

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021.

OBJECTIVE

Fluid administration in combination with the increase in vasopermeability induced by critical illness often results in significant fluid overload in critically ill patients. Recent research indicates that mortality is increased in patients who have received large volumes of fluids. We have systematically reviewed and synthesized the evidence on fluid overload and mortality in critically ill patients and have performed a meta-analysis of available data from observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All studies were eligible that investigated the impact of fluid overload (defined by weight gain > 5%) or positive cumulative fluid balance on mortality in adult critical care patients. We excluded animal studies and trials in pediatric populations (age < 16 years old), pregnant women, noncritically ill patients, very specific subpopulations of critically ill patients, and on early goal-directed therapy. Randomized controlled trials were only evaluated in the section on systematic review. Assessment followed the Cochrane/meta-analysis of observational trials in epidemiology guidelines for systematic reviews.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 31 observational and three randomized controlled trials including 31,076 ICU patients met the inclusion criteria. Only observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Fluid overload and cumulative fluid balance were both associated with pooled mortality: after 3 days of ICU stay, adjusted relative risk for fluid overload was 8.83 (95% CI, 4.03-19.33), and for cumulative fluid balance 2.15 (95% CI, 1.51-3.07), at any time point, adjusted relative risk for fluid overload was 2.79 (95% CI, 1.55-5.00) and 1.39 (95% CI, 1.15-1.69) for cumulative fluid balance. Fluid overload was associated with mortality in patients with both acute kidney injury (adjusted relative risk, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.75-2.98) and surgery (adjusted relative risk, 6.17; 95% CI, 4.81-7.97). Cumulative fluid balance was linked to mortality in patients with sepsis (adjusted relative risk, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98), acute kidney injury (adjusted relative risk, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.30-5.30), and respiratory failure (adjusted relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43). The risk of mortality increased by a factor of 1.19 (95% CI, 1.11-1.28) per liter increase in positive fluid balance.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting adjusted risk estimates suggests that fluid overload and positive cumulative fluid balance are associated with increased mortality in a general population and defined subgroups of critically ill patients.

/pdf/fluid-overload-and-mortality-in-adult-critical-care-patients-lcbvq2pynr.pdf

Fluid Overload and Mortality in Adult Critical Care Patients-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU).In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization.We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups.Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.). 

Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock

BACKGROUND
Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU).


METHODS
In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization.


RESULTS
We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups.


CONCLUSIONS
Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock.

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock.

METHODS

CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population.

DISCUSSION

The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.

/pdf/conservative-vs-liberal-fluid-therapy-in-septic-shock-1aa073188o.pdf

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND

In patients with septic shock mortality is high, and survivors experience long-term physical, mental and social impairments. The ongoing Conservative vs Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial assesses the benefits and harms of a restrictive versus (vs) standard-care intravenous (IV) fluid therapy. The hypothesis is that IV fluid restriction improves patient-important long-term outcomes.

AIM

To assess the predefined patient-important long-term outcomes in patients randomised into the CLASSIC trial.

METHODS

In this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will assess all-cause mortality, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and cognitive function one year after randomisation in the two intervention groups. The 1-year mortality will be collected from electronic patient records or central national registries in most participating countries. We will contact survivors and assess EuroQol 5-Dimension, -5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) and EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-minute protocol score. We will analyse mortality by logistic regression and use general linear models to assess HRQoL and cognitive function.

DISCUSSION

With this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will provide patient-important data on long-term survival, HRQoL and cognitive function of restrictive vs standard-care IV fluid therapy in patients with septic shock.

/pdf/long-term-patient-important-outcomes-after-septic-shock-a-3ui8nxs0zj.pdf

Marianne Vang

Papers

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

Long-term patient-important outcomes after septic shock: a protocol for 1-year follow-up of the CLASSIC-trial