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.

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

Statistical Analysis with Missing Data

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

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

In the chronic kidney disease (CKD) population, problems with sleep have been linked to disability days, healthcare utilization, and quality of life (QOL) for dialysis patients The health burden associated with sleep disturbances is significant Studies in the general population have linked these problems to greater use of health services, increased use of hypnotics, and reduced functional capabilities The need to address sleep quality in the CKD population is highlighted by the 15% to 31% prevalence of hypnotic use Among incident dialysis patients, patients with poor sleep quality were more likely to report poor physical and mental well being, decreased vitality and more bodily pain While there are many causes for poor sleep in patients with kidney disease, such as depression, insomnia, restless legs, and periodic limb movements, sleep apnea may be the most common A significant percentage of end-stage renal disease patients report hypersomnolence, snoring, and even witnessed apneas Those undergoing thrice-weekly hemodialysis have been shown to have a high rate of sleep apnea, insomnia, restless legs syndrome, and excessive daytime sleepiness In the general population, sleep disorders such as sleep apnea have been associated with premature death, cardiovascular disease, depression, and poor QOL Emerging evidence suggests that sleep disorders may contribute to the high rates of medical and psychological comorbidity in CKD patients The diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders among this high-risk population remains understudied The recommendations for therapy have been largely based on findings in the general population since studies of the CKD population have been limited in scope

Sleep Disorders in Chronic Kidney Disease

Background:Over 10% of hospice patients experience at least 1 care transition 6 months prior to death. Transitions at the end of life, particularly from hospice to hospital, result in burdensome and fragmented care for patients and families. Little is known about factors that predict hospitalization in this population.Objectives:To develop and validate a model predictive of hospitalization after enrollment into home hospice using prehospice admission risk factors.Design:Retrospective cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service claims.Participants:Patients enrolled into the Medicare hospice benefit were ≥18 years old in 2012.Outcome Measured:Hospitalization within 2 days from a hospice discharge.Results:We developed a predictive model using 61 947 hospice enrollments, of which 3347 (5.4%) underwent a hospitalization. Seven variables were associated with hospitalization: age 18 to 55 years old (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.94 [2.41-3.59]), black race (2.13 [1.93-2.34]), east region (1.97...

/pdf/risk-factors-for-hospitalization-of-home-hospice-enrollees-24s5aa1fk3.pdf

Risk Factors for Hospitalization of Home Hospice Enrollees Development and Validation of a Predictive Tool.

The association between cognitive function and the likelihood of kidney transplant (KT) wait-listing, especially in minority populations, has not been clearly delineated. We performed a retrospective review of our pre-KT patients, who consist mainly of Hispanics and Native Americans, over a 16-month period. We collected data on baseline demographics and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score, at the initial KT evaluation. We defined cognitive impairment as MoCA scores of <24. We constructed linear regression models to identify associations between baseline characteristics with MoCA scores and used Cox proportional hazards models to assess associations between MoCA score and KT wait-listing. During the study period, 154 patients completed the MoCA during their initial evaluation. Mean (standard deviation) MoCA scores were 23.9 (4.6), with 58 (38%) participants scoring <24. Advanced age, lower education and being on dialysis were associated with lower MoCA scores. For every one-point increase in MoCA, the likelihood of being wait-listed increased 1.10-fold (95% CI 1.01-1.19, P = .022). Being Native American and having kidney disease due to diabetes or hypertension were associated with longer time to wait-listing. Cognitive impairment was common in our pre-KT patients and was associated with a lower likelihood of KT wait-listing.

Cognitive assessment in a predominantly Hispanic and Native American population in New Mexico and its association with kidney transplant wait-listing.

Background Length of stay (LOS), a metric of hospital efficiency, differs by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) and longer LOS is associated with adverse health outcomes. Historically, projects to improve LOS efficiency have yielded LOS reductions by 0.3 to 0.7 days per admission. Objective To assess differences in average adjusted length of stay (aALOS) over time by race/ethnicity, and SES stratified by discharge destination (home or non-home). Method Data were obtained from 2009-2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Datasets for New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Multivariate generalized linear models were used to examine trends in aALOS differences by race/ethnicity, and by high vs low SES patients (defined first vs fourth quartile of median income by zip code) controlling for patient, disease and hospital characteristics. Results For those discharged home, racial/ethnic and SES aALOS differences remained stable from 2009 to 2014. However, among those discharged to non-home destinations, Black vs White aALOS differences increased from 0.21 days in Q1 2009, (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13 to 0.30) to 0.32 days in Q3 2013, (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.40), and for low vs high SES patients from 0.03 days in Q1 2009 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.1) to 0.26 days, (95% CI: 0.19 to 0.34). Notably, for patients not discharged home, racial/ethnic and SES aALOS differences increased and persisted after Q3 2011, coinciding with the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Conclusion Further research to understand the ACA's policy impact on hospital efficiencies, and relationship to racial/ethnic and SES differences in LOS is warranted.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/23333928211035581

Trends in Medical and Surgical Admission Length of Stay by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status: A Time Series Analysis.

The Patient-Driven Payment Model addresses perverse incentives in Medicare's previous payment system for skilled nursing facilities, but it includes new incentives that may be problematic.

Mark Unruh

Papers

Sleep Disorders in Chronic Kidney Disease

Risk Factors for Hospitalization of Home Hospice Enrollees Development and Validation of a Predictive Tool.

Cognitive assessment in a predominantly Hispanic and Native American population in New Mexico and its association with kidney transplant wait-listing.

Trends in Medical and Surgical Admission Length of Stay by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status: A Time Series Analysis.

The patient-driven payment model: addressing perverse incentives, creating new ones.