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

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

Executive Summary Introduction Methodology Used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology Major Epidemiologic Points Pathogenesis Major Points for Pathogenesis Modifiable Risk Factors Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Aspiration, Body Position, and Enteral Feeding Modulation of Colonization: Oral Antiseptics and Antibiotics Stress Bleeding Prophylaxis, Transfusion, and Glucose Control Major Points and Recommendations for Modifiable Risk Factors Diagnostic Testing Major Points and Recommendations for Diagnosis Diagnostic Strategies and Approaches Clinical Strategy Bacteriologic Strategy Recommended Diagnostic Strategy Major Points and Recommendations for Comparing Diagnostic Strategies Antibiotic Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia General Approach Initial Empiric Antibiotic Therapy Appropriate Antibiotic Selection and Adequate Dosing Local Instillation and Aerosolized Antibiotics Combination versus Monotherapy Duration of Therapy Major Points and Recommendations for Optimal Antibiotic Therapy Specific Antibiotic Regimens Antibiotic Heterogeneity and Antibiotic Cycling Response to Therapy Modification of Empiric Antibiotic Regimens Defining the Normal Pattern of Resolution Reasons for Deterioration or Nonresolution Evaluation of the Nonresponding Patient Major Points and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators

Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia the official statement of the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Disease Society of America (特集 救急診療ガイドライン) -- (海外のガイドライン)

Morbidity and mortality from sepsis remains unacceptably high. Large variability in clinical practice, plus the increasing awareness that certain processes of care associated with improved critical...

/pdf/severe-sepsis-and-septic-shock-4qc6kawnx8.pdf

Severe sepsis and septic shock

The optimal approach for empirical antibiotic therapy in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the intensive care units of a university hospital. The data from 760 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock associated with Gram-negative bacteremia was analyzed. Among this cohort, 238 (31.3%) patients received inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy (IIAT). The hospital mortality rate was statistically greater among patients receiving IIAT compared to those initially treated with an appropriate antibiotic regimen (51.7% versus 36.4%; P < 0.001). Patients treated with an empirical combination antibiotic regimen directed against Gram-negative bacteria (i.e., β-lactam plus aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone) were less likely to receive IIAT compared to monotherapy (22.2% versus 36.0%; P < 0.001). The addition of an aminoglycoside to a carbapenem would have increased appropriate initial therapy from 89.7 to 94.2%. Similarly, the addition of an aminoglycoside would have increased the appropriate initial therapy for cefepime (83.4 to 89.9%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (79.6 to 91.4%). Logistic regression analysis identified IIAT (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.89 to 2.80) and increasing Apache II scores (1-point increments) (AOR, 1.11; 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.13) as independent predictors for hospital mortality. In conclusion, combination empirical antimicrobial therapy directed against Gram-negative bacteria was associated with greater initial appropriate therapy compared to monotherapy in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Our experience suggests that aminoglycosides offer broader coverage than fluoroquinolones as combination agents for patients with this serious infection.

/pdf/empiric-combination-antibiotic-therapy-is-associated-with-10vclrmfj1.pdf

Empiric Combination Antibiotic Therapy Is Associated with Improved Outcome against Sepsis Due to Gram-Negative Bacteria: a Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND:

Gram-negative bacteria are an important cause of severe sepsis. Recent studies have demonstrated reduced susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria to currently available antimicrobial agents.



METHODS:

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with severe sepsis who were bacteremic with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter species, or Enterobacteriaceae from 2002 to 2007. Patients were identified by the hospital informatics database and pertinent clinical data (demographics, baseline severity of illness, source of bacteremia, and therapy) were retrieved from electronic medical records. All patients were treated with antimicrobial agents within 12 hours of having blood cultures drawn that were subsequently positive for bacterial pathogens. The primary outcome was hospital mortality.



RESULTS:

A total of 535 patients with severe sepsis and Gram-negative bacteremia were identified. Hospital mortality was 43.6%, and 82 (15.3%) patients were treated with an antimicrobial regimen to which the causative pathogen was resistant. Patients infected with a resistant pathogen had significantly greater risk of hospital mortality (63.4% vs 40.0%; P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, infection with a pathogen that was resistant to the empiric antibiotic regimen, increasing APACHE II scores, infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, healthcare-associated hospital-onset infection, mechanical ventilation, and use of vasopressors were independently associated with hospital mortality.



CONCLUSIONS:

In severe sepsis attributed to Gram-negative bacteremia, initial treatment with an antibiotic regimen to which the causative pathogen is resistant was associated with increased hospital mortality. This finding suggests that rapid determination of bacterial susceptibility could influence treatment choices in patients with severe sepsis potentially improving their clinical outcomes. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2011. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine

/pdf/resistance-to-empiric-antimicrobial-treatment-predicts-225wcxle53.pdf

Mubashir Pervez

Papers

Empiric Combination Antibiotic Therapy Is Associated with Improved Outcome against Sepsis Due to Gram-Negative Bacteria: a Retrospective Analysis

Resistance to empiric antimicrobial treatment predicts outcome in severe sepsis associated with Gram-negative bacteremia.