Background Goal-directed therapy has been used for severe sepsis and septic shock in the intensive care unit. This approach involves adjustments of cardiac preload, afterload, and contractility to balance oxygen delivery with oxygen demand. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of early goal-directed therapy before admission to the intensive care unit. Methods We randomly assigned patients who arrived at an urban emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either six hours of early goal-directed therapy or standard therapy (as a control) before admission to the intensive care unit. Clinicians who subsequently assumed the care of the patients were blinded to the treatment assignment. In-hospital mortality (the primary efficacy outcome), end points with respect to resuscitation, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores were obtained serially for 72 hours and compared between the study groups. Results Of the 263 enrolled patients, 130 were ...

Early Goal-Directed Therapy in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock

![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1

/pdf/acc-aha-2005-guideline-update-for-the-diagnosis-and-4hik65ngbe.pdf

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult

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

ACC/AHA 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure).

Mariell Jessup, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair [*][1]

William T. Abraham, MD, FACC, FAHA[†][2]

Donald E. Casey, MD, MPH, MBA[‡][3]

Arthur M. Feldman, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA[§][4]

Gary S. Francis, MD, FACC, FAHA[§][4]

Theodore G. Ganiats, MD[∥][5]

Marvin A. Konstam, MD, FACC[¶][6]

Donna M.

/pdf/2009-focused-update-incorporated-into-the-acc-aha-2005-3z9lhvyqwq.pdf

2009 Focused Update Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: Developed in Collaboration With the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation

Objective —To examine the association between the use of right heart catheterization (RHC) during the first 24 hours of care in the intensive care unit (ICU) and subsequent survival, length of stay, intensity of care, and cost of care Design —Prospective cohort study Setting —Five US teaching hospitals between 1989 and 1994 Subjects —A total of 5735 critically ill adult patients receiving care in an ICU for 1 of 9 prespecified disease categories Main Outcome Measures —Survival time, cost of care, intensity of care, and length of stay in the ICU and hospital, determined from the clinical record and from the National Death Index A propensity score for RHC was constructed using multivariable logistic regression Case-matching and multivariable regression modeling techniques were used to estimate the association of RHC with specific outcomes after adjusting for treatment selection using the propensity score Sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the potential effect of an unidentified or missing covariate on the results Results —By case-matching analysis, patients with RHC had an increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 124; 95% confidence interval, 103-149) The mean cost (25th, 50th, 75th percentiles) per hospital stay was $49300 ($17000, $30500, $56600) with RHC and $35700 ($11 300, $20600, $39200) without RHC Mean length of stay in the ICU was 148 (5,9, 17) days with RHC and 130 (4,7, 14) days without RHC These findings were all confirmed by multivariable modeling techniques Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient group or site for which RHC was associated with improved outcomes Patients with higher baseline probability of surviving 2 months had the highest relative risk of death following RHC Sensitivity analysis suggested that a missing covariate would have to increase the risk of death 6-fold and the risk of RHC 6-fold for a true beneficial effect of RHC to be misrepresented as harmful Conclusion —In this observational study of critically ill patients, after adjustment for treatment selection bias, RHC was associated with increased mortality and increased utilization of resources The cause of this apparent lack of benefit is unclear The results of this analysis should be confirmed in other observational studies These findings justify reconsideration of a randomized controlled trial of RHC and may guide patient selection for such a study

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/407990/jama_276_11_030.pdf

The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients

Do formal advance directives affect resuscitation decisions and the use of resources for seriously ill patients? SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments

Objective. —To examine the association between the use of right heart catheterization (RHC) during the first 24 hours of care in the intensive care unit (ICU) and subsequent survival, length of stay, intensity of care, and cost of care. Design. —Prospective cohort study. Setting. —Five US teaching hospitals between 1989 and 1994. Subjects. —A total of 5735 critically ill adult patients receiving care in an ICU for 1 of 9 prespecified disease categories. Main Outcome Measures. —Survival time, cost of care, intensity of care, and length of stay in the ICU and hospital, determined from the clinical record and from the National Death Index. A propensity score for RHC was constructed using multivariable logistic regression. Case-matching and multivariable regression modeling techniques were used to estimate the association of RHC with specific outcomes after adjusting for treatment selection using the propensity score. Sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the potential effect of an unidentified or missing covariate on the results. Results. —By case-matching analysis, patients with RHC had an increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.49). The mean cost (25th, 50th, 75th percentiles) per hospital stay was $49300 ($17000, $30500, $56600) with RHC and $35700 ($11 300, $20600, $39200) without RHC. Mean length of stay in the ICU was 14.8 (5,9, 17) days with RHC and 13.0 (4,7, 14) days without RHC. These findings were all confirmed by multivariable modeling techniques. Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient group or site for which RHC was associated with improved outcomes. Patients with higher baseline probability of surviving 2 months had the highest relative risk of death following RHC. Sensitivity analysis suggested that a missing covariate would have to increase the risk of death 6-fold and the risk of RHC 6-fold for a true beneficial effect of RHC to be misrepresented as harmful. Conclusion. —In this observational study of critically ill patients, after adjustment for treatment selection bias, RHC was associated with increased mortality and increased utilization of resources. The cause of this apparent lack of benefit is unclear. The results of this analysis should be confirmed in other observational studies. These findings justify reconsideration of a randomized controlled trial of RHC and may guide patient selection for such a study.

Paul Bellamy

Papers

The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients

Do formal advance directives affect resuscitation decisions and the use of resources for seriously ill patients? SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments

The Effectiveness of Right Heart Catheterization in the Initial Care of Critically Ill Patients