Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2492881/jsc160002.pdf

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

Thank you for downloading using multivariate statistics. As you may know, people have look hundreds times for their favorite novels like this using multivariate statistics, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some harmful bugs inside their laptop. using multivariate statistics is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our books collection saves in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Merely said, the using multivariate statistics is universally compatible with any devices to read.

Using Multivariate Statistics

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

Prospective Cohort Study

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00134-022-06908-6.pdf

Personalized medicine in COVID-19

Background: Gentamicin (GM) is an aminoglycoside frequently used in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Despite low resistance and costs, GM is also nephrotoxic and may cause acute kidney injury (AKI). Serum creatinine appears to be an insensitive and unreliable marker for detecting AKI in this setting. Aims: To determine whether urine biomarkers are useful for early detection of gentamicin-induced AKI in neonates in the NICU. Methods: Fourty-four neonates (32M/12F, gestational age 36.1 weeks) with a bladder catheter without pre-existent kidney disease were divided in a GM group (n=24) and a reference group (n=20). Demographics, vital signs and clinical conditions were recorded. Every two hours, during the period of bladder catheter, urine samples were collected and renal injury biomarkers glutathione S-transferase A1-1 (GSTA1-1), GSTP1-1, Kidney Injury Marker-1 (KIM-1) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) were determined. Residual blood samples were used to measure serum creatinine (sCr). Results: Demographics were similar between both groups. No significant differences were found in baseline kidney function, hemodynamics, demographics, ventilation support and reason for admission. Treatment with GM resulted in higher levels of sCr compared to the reference group (80[64-87] vs 60[55-76] mol/L;P< 0.05). The average time until the highest peak was shorter for all biomarkers compared with sCr (P< 0.05). Furthermore, higher levels of sCr corresponded with higher levels of KIM-1, GSTA1-1 and GSTP1-1. Figure
 Figure
 Conclusion: Treatment with GM results in higher levels of sCr. In addition, the urinary biomarkers KIM-1, GSTA1-1 and GSTP1-1 might be useful for early detection of AKI in the NICU.

/pdf/urine-biomarkers-for-gentamicin-induced-acute-kidney-injury-368ytk0kws.pdf

Urine Biomarkers for Gentamicin-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in the Nicu

Calcitonin gene-related peptide induced vasodilation depends on the release of nitric oxide

Delirium is a serious and frequent disorder in ICU patients. The aim of this study was to internationally validate the existing Prediction of Delirium ICU (PREDELIRIC) model to predict delirium in ICU patients.

/pdf/international-validation-of-the-delirium-prediction-model-7y6ps53y08.pdf

International validation of the delirium prediction model for ICU patients (PREDELIRIC): a multicenter observational study

A substantial part of critically ill patients suffer from sepsis‐induced immunosuppression. Reversal of immunosuppression through PD‐1 checkpoint inhibition has been proposed as a treatment strategy to overcome immunosuppression in these patients. The PD‐1 inhibitor nivolumab, currently used in treatment of cancer, has been evaluated in phase I/II studies in patients with sepsis, demonstrating tolerability and signs of clinical efficacy. No proper dose finding was performed in these studies and, after a single high dose of 480 mg or 960 mg nivolumab, PD‐1 inhibition persisted beyond 90 days in the majority of cases. As the duration of sepsis is ~7–10 days, prolonged PD‐1 inhibition may unnecessarily induce longer‐term immune‐related side effects. Based on previously published pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data of nivolumab, a thorough in silico dose finding study for nivolumab in critically ill patients was performed. We found that volume of distribution and clearance of nivolumab were not higher in patients with sepsis compared to the cancer population for which nivolumab is currently approved and showed profound variability. We found that with a single dose of 20 mg nivolumab, the PD‐1 receptor occupancy is predicted to stay above the 90% threshold for a median of 23 days (90% prediction interval of 7–78 days). We propose to investigate this dose in critically ill patients as a potential safe and cost‐effective pharmacotherapeutic intervention to treat sepsis‐induced immunosuppression.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/cts.13503

Peter Pickkers

Papers

Personalized medicine in COVID-19

Urine Biomarkers for Gentamicin-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in the Nicu

Calcitonin gene-related peptide induced vasodilation depends on the release of nitric oxide

International validation of the delirium prediction model for ICU patients (PREDELIRIC): a multicenter observational study

Evidence‐based rationale for low dose nivolumab in critically ill patients with sepsis‐induced immunosuppression