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

To the Editor: With interest we read the paper by Jansen et al. (1), who report that, although plasma mtDNA levels are elevated in patients with noninfectious SIRS, they do not correlate with markers of systemic inflammation or renal injury. These data are corroborated by subsequent murine experiments, where administration of mtDNA or a cocktail of mitochondrial DAMPs (MTD) neither induced systemic inflammation or organ injury, nor worsened renal function. These results are in line with findings of our group, demonstrating that mtDNA plasma levels are elevated in critical illnesses, e.g., sepsis (2), trauma (3), and cardiac arrest (4), but do not correlate with markers of inflammation, immune dysfunction, and organ damage. Therefore, we share the authors’ conclusion that plasma mtDNA does not seem to play an important causative role in these conditions, which could possibly be explained by RBC-mediated DNA scavenging mechanisms limiting mtDNA availability in the circulation (5). So is there still a role for mtDNA outside of the plasma, for instance, in the kidney? DAMPs are filtered in the glomeruli and pattern recognition receptors are expressed in the tubules (6). Interestingly, Jansen et al. show that urinary mtDNA levels are elevated in SIRS patients with AKI and, more importantly, correlate with the severity of renal dysfunction and inflammation. Subsequently, the authors performed in vitro studies in primary tubular epithelial cells (pTECs) aimed at establishing a causative link between mtDNA and renal inflammation. Their key experiment reveals that stimulation of pTECs with necrotic supernatants from mtDNA-bearing pTECs induces production of the chemokine KC; however, this was not the case for the chemokine MCP-1. Furthermore, the used methodology does not permit us to draw definitive conclusions for several reasons. First, KC production, albeit to a lesser degree, was also observed when pTECs were stimulated with necrotic supernatants from a mtDNA-depleted fibroblast cell line. Second, apart from the presence/absence of mtDNA, there are many more differences between mtDNA-bearing pTECs and fibroblasts that could explain the observed effects. It would have been more straightforward and relevant if the authors would have stimulated pTECs with the purified mtDNA or MTD they used in mice, or used necrotic supernatants from mtDNA-bearing fibroblasts instead of necrotic supernatants from pTECs. In conclusion, Jansen et al. once more highlight that mtDNA in plasma seems to be innocent as a key player involved in the inflammatory cascade in critical ill patients, but may be guilty of inflicting renal injury. Therefore, the important question that Martin and Thiemermann also pose in their accompanying editorial (7) needs to be answered: is there a causative role for mtDNA in renal injury or is it merely another urinary marker reflecting kidney damage? In that respect, it would be interesting to measure urinary levels of other DAMPs in the patient cohort of Jansen et al., such as nuclear DNA or HMGB1, to shed more light on whether mtDNA truly plays a detrimental role in the kidneys, or if it proves to be an innocent bystander once again.

Mitochondrial DNA: Innocent in Plasma, but Guilty in Urine?

Renal replacement therapy (RRT) remains the key rescue therapy for critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). However, there are currently no tools available to predict successful liberation from RRT. Biomarkers may allow for risk stratification and individualization of treatment strategies. Proenkephalin A 119-159 (penKid) has been suggested as a promising marker of kidney function in the context of AKI, but has not yet been evaluated for RRT liberation in critically ill patients with AKI.This post hoc analysis included 210 patients from the randomized clinical ELAIN trial and penKid levels were measured in the blood of these patients. Competing risk time-to-event analyses were performed for pre-RRT penKid at initiation of RRT and in a landmark analysis at day 3 after initiation of RRT. Competing risk endpoints were successful liberation from RRT or death without prior liberation from RRT.Low pre-RRT penKid levels (penKid ≤ 89 pmol/l) at RRT initiation were associated with early and successful liberation from RRT compared to patients with high pre-RRT penKid levels (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 1.83, 95%CI 1.26-2.67, p = 0.002, estimated 28d-cumulative incidence function (28d-CIF) of successful liberation from RRT 61% vs. 45%, p = 0.022). This association persisted in the landmark analysis on day 3 of RRT (sHR 1.78, 95%CI 1.17-2.71, p = 0.007, 28d-CIF of successful liberation from RRT 67% vs. 47%, p = 0.018). For both time points, no difference in the competing event of death was detected.In critically ill patients with RRT-dependent AKI, plasma penKid appears to be a useful biomarker for the prediction of shorter duration and successful liberation from RRT and may allow an individualized approach to guide strategies of RRT liberation in critically ill patients with RRT-dependent AKI.The ELAIN trial was prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trial Registry (Identifier: DRKS00004367) on 28th of May 2013. 

https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13054-022-04217-4

Proenkephalin A 119–159 predicts early and successful liberation from renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a post hoc analysis of the ELAIN trial

Chemotherapy may result in the release of danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), which can cause immunoparalysis (deactivation of the immune system). We investigated DAMPs following chemotherapy and their relationship with markers of immunoparalysis in leukemia patients. In 6 patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome and 12 healthy subjects, DAMPs, cytokines, and markers of immunoparalysis were determined before and during the first week after chemotherapy initiation. In the patients, plasma levels of nuclear DNA (a marker of general DAMP release) were profoundly increased before chemotherapy and further increased 4-6 h afterwards, while the specific DAMP mitochondrial DNA showed only a trend towards increase. Circulating cytokine levels did not change following chemotherapy. Leukocyte cytokine production capacity and HLA-DR expression were similar in patients and healthy controls until day 4 when leukocytes were found to be virtually absent. In conclusion, in the early phase following chemotherapy in leukemia patients, increased DAMP release does not induce immunoparalysis.

Release of Danger-Associated Molecular Patterns following Chemotherapy Does Not Induce Immunoparalysis in Leukemia Patients.

Assessment of delirium in ICU patients

Delirium is associated with long-term cognitive decline and poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about long-term differences on these aspects between critically ill patients with and without delirium during their ICU stay, differences between delirium subtypes on HRQoL and the effect of delirium duration on HRQoL.

/pdf/impact-of-delirium-in-critically-ill-patients-on-long-term-2daifmhcmw.pdf

Peter Pickkers

Papers

Mitochondrial DNA: Innocent in Plasma, but Guilty in Urine?

Proenkephalin A 119–159 predicts early and successful liberation from renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a post hoc analysis of the ELAIN trial

Release of Danger-Associated Molecular Patterns following Chemotherapy Does Not Induce Immunoparalysis in Leukemia Patients.

Assessment of delirium in ICU patients

Impact of delirium in critically ill patients on long-term health-related quality of life and cognitive functioning