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

The acute respiratory distress syndrome is a common, devastating clinical syndrome of acute lung injury that affects both medical and surgical patients. Since the last review of this syndrome appeared in the Journal, 1 more uniform definitions have been devised and important advances have occurred in the understanding of the epidemiology, natural history, and pathogenesis of the disease, leading to the design and testing of new treatment strategies. This article provides an overview of the definitions, clinical features, and epidemiology of the acute respiratory distress syndrome and discusses advances in the areas of pathogenesis, resolution, and treatment. Historical Perspective and Definitions . . .

/pdf/the-acute-respiratory-distress-syndrome-4dksnctehq.pdf

The acute respiratory distress syndrome

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

Objective
To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-lbjfg8yybt.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

Prolonged extracorporeal circulation.

Currently, normothermic ex vivo heart perfusion (NEVHP) is limited to 6-12 hours. NEVHP for 24 hours or more would allow organ treatment, assessment of organ function, and near-perfect recipient matching. We present a model of NEVHP using continuous hemofiltration (HFn) with sustained myocardial viability up to 24 hours. Twenty hearts from 6–10 kg piglets were procured and maintained on our NEVHP circuit. HFn hearts (n = 10) underwent NEVHP with HFn, whereas controls (n = 10) used NEVHP alone. All HFn vs. four controls were viable at 24 h (p = 0.004). At end perfusion, HFn hearts had higher left ventricular systolic pressure (51.5 ± 6.8 mm Hg, 38.3 ± 5.2 mm Hg, p = 0.05), lower coronary resistance (0.83 ± 0.11 mm Hg/mL/min, 1.18 ± 0.21mmHg/mL/min, p < 0.05), and lower serum lactate levels (2.9 ± 0.4 mmol/L, 4.1 ± 0.6 mmol/L, p < 0.0001) when compared to control hearts. HFn hearts also had less extensive myocardial damage and significantly less edema than control hearts with lower weight gain and wet-dry ratios. Using our circuit, NEVHP for 24 hours is possible with HFn and allows for preservation of myocardial function, improved tissue viability, decreased tissue edema, and less myocardial injury.

Prolonged (24-hour) Normothermic ex vivo Heart Perfusion Facilitated by Perfusate Hemofiltration

In Reply. —Every day, practicing physicians are faced with obtaining "surrogate" consent for procedures and interventions from parents of minor children, foster parents, social service workers, those with power of attorney, family members, and legal guardians who make decisions on behalf of patients who are unable to do so for themselves. We rely on these advocates for the patient to represent the patient's interests in all aspects of their medical care, including the application of new operative and medical treatment. Is there a substantial difference between obtaining informed consent from the patient's representative for standard care or for an innovative treatment? We submit that there is not: in all cases, the tenets of informed consent, including the details of the procedure and the potential risks and benefits and alternatives, must be explained thoroughly in an understandable language to a patient advocate who can represent the interest of the currently incompetent patient. Our

Ethics of Proxy Consent for Research Involving Patients With Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome-Reply

Purpose: This work focuses on the development of the Low Resistance Pediatric MLung (PAL-LR) with the goal of serving as a pumpless (pulmonary artery to left atrium) bridge-to-transplant device for small children with end-stage lung failure. Methods: The PAL-LR doubles the exposed fiber length of the Pediatric Artificial MLung. 9 PAL-LR MLungs were fabricated using polymethylpentene fibers (surface area: 0.44 m2). In vitro benchtop studies tested gas exchange and pressure drop performance (n=6). In an acute in vivo study, 3 PAL-LRs were anastomosed from the femoral vein to the jugular vein in an ovine model to assess hemocompatibility, device blood flow, pressure drop, and gas exchange. A centrifugal pump (Model 550 Bio-Console; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) was used pre-device to maintain flows of 1 L/min while sweep gas was supplied for each blood flow rate at a 1:1 sweep:blood flow ratio. Results: For in vitro tests, average rated blood flow (outlet SO2 of 95%) was 2.46±0.22 L/min with a pressure drop of 25.7±3.1 mmHg. At the targeted pediatric flow rate of 1 L/min, the PAL-LR pressure drop was 8.6 mmHg compared to 25 mmHg of the PAL. At rated flow, the average O2 and CO2 transfer rates were 101.75±10.81 and 77.93±8.40 mL/min, respectively. The average maximum O2 and CO2 exchange efficiencies are 215.75±22.93 and 176.99±8.40 mL/(min*m2), respectively. In vivo tests revealed an average outlet SO2 of 100%, and average pressure drop of 2±0 mmHg for a blood flow of 1.07±0.02 L/min. After 5 hours of extracorporeal use per lung, the platelets increased 3.54% for the first lung, and decreased 0.21% and 0.17% for the second and third lungs, respectively. Analysis revealed some clotting at the outlet and around gates, likely due to recirculation which will be mitigated in future revisions. Summary: Having a lower resistance, the PAL-LR is a promising step closer to a pumpless artificial membrane lung that alleviates right ventricular strain associated with idiopathic pulmonary hypertension. 

BIO7: PAL-LR: a Reduced Resistance, Concentric-Gated Artificial Membrane Lung for Pediatric End-Stage Lung Failure

Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:1435-1441 Ohye, Robert H. Bartlett and Thomas J. Kulik Nikoleta S. Kolovos, Susan L. Bratton, Frank W. Moler, Edward L. Bove, Richard G.cardiac surgery Outcome of pediatric patients treated with extracorporeal life support afterhttp://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/1435 located on the World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is

Robert H. Bartlett

Papers

Prolonged extracorporeal circulation.

Prolonged (24-hour) Normothermic ex vivo Heart Perfusion Facilitated by Perfusate Hemofiltration

Ethics of Proxy Consent for Research Involving Patients With Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome-Reply

BIO7: PAL-LR: a Reduced Resistance, Concentric-Gated Artificial Membrane Lung for Pediatric End-Stage Lung Failure

cardiac surgery Outcome of pediatric patients treated with extracorporeal life support after