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 “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.”Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1trp1tl9am.pdf

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

Background Both balanced crystalloids and saline are used for intravenous fluid administration in critically ill adults, but it is not known which results in better clinical outcomes. Methods In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial conducted in five intensive care units at an academic center, we assigned 15,802 adults to receive saline (0.9% sodium chloride) or balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s solution or Plasma-Lyte A) according to the randomization of the unit to which they were admitted. The primary outcome was a major adverse kidney event within 30 days — a composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (defined as an elevation of the creatinine level to ≥200% of baseline) — all censored at hospital discharge or 30 days, whichever occurred first. Results Among the 7942 patients in the balanced-crystalloids group, 1139 (14.3%) had a major adverse kidney event, as compared with 1211 of 7860 patients (15.4%) in the s...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1711584

Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021.

Fluid resuscitation, along with the early administration of antibiotics, is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with sepsis. However, whether differences in resuscitation fluids impact on the requirements for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remains unclear. To examine this issue, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), including direct and indirect comparisons, that addressed the effect of different resuscitation fluids on the use of RRT in patients with sepsis. The data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register were searched up to March 2014. Eligible studies included randomized trials reported in any language that enrolled adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and addressed the use of RRT associated with alternative resuscitation fluids. The risk of bias for individual studies and the overall certainty of the evidence were assessed. Ten studies (6664 patients) that included a total of nine direct comparisons were assessed. NMA at the four-node level showed that an increased risk of receiving RRT was associated with fluid resuscitation with starch versus crystalloid [odds ratio (OR) 1.39, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.17-1.66, high certainty]. The data suggested no difference between fluid resuscitation with albumin and crystalloid (OR 1.04, 95% CrI 0.78-1.38, moderate certainty) or starch (OR 0.74, 95% CrI 0.53-1.04, low certainty). NMA at the six-node level showed a decreased risk of receiving RRT with balanced crystalloid compared to heavy starch (OR 0.50, 95% CrI 0.34-0.74, moderate certainty) or light starch (OR 0.70, 95% CrI 0.49-0.99, high certainty). There was no significant difference between balanced crystalloid and saline (OR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.56-1.30, low certainty) or albumin (OR 0.82, 95% CrI 0.49-1.37, low certainty). Of note, these trials vary in terms of case mix, fluids evaluated, duration of fluid exposure and risk of bias. Imprecise estimates contributed to low confidence in most estimates of effect. Among the patients with sepsis, fluid resuscitation with crystalloids compared to starch resulted in reduced use of RRT; the same may be true for albumin versus starch.

W. Ip

Papers

Fluid type and the use of renal replacement therapy in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis