Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island

About: Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island is a healthcare organization based out in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 595 authors who have published 871 publications receiving 66981 citations.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012.

Abstract: 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

Abstract: 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.

2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference

Abstract: Objective: In 1991, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) convened a "Consensus Conference", the goals of which were to provide a conceptual and a practical framework to define the systemic inflammatory response to infection, which is a progressive inju- rious process that falls under the gen- eralized term 'sepsis' and includes sepsis-associated organ dysfunction as well. The general definitions intro- duced as a result of that conference have been widely used in practice, and have served as the foundation for in- clusion criteria for numerous clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, there has been an impe- tus from experts in the field to modify these definitions to reflect our current understanding of the pathophysiology of these syndromes. Design: Several North American and European inten- sive care societies agreed to revisit the definitions for sepsis and related con- ditions. This conference was spon- sored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), The European So-

2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference

Abstract: In 1991, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) convened a "Consensus Conference," the goals of which were to "provide a conceptual and a practical framework to define the systemic inflammatory response to infection, which is a progressive injurious process that falls under the generalized term 'sepsis' and includes sepsis-associated organ dysfunction as well. The general definitions introduced as a result of that conference have been widely used in practice, and have served as the foundation for inclusion criteria for numerous clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, there has been an impetus from experts in the field to modify these definitions to reflect our current understanding of the pathophysiology of these syndromes. Several North American and European intensive care societies agreed to revisit the definitions for sepsis and related conditions. This conference was sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Surgical Infection Society (SIS). 29 participants attended the conference from Europe and North America. In advance of the conference, subgroups were formed to evaluate the following areas: signs and symptoms of sepsis, cell markers, cytokines, microbiologic data, and coagulation parameters.. The present manuscript serves as the final report of the 2001 International Sepsis Definitions Conference. 1. Current concepts of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock remain useful to clinicians and researchers. 2. These definitions do not allow precise staging or prognostication of the host response to infection. 3. While SIRS remains a useful concept, the diagnostic criteria for SIRS published in 1992 are overly sensitive and non-specific. 4. An expanded list of signs and symptoms of sepsis may better reflect the clinical response to infection. 6. PIRO, a hypothetical model for staging sepsis is presented, which, in the future, may better characterize the syndrome on the basis of predisposing factors and premorbid conditions, the nature of the underlying infection, the characteristics of the host response, and the extent of the resultant organ dysfunction.

High-Dose Antithrombin III in Severe Sepsis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract: ContextActivation of the coagulation system and depletion of endogenous anticoagulants are frequently found in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Diffuse microthrombus formation may induce organ dysfunction and lead to excess mortality in septic shock. Antithrombin III may provide protection from multiorgan failure and improve survival in severely ill patients.ObjectiveTo determine if high-dose antithrombin III (administered within 6 hours of onset) would provide a survival advantage in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.Design and SettingDouble-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 clinical trial in patients with severe sepsis (the KyberSept Trial) was conducted from March 1997 through January 2000.PatientsA total of 2314 adult patients were randomized into 2 equal groups of 1157 to receive either intravenous antithrombin III (30 000 IU in total over 4 days) or a placebo (1% human albumin).Main Outcome MeasureAll-cause mortality 28 days after initiation of study medication.ResultsOverall mortality at 28 days in the antithrombin III treatment group was 38.9% vs 38.7% in the placebo group (P = .94). Secondary end points, including mortality at 56 and 90 days and survival time in the intensive care unit, did not differ between the antithrombin III and placebo groups. In the subgroup of patients who did not receive concomitant heparin during the 4-day treatment phase (n = 698), the 28-day mortality was nonsignificantly lower in the antithrombin III group (37.8%) than in the placebo group (43.6%) (P = .08). This trend became significant after 90 days (n = 686; 44.9% for antithrombin III group vs 52.5% for placebo group; P = .03). In patients receiving antithrombin III and concomitant heparin, a significantly increased bleeding incidence was observed (23.8% for antithrombin III group vs 13.5% for placebo group; P<.001).ConclusionsHigh-dose antithrombin III therapy had no effect on 28-day all-cause mortality in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock when administered within 6 hours after the onset. High-dose antithrombin III was associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage when administered with heparin. There was some evidence to suggest a treatment benefit of antithrombin III in the subgroup of patients not receiving concomitant heparin.