2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference
TL;DR: 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.
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.
Citations
More filters
University College London1, The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research2, University of Pittsburgh3, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust4, Monash University5, Vanderbilt University6, Emory University7, Washington University in St. Louis8, Brown University9, University of Toronto10, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre11
TL;DR: The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant and 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 sepsi or at risk of developing sepsic shock.
Abstract: 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.
14,699 citations
Cooper University Hospital1, St George's Hospital2, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island3, Emory University4, University of Colorado Denver5, McMaster University6, Washington University in St. Louis7, University of Chicago8, University of Jena9, Rush University Medical Center10, University of Pittsburgh11, University of Pennsylvania12, Federal University of São Paulo13, University of Toronto14, Royal Perth Hospital15, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust16, Université libre de Bruxelles17
TL;DR: An update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008 is provided.
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
9,137 citations
St George's Hospital1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Hebron University6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University Hospital8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Pittsburgh11, Saint Thomas - West Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Cooper University Hospital17, University of Mississippi Medical Center18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Federal University of São Paulo21, Regions Hospital22, St. Michael's Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Ottawa Hospital25, University of Sydney26, Mount Sinai Hospital27, University of New South Wales28, Fujita Health University29, Christiana Care Health System30, Stanford University31, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology32, University of Kansas33, Harvard University34, California Pacific Medical Center35, University of Amsterdam36, Houston Methodist Hospital37
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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.
4,303 citations
Additional excerpts
...このガイドラインが作成されるに際して、敗血症および敗血症 性ショックの新たな定義(Sepsis-3)が公表された。現在、敗血症と は感染に対する宿主の反応が制御されず、致死的な臓器不全を起 こすものと定義されている。敗血症性ショックは敗血症の一型で あり、循環および細胞・代謝の不全を伴い、高い死亡率と関連して いるものである(3)。またSepsis-3の定義は、新しい定義を臨床的に 運用する基準を提供した。しかし、このガイドラインの作成に用い られたエビデンスは、1991 から2001年におけるコンセン スに よる記述に基づいた、過去の 重症敗血症、および敗血症性 ショックの定義によって分類された患者群によるものである(7)。...
[...]
...このガイドラインが作成されるに際して、敗血症および敗血症 性ショックの新たな定義(Sepsis-3)が公表された。現在、敗血症と は感染に対する宿主の反応が制御されず、致死的な臓器不全を起 こすものと定義されている。敗血症性ショックは敗血症の一型で あり、循環および細胞・代謝の不全を伴い、高い死亡率と関連して いるものである(3)。またSepsis-3の定義は、新しい定義を臨床的に 運用する基準を提供した。しかし、このガイドラインの作成に用い られたエビデンスは、1991年から2001年におけるコンセンサスに よる記述に基づいた、過去の敗血症、重症敗血症、および敗血症性 ショックの定義によって分類された患者群によるものである(7)。...
[...]
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, the GRADE system was used to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations.
Abstract: 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. Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation [1] indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations [2] indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7–10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7–9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
3,824 citations
Cites background from "2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS Intern..."
...Sepsis is defined as infection plus systemic manifestations of infection (Table 1) (12)....
[...]
TL;DR: The current criteria used to define SIRS and sepsis in adults were modified to incorporate pediatric physiologic variables appropriate for the following subcategories of children: newborn, neonate, infant, child, and adolescent.
Abstract: Objective: Although general definitions of the sepsis continuum have been published for adults, no such work has been done for the pediatric population. Physiologic and laboratory variables used to define the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and organ dysfunction require modification for the developmental stages of children. An international panel of 20 experts in sepsis and clinical research from five countries (Canada, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States) was convened to modify the published adult consensus definitions of infection, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction for children. Design: Consensus conference. Methods: This document describes the issues surrounding consensus on four major questions addressed at the meeting: a) How should the pediatric age groups affected by sepsis be delineated? b) What are the specific definitions of pediatric SIRS, infection, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock? c) What are the specific definitions of pediatric organ failure and the validity of pediatric organ failure scores? d) What are the appropriate study populations and study end points required to successfully conduct clinical trials in pediatric sepsis? Five subgroups first met separately and then together to evaluate the following areas: signs and symptoms of sepsis, cell markers, cytokines, microbiological data, and coagulation variables. All conference participants approved the final draft of the proceedings of the meeting. Results: Conference attendees modified the current criteria used to define SIRS and sepsis in adults to incorporate pediatric physiologic variables appropriate for the following subcategories of children: newborn, neonate, infant, child, and adolescent. In addition, the SIRS definition was modified so that either criteria for fever or white blood count had to be met. We also defined various organ dysfunction categories, severe sepsis, and septic shock specifically for children. Although no firm conclusion was made regarding a single appropriate study end point, a novel nonmortality end point, organ failure-free days, was considered optimal for pediatric clinical trials given the relatively low incidence of mortality in pediatric sepsis compared with adult populations. Conclusion: We modified the adult SIRS criteria for children. In addition, we revised definitions of severe sepsis and septic shock for the pediatric population. Our goal is for these first-generation pediatric definitions and criteria to facilitate the performance of successful clinical studies in children with sepsis. (Pediatr Crit Care Med 2005; 6:2‐8)
2,997 citations
Cites background from "2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS Intern..."
...With the exception of certain pediatric-specific diagnostic criteria for sepsis introduced in the 2001 Consensus Conference report, little guidance or consensus exists in the literature for the definition of pediatric systemic inflammatory response (SIRS) with infection, more generally termed pediatric sepsis....
[...]
...Members of the International Consensus Conference Panel included: Gordon Bernard, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. John Bradley, MD, Children’s Hospital, San Diego, CA. Richard Brilli, MD, Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH....
[...]
...During the conference the following was reviewed by all participants: the first adult consensus conference on sepsis (1, 2), current available definitions of pediatric SIRS and sepsis (9, 10), organ dysfunction scoring systems used in adults (11–14) and pediatrics (15–18), a review of the bactericidal/ permeability-increasing protein (rBPI21) phase III trials in meningococcemia (19, 20), and a review of the Food and Drug Administration guidance for pediatric trials (21)....
[...]
...This definition was upheld in the recent 2001 Consensus Conference (2)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: An American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference was held in Northbrook in August 1991 with the goal of agreeing on a set of definitions that could be applied to patients with sepsis and its sequelae as mentioned in this paper.
12,583 citations
TL;DR: The ESICM developed a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients.
Abstract: Multiple organ failure (MOF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortali ty in the critically ill patient. Emerging in the 1970s, the concept of MOF was linked to modern developments in intensive care medicine [1]. Although an uncontrolled infection can lead to MOF [2], such a phenomenon is not always found. A number of mediators and the persistence of tissue hypoxia have been incriminated in the development of MOF [3]. The gut has been cited as a possible \"moto r \" of MOF [4]. Nevertheless, our knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of MOF remains limited. Furthermore, the development of new therapeutic interventions aiming at a reduction of the incidence and severity of organ failure calls for a better definition of the severity of organ dysfunction/failure to quantify the severity of illness. Accordingly, it is important to set some simple but objective criteria to define the degree of organ dysfunction/failure. The evolution of our knowledge of organ dysfunction/failure led us to establish several principles: 1. Organ dysfunction/failure is a process rather than an event. Hence, it should be seen as a continuum and should not be described simply as \"present\" or \"absent~' Hence, the assessment should be based on a scale. 2. The time factor is fundamental for several reasons: (a) Development and similarly resolution of organ failure may take some time. Patients dying early may not have time to develop organ dysfunction/failure. (b) The time course of organ dysfunction/failure can be mult imodal during a complex clinical course, what is sometimes referred to as a \"multiple-hit\" scenario. (c) Time evaluation allows a greater understanding of the disease process as a natural process or under the influence of therapeutic interventions. The collection of data on a daily basis seems adequate. 3. The evaluation of organ dysfunction/failure should be based on a limited number of simple but objective variables that are easily and routinely measured in every institution. The collection of this information should not impose any intervention beyond what is routinely performed in every ICU. The variables used should as much as possible be independent of therapy, since therapeutic management may vary from one institution to another and even from one patient to another (Table 1). Until recently, none of the existing systems describing organ failure met these criteria, since they were based on categorial definitions or described organ failure as present or absent [5-7] . The ESICM organized a consensus meeting in Paris in October 1994 to create a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients (Fig. 1). There are two major applications of such a SOFA score: 1. To improve our Understanding of the natural history of organ dysfunction/failure and the interrelation between the failure of the various organs.
8,538 citations
TL;DR: Severe sepsis is a common, expensive, and frequently fatal condition, with as many deaths annually as those from acute myocardial infarction, and is especially common in the elderly and is likely to increase substantially as the U.S. population ages.
Abstract: ObjectiveTo determine the incidence, cost, and outcome of severe sepsis in the United States.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingAll nonfederal hospitals (n = 847) in seven U.S. states.PatientsAll patients (n = 192,980) meeting criteria for severe sepsis based on the International Classification
7,888 citations
"2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS Intern..." refers background in this paper
...Approximately 150,000 persons die annually in Europe and more than 200,000 in the United States [18]....
[...]
TL;DR: This phase 3 trial assessed whether treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated reduced the rate of death from any cause among patients with severe sepsis.
Abstract: Background Drotrecogin alfa (activated), or recombinant human activated protein C, has antithrombotic, antiinflammatory, and profibrinolytic properties. In a previous study, drotrecogin alfa activated produced dose-dependent reductions in the levels of markers of coagulation and inflammation in patients with severe sepsis. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed whether treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated reduced the rate of death from any cause among patients with severe sepsis. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Patients with systemic inflammation and organ failure due to acute infection were enrolled and assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of either placebo or drotrecogin alfa activated (24 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) for a total duration of 96 hours. The prospectively defined primary end point was death from any cause and was assessed 28 days after the start of the infusion. Patients were monitored for adverse events; changes i...
5,330 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors defined the definition of MI and established the following criteria for acute, evolving or recent MI: 1) Typical rise and gradual fall (troponin) or more rapid rise and fall (CK-MB) of biochemical markers of myocardial necrosis with at least one of the following: a) ischemic symptoms; b) development of pathologic Qwaves on the ECG; c) ECG changes indicative of ischemia (ST segment elevation or depression); or d) coronary artery intervention (e.g., coronary ang
4,427 citations