Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Autonomous University of Barcelona6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, University of Toronto10, University of Pittsburgh11, St Thomas' Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Rowan University17, University of Mississippi18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul21, Federal University of São Paulo22, Regions Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, University of Ottawa25, University of Sydney26, University of New South Wales27, Fujita Health University28, University of Copenhagen29, Sapienza University of Rome30, Christiana Care Health System31, Stanford University32, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology33, University of Kansas34, Harvard University35, California Pacific Medical Center36, University of Amsterdam37, Université libre de Bruxelles38, Houston Methodist Hospital39
TL;DR: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was assembled at key international meetings (forSurviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012 as discussed by the authors ).
Abstract: 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
Citations
More filters
University of Pittsburgh1, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation2, University of Washington3, University of British Columbia4, The George Institute for Global Health5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Charité7, University of London8, Seattle Children's9, University of São Paulo10, University of Melbourne11
TL;DR: Despite declining age-standardised incidence and mortality, sepsis remains a major cause of health loss worldwide and has an especially high health-related burden in sub-Saharan Africa.
2,419 citations
TL;DR: The Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue seeks to continue to serve as a key resource that guides the utilization of TA in the treatment of human disease.
Abstract: The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating, and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Seventh Edition, like its predecessor, has consistently applied the category and grading system definitions in the fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was used since the fourth edition has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. The Seventh Edition discusses 87 fact sheets (14 new fact sheets since the Sixth Edition) for therapeutic apheresis diseases and medical conditions, with 179 indications, which are separately graded and categorized within the listed fact sheets. Several diseases that are Category IV which have been described in detail in previous editions and do not have significant new evidence since the last publication are summarized in a separate table. The Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue serves as a key resource that guides the utilization of therapeutic apheresis in the treatment of human disease. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:149-162, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1,691 citations
TL;DR: The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation, and may also serve as a basis for local implementation.
Abstract: Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial. A number of initiatives have aimed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients. This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution. The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group used a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence and observed shifts in clinical practice; new recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and updated in 2010 and 2013. The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation. Best-practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal-directed strategy. The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents continues to pose a real challenge, despite accumulating experience and awareness. The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and standardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond. This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation. Furthermore, local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome. A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome.
1,247 citations
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, Harvard University2, Emory University3, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention4, University of Pittsburgh5, University of Michigan6, National Institutes of Health7, Hospital Corporation of America8, Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine9, Washington University in St. Louis10
TL;DR: In clinical data from 409 hospitals, sepsis was present in 6% of adult hospitalizations, and in contrast to claims-based analyses, neither the incidence of sepsi nor the combined outcome of death or discharge to hospice changed significantly between 2009-2014.
Abstract: Importance Estimates from claims-based analyses suggest that the incidence of sepsis is increasing and mortality rates from sepsis are decreasing. However, estimates from claims data may lack clinical fidelity and can be affected by changing diagnosis and coding practices over time. Objective To estimate the US national incidence of sepsis and trends using detailed clinical data from the electronic health record (EHR) systems of diverse hospitals. Design, Setting, and Population Retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to 409 academic, community, and federal hospitals from 2009-2014. Exposures Sepsis was identified using clinical indicators of presumed infection and concurrent acute organ dysfunction, adapting Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria for objective and consistent EHR-based surveillance. Main Outcomes and Measures Sepsis incidence, outcomes, and trends from 2009-2014 were calculated using regression models and compared with claims-based estimates using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for severe sepsis or septic shock. Case-finding criteria were validated against Sepsis-3 criteria using medical record reviews. Results A total of 173 690 sepsis cases (mean age, 66.5 [SD, 15.5] y; 77 660 [42.4%] women) were identified using clinical criteria among 2 901 019 adults admitted to study hospitals in 2014 (6.0% incidence). Of these, 26 061 (15.0%) died in the hospital and 10 731 (6.2%) were discharged to hospice. From 2009-2014, sepsis incidence using clinical criteria was stable (+0.6% relative change/y [95% CI, −2.3% to 3.5%], P = .67) whereas incidence per claims increased (+10.3%/y [95% CI, 7.2% to 13.3%], P P = .004), but there was no significant change in the combined outcome of death or discharge to hospice (−1.3%/y [95% CI, −3.2% to 0.6%], P = .19). In contrast, mortality using claims declined significantly (−7.0%/y [95% CI, −8.8% to −5.2%], P P P P = .23). Conclusions and Relevance In clinical data from 409 hospitals, sepsis was present in 6% of adult hospitalizations, and in contrast to claims-based analyses, neither the incidence of sepsis nor the combined outcome of death or discharge to hospice changed significantly between 2009-2014. The findings also suggest that EHR-based clinical data provide more objective estimates than claims-based data for sepsis surveillance.
1,105 citations
TL;DR: Pivotal for the clinical development of new sepsis therapies is the selection of patients on the basis of biomarkers and/or functional defects that provide specific insights into the expression or activity of the therapeutic target.
Abstract: Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction that is caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. In sepsis, the immune response that is initiated by an invading pathogen fails to return to homeostasis, thus culminating in a pathological syndrome that is characterized by sustained excessive inflammation and immune suppression. Our understanding of the key mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of sepsis has increased tremendously, yet this still needs to be translated into novel targeted therapeutic strategies. Pivotal for the clinical development of new sepsis therapies is the selection of patients on the basis of biomarkers and/or functional defects that provide specific insights into the expression or activity of the therapeutic target.
996 citations
References
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
TL;DR: The advantages of the GRADE system are explored, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide and which is often praised for its high level of consistency.
Abstract: Guidelines are inconsistent in how they rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. This article explores the advantages of the GRADE system, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide
13,324 citations
TL;DR: In patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation with a lower tidal volume than is traditionally used results in decreased mortality and increases the number of days without ventilator use.
Abstract: Background Traditional approaches to mechanical ventilation use tidal volumes of 10 to 15 ml per kilogram of body weight and may cause stretch-induced lung injury in patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. We therefore conducted a trial to determine whether ventilation with lower tidal volumes would improve the clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods Patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized trial. The trial compared traditional ventilation treatment, which involved an initial tidal volume of 12 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and an airway pressure measured after a 0.5-second pause at the end of inspiration (plateau pressure) of 50 cm of water or less, with ventilation with a lower tidal volume, which involved an initial tidal volume of 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and a plateau pressure of 30 cm of water or less. The primary outcomes were death before a patient was discharged home and was breathing without assistance and the number of days without ventilator use from day 1 to day 28. Results The trial was stopped after the enrollment of 861 patients because mortality was lower in the group treated with lower tidal volumes than in the group treated with traditional tidal volumes (31.0 percent vs. 39.8 percent, P=0.007), and the number of days without ventilator use during the first 28 days after randomization was greater in this group (mean [+/-SD], 12+/-11 vs. 10+/-11; P=0.007). The mean tidal volumes on days 1 to 3 were 6.2+/-0.8 and 11.8+/-0.8 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight (P Conclusions In patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation with a lower tidal volume than is traditionally used results in decreased mortality and increases the number of days without ventilator use.
11,028 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
TL;DR: This study randomly assigned patients who arrived at an urban emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either six hours of early goal-directed therapy or standard therapy (as a control) before admission to the intensive care unit.
Abstract: Background Goal-directed therapy has been used for severe sepsis and septic shock in the intensive care unit. This approach involves adjustments of cardiac preload, afterload, and contractility to balance oxygen delivery with oxygen demand. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of early goal-directed therapy before admission to the intensive care unit. Methods We randomly assigned patients who arrived at an urban emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either six hours of early goal-directed therapy or standard therapy (as a control) before admission to the intensive care unit. Clinicians who subsequently assumed the care of the patients were blinded to the treatment assignment. In-hospital mortality (the primary efficacy outcome), end points with respect to resuscitation, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores were obtained serially for 72 hours and compared between the study groups. Results Of the 263 enrolled patients, 130 were ...
8,811 citations