+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

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

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 8 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 31 , 39 , 25 , 40 , 22 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 49 , 51 , 22

      Intensive care medicine

      Springer Nature

      Evidence-based medicine, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, Guidelines, Infection, Sepsis, Sepsis bundles, Sepsis syndrome, Septic shock, Surviving Sepsis Campaign

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012".

          Related collections

          Most cited references 447

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america.

          This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

            In patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome, massive alveolar collapse and cyclic lung reopening and overdistention during mechanical ventilation may perpetuate alveolar injury. We determined whether a ventilatory strategy designed to minimize such lung injuries could reduce not only pulmonary complications but also mortality at 28 days in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. We randomly assigned 53 patients with early acute respiratory distress syndrome (including 28 described previously), all of whom were receiving identical hemodynamic and general support, to conventional or protective mechanical ventilation. Conventional ventilation was based on the strategy of maintaining the lowest positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acceptable oxygenation, with a tidal volume of 12 ml per kilogram of body weight and normal arterial carbon dioxide levels (35 to 38 mm Hg). Protective ventilation involved end-expiratory pressures above the lower inflection point on the static pressure-volume curve, a tidal volume of less than 6 ml per kilogram, driving pressures of less than 20 cm of water above the PEEP value, permissive hypercapnia, and preferential use of pressure-limited ventilatory modes. After 28 days, 11 of 29 patients (38 percent) in the protective-ventilation group had died, as compared with 17 of 24 (71 percent) in the conventional-ventilation group (P<0.001). The rates of weaning from mechanical ventilation were 66 percent in the protective-ventilation group and 29 percent in the conventional-ventilation group (P=0.005): the rates of clinical barotrauma were 7 percent and 42 percent, respectively (P=0.02), despite the use of higher PEEP and mean airway pressures in the protective-ventilation group. The difference in survival to hospital discharge was not significant; 13 of 29 patients (45 percent) in the protective-ventilation group died in the hospital, as compared with 17 of 24 in the conventional-ventilation group (71 percent, P=0.37). As compared with conventional ventilation, the protective strategy was associated with improved survival at 28 days, a higher rate of weaning from mechanical ventilation, and a lower rate of barotrauma in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Protective ventilation was not associated with a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial.

              Approaches to removal of sedation and mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients vary widely. Our aim was to assess a protocol that paired spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)-ie, daily interruption of sedatives-with spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). In four tertiary-care hospitals, we randomly assigned 336 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care to management with a daily SAT followed by an SBT (intervention group; n=168) or with sedation per usual care plus a daily SBT (control group; n=168). The primary endpoint was time breathing without assistance. Data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097630. One patient in the intervention group did not begin their assigned treatment protocol because of withdrawal of consent and thus was excluded from analyses and lost to follow-up. Seven patients in the control group discontinued their assigned protocol, and two of these patients were lost to follow-up. Patients in the intervention group spent more days breathing without assistance during the 28-day study period than did those in the control group (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.7 to 5.6; p=0.02) and were discharged from intensive care (median time in intensive care 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; p=0.01) and the hospital earlier (median time in the hospital 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; p=0.04). More patients in the intervention group self-extubated than in the control group (16 patients vs six patients; 6.0% difference, 95% CI 0.6% to 11.8%; p=0.03), but the number of patients who required reintubation after self-extubation was similar (five patients vs three patients; 1.2% difference, 95% CI -5.2% to 2.5%; p=0.47), as were total reintubation rates (13.8%vs 12.5%; 1.3% difference, 95% CI -8.6% to 6.1%; p=0.73). At any instant during the year after enrolment, patients in the intervention group were less likely to die than were patients in the control group (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; p=0.01). For every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5). Our results suggest that a wake up and breathe protocol that pairs daily spontaneous awakening trials (ie, interruption of sedatives) with daily spontaneous breathing trials results in better outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care than current standard approaches and should become routine practice.

                Author and article information

                Intensive Care Med
                Intensive care medicine
                Springer Nature
                Mar 2017
                : 43
                : 3
                [1 ] St. George's Hospital, London, England, UK. andrewrhodes@nhs.net.
                [2 ] New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
                [3 ] McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
                [4 ] Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI, USA.
                [5 ] Instituto di Anestesiologia e Rianimazione, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
                [6 ] Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
                [7 ] University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
                [8 ] Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
                [9 ] Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
                [10 ] Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
                [11 ] University of Pittsburgh Critical Care Medicine CRISMA Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
                [12 ] Hospital Raymond Poincare, Garches, France.
                [13 ] Saint Thomas Hospital, London, England, UK.
                [14 ] University College London Hospitals, London, England, UK.
                [15 ] Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
                [16 ] Service de Reanimation Medicale, Paris, France.
                [17 ] CHIREC Hospitals, Braine L'Alleud, Belgium.
                [18 ] Western Hospital, Victoria, Australia.
                [19 ] Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
                [20 ] Vivantes-Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin, Germany.
                [21 ] Karl Heusner Memorial Hospital, Belize Healthcare Partners, Belize City, Belize.
                [22 ] Cooper Health System, Camden, NJ, USA.
                [23 ] University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
                [24 ] Jupiter Hospital, Thane, India.
                [25 ] Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
                [26 ] ASAN Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
                [27 ] Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
                [28 ] Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
                [29 ] Regions Hospital, St. Paul, MN, USA.
                [30 ] Saint Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
                [31 ] Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
                [32 ] Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
                [33 ] Nepean Hospital, University of Sydney, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
                [34 ] Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
                [35 ] UCINC, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal.
                [36 ] University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
                [37 ] Università dellla Magna Graecia, Catanzaro, Italy.
                [38 ] Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aich, Japan.
                [39 ] Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
                [40 ] Università Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
                [41 ] Christiana Care Health Services, Newark, DE, USA.
                [42 ] University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
                [43 ] Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
                [44 ] Kaust Medical Services, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.
                [45 ] University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
                [46 ] Wolfson Institute of Biomedical Research, London, England, UK.
                [47 ] Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
                [48 ] California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
                [49 ] University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
                [50 ] Erasmé University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
                [51 ] Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.


                Comment on this article