Blog
About

915
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    12
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Objective

          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.

          Design

          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.

          Methods

          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.

          Results

          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).

          Conclusion

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 357

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

          Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock.

          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. 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. Of the 263 enrolled patients, 130 were randomly assigned to early goal-directed therapy and 133 to standard therapy; there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to base-line characteristics. In-hospital mortality was 30.5 percent in the group assigned to early goal-directed therapy, as compared with 46.5 percent in the group assigned to standard therapy (P = 0.009). During the interval from 7 to 72 hours, the patients assigned to early goal-directed therapy had a significantly higher mean (+/-SD) central venous oxygen saturation (70.4+/-10.7 percent vs. 65.3+/-11.4 percent), a lower lactate concentration (3.0+/-4.4 vs. 3.9+/-4.4 mmol per liter), a lower base deficit (2.0+/-6.6 vs. 5.1+/-6.7 mmol per liter), and a higher pH (7.40+/-0.12 vs. 7.36+/-0.12) than the patients assigned to standard therapy (P < or = 0.02 for all comparisons). During the same period, mean APACHE II scores were significantly lower, indicating less severe organ dysfunction, in the patients assigned to early goal-directed therapy than in those assigned to standard therapy (13.0+/-6.3 vs. 15.9+/-6.4, P < 0.001). Early goal-directed therapy provides significant benefits with respect to outcome in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network.

            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. 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. 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<0.001), respectively, and the mean plateau pressures were 25+/-6 and 33+/-8 cm of water (P<0.001), respectively. 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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care.

              To determine the incidence, cost, and outcome of severe sepsis in the United States. Observational cohort study. All nonfederal hospitals (n = 847) in seven U.S. states. All patients (n = 192,980) meeting criteria for severe sepsis based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. None. We linked all 1995 state hospital discharge records (n = 6,621,559) from seven large states with population and hospital data from the U.S. Census, the Centers for Disease Control, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the American Hospital Association. We defined severe sepsis as documented infection and acute organ dysfunction using criteria based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. We validated these criteria against prospective clinical and physiologic criteria in a subset of five hospitals. We generated national age- and gender-adjusted estimates of incidence, cost, and outcome. We identified 192,980 cases, yielding national estimates of 751,000 cases (3.0 cases per 1,000 population and 2.26 cases per 100 hospital discharges), of whom 383,000 (51.1%) received intensive care and an additional 130,000 (17.3%) were ventilated in an intermediate care unit or cared for in a coronary care unit. Incidence increased >100-fold with age (0.2/1,000 in children to 26.2/1,000 in those >85 yrs old). Mortality was 28.6%, or 215,000 deaths nationally, and also increased with age, from 10% in children to 38.4% in those >85 yrs old. Women had lower age-specific incidence and mortality, but the difference in mortality was explained by differences in underlying disease and the site of infection. The average costs per case were $22,100, with annual total costs of $16.7 billion nationally. Costs were higher in infants, nonsurvivors, intensive care unit patients, surgical patients, and patients with more organ failure. The incidence was projected to increase by 1.5% per annum. Severe sepsis is a common, expensive, and frequently fatal condition, with as many deaths annually as those from acute myocardial infarction. It is especially common in the elderly and is likely to increase substantially as the U.S. population ages.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cooper University Hospital, One Cooper Plaza, 393 Dorrance, 08103 Camden, NJ USA
                [2 ]Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI USA
                [3 ]Hospital Saint-Joseph, Paris, France
                [4 ]Birmingham University, Birmingham, UK
                [5 ]SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY USA
                [6 ]McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
                [7 ]Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
                [8 ]University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA USA
                [9 ]Hopital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
                [10 ]Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital Trust, London, UK
                [11 ]Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
                [12 ]French Agency for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education, Paris, France
                [13 ]Vivantes-Klinikum Neukoelln, Berlin, Germany
                [14 ]Consultants in Critical Care, Inc., Glenbrook, NV USA
                [15 ]University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN USA
                [16 ]St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario Canada
                [17 ]Università di Torino, Torino, Italy
                [18 ]West Hertfordshire Health Trust, Hemel Hempstead, UK
                [19 ]The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD USA
                [20 ]Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA USA
                [21 ]Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Evanston, IL USA
                [22 ]The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX USA
                [23 ]Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium
                Contributors
                Dellinger-Phil@CooperHealth.edu
                Journal
                Intensive Care Med
                Intensive Care Medicine
                Springer-Verlag (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0342-4642
                1432-1238
                4 December 2007
                January 2008
                : 34
                : 1
                : 17-60
                2249616
                18058085
                934
                10.1007/s00134-007-0934-2
                © Springer-Verlag 2007
                Categories
                Special Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag 2008

                Comments

                Comment on this article