Practice parameters for hemodynamic support of sepsis in adult patients: 2004 update

Vasopressor Use for Severe Hypotension-A Multicentre Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach to titrate vasopressor therapy is unclear. Recent sepsis guidelines recommend a mean arterial pressure (MAP) target of 65 mmHg and higher for chronic hypertensive patients. As data emerge from clinical trials comparing blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy, an accurate description of usual care is required to interpret study results. Our aim was to measure MAP values during vasopressor therapy in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) and to compare these with stated practices and guidelines.

METHOD

In a multicenter prospective cohort study of critically ill adults with severe hypotension, we recorded MAP and vasopressor doses hourly. We investigated variability across patients and centres using multivariable regression models and Analysis of variance (ANOVA), respectively.

RESULTS

We included data from 56 patients treated in 6 centers. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score were 64 (14) and 25 (8). Half (28 of 56) of the patients were at least 65 years old, and half had chronic hypertension. The patient-averaged MAP while receiving vasopressors was 75 mm Hg (6) and the median (1st quartile, 3rd quartile) duration of vasopressor therapy was 43 hours (23, 84). MAP achieved was not associated with history of underlying hypertension (p = 0.46) but did vary by center (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter, prospective observational study, the patient-level average MAP while receiving vasopressors for severe hypotension was 75 mmHg, approximately 10 mmHg above current recommendations and stated practices. Moreover, our results do not support the notion that clinicians tailor vasopressor therapy to individual patient characteristics such as underlying chronic hypertension but MAP achieved while receiving vasopressors varied by site.

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

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 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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?

Fluid resuscitation continues to be recommended as the first-line resuscitative therapy for all patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The current acceptance of the therapy is based in part on long history and familiarity with its use in the resuscitation of other forms of shock, as well as on an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis. Recently, the safety of intravenous fluids in patients with sepsis has been called into question with both prospective and observational data suggesting improved outcomes with less fluid or no fluid. The current evidence for the continued use of fluid resuscitation for sepsis remains contentious with no prospective evidence demonstrating benefit to fluid resuscitation as a therapy in isolation. This article reviews the historical and physiological rationale for the introduction of fluid resuscitation as treatment for sepsis and highlights a number of significant concerns based on current experimental and clinical evidence. The research agenda should focus on the development of hyperdynamic animal sepsis models which more closely mimic human sepsis and on experimental and clinical studies designed to evaluate minimal or no fluid strategies in the resuscitation phase of sepsis.

Sepsis and Septic Shock: Lingering Questions

Sepsis and septic shock are major health conditions in the United States, with a high incidence and mortality. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign, which was formed in 2002, formulates guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock and has actually demonstrated a reduction in mortality with institution of "sepsis bundles." Despite this, some elements of the guidelines have been questioned, and recent data suggest that strict compliance with bundles and protocols may not be necessary. Still, prompt recognition and treatment of sepsis and septic shock remain of utmost importance.

Combining an antiviral with rituximab in EBV-related haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis led to rapid viral clearance; and a comprehensive review

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-related haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (EBVr-HLH) has a better prognosis when the virus is rapidly cleared, but the best antiviral approach is controversial. We present a patient to whom the therapeutic standard rituximab was co-administered with valacyclovir and an HLH-specific treatment with favourable viral and clinical responses. We conducted an extensive literature review and contacted several world reference centres and experts to inquire about their approaches and experience. We conclude that antivirals are infrequently used for EBVr-HLH, despite their laboratory-proven and likely clinical beneficial effect on some EBV-related diseases. However, the role of antivirals remains obscure. Concerns about their lack of efficacy are based on observational data and reports of the cellular tropism of EBV. Therefore, the adjunct use of antivirals may be considered when myelotoxicity is not the primary concern, and related outcomes should be systematically recorded to produce higher quality evidence.

Thromboembolic Events During Continuous Vasopressin Infusions: A Retrospective Evaluation

Background:

Published guidelines suggest that vasopressin has a role in shock treatment, although its safety has not been adequately evaluated in a clinical setting. Vasopressin causes platelet aggregation and has been associated with the release of factor VIII coagulant and von Willebrand factor.

Objective:

To compare the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with a diagnosis of shock who received vasopressin with those who did not receive vasopressin for hemodynamic support.

Methods:

A retrospective, single-center, cohort study was conducted at an academic, tertiary care center with 350 patients with a diagnosis of shock. Patients from the intensive care unit were randomly selected and separated into 2 groups for comparison of those receiving only catecholamines with those receiving vasopressin with or without catecholamines for hypotension. Patients with diabetes insipidus or variceal hemorrhage and those with any documented history of VTE were excluded. The primary outcome, VTE occurrence, was defined as a positive Doppler ultrasound, spiral computed tomography, or documented diagnosis in the discharge records. Frequency and type of risk factors for VTE were compared between the 2 study arms. A risk factor modeling approach was performed, using logistic regression to identify potential confounders and effect modifiers in the relationship between vasopressin and VTE.

Results:

There were 175 patients in each arm of the study. The crude incidence of VTE was 7.4% and 8% in the vasopressin and catecholamine groups, respectively (p = 0.84). No significant difference in the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (vasopressin 5.1%, control 7.4%; p = 0.51) or pulmonary embolism (vasopressin 2.3%, control 0.6%; p = 0.37) was found between groups. After adjusting for covariates, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of VTE between the 2 arms (p = 0.72).

Conclusions:

This investigation provides initial evidence that vasopressin infusions do not increase the risk of VTE in patients with shock.

The Use of Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Sepsis Patients: A Literature Review

This article was to review the literature regarding the use of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in the management of patients with sepsis and septic shock. A PubMed search was conducted in order to identify publications evaluating the use of PAC as a tool for management and therapeutic guidance in patients with sepsis. The bibliographies of all identified publications were reviewed for additional relevant references. Much information is identified in the literature regarding the indications for pulmonary artery catheterization in the assessment and treatment of patients with sepsis. Although the PAC has been widely used for many years, there is no clear benefit with regard to outcome, and there is controversy regarding its use. It is not clear that use of the PAC contributes to reduced morbidity and mortality in patients with sepsis. The role of the PAC is becoming less clear, as newer, non-invasive techniques are developed for hemodynamic assessment of sepsis patients. Large, well-designed clinical trials are needed to better assess the role and potential benefit from use of the PAC in sepsis.

Pulse pressure variation shows a direct linear correlation with tidal volume in anesthetized healthy patients

Background

The settings of mechanical ventilation, like tidal volume (VT), occasionally need to be adjusted in the process of anesthesia for some special reasons. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the relationship between pulse pressure variations (PPVs) in different settings of VT in anesthetized healthy patients under mechanical ventilation.

Methods

Sixty nine ASA I-II patients scheduled for gastrointestinal surgery under general anesthesia were included in this prospective study. All the patients were ventilated at a VT of 6, 8 or 10 ml/kg (predicted body weight) with no positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) in a random order after intubation. PPV, mean arterial blood pressure, and other hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were recorded in each VT setting respectively after Partial Pressure of End-Tidal Expiration Carbon Dioxide (PetCO₂) maintained between 30 mmHg and 40 mmHg by changing Respiratory Rate (RR) before incision.

Results

The values of PPV at different settings of VT showed a tight correlation between each other (6 vs. 8 ml/kg: r = 0.97, P < 0.0001; 6 vs.10 ml/kg: r = 0.95, P < 0.0001; 8 vs. 10 ml/kg: r = 0.98, P < 0.0001, respectively).

Conclusion

There is a direct linear correlation between PPVs at different tidal volumes in anesthetized ASA I-II patients. PPV in any of the 3 VT settings (6, 8 or 10 ml/kg) can deduce that in any other 2 settings. Further studies are needed to explore the effect of intraoperative confounders for this knowledge to be clinically applied.

Trial registration

NCT01950949, www.clinicaltrials.gov, July 26, 2013.

Clinical Utility of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Early Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) has diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic utility in critically ill patients. For severe sepsis and septic shock patients in particular, similar clinical utility from the most proximal aspects of hospital presentation to the intensive care unit has not been examined. BNP levels were measured at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 hours in 252 patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock. The clinicians were blinded to the BNP levels. Elevated BNP levels (>100 pg/mL) were seen in 42% and 69% of patients on presentation and at 24 hours, respectively. Elevated BNP ranges (>230 pg/mL) were significantly associated with myocardial dysfunction and severity of global tissue hypoxia. When adjusted for age, gender, history of heart failure, renal function, organ dysfunction, and mean arterial pressure, a BNP greater than 210 pg/mL at 24 hours was the most significant independent indicator of increased mortality: odds ratio 1.061 (1.026-1.097), P < .001, 95% confidence interval. Patients with severe sepsis and septic shock often have elevated BNP levels, which are significantly associated with organ and myocardial dysfunction, global tissue hypoxia, and mortality. Serial BNP levels may be a useful adjunct in the early detection, stratification, treatment, and prognostication of high-risk patients.

Current Concepts in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock

Sepsis is a frequent cause of presentation to the emergency department (ED). Early identification and aggressive management in the ED is paramount to improving morbidity and mortality associated with sepsis. As a result, pharmacists in the ED should be familiar with and assist with the optimization of therapy for sepsis in this patient population. This article will discuss the epidemiology and economic impact of sepsis and the definitions, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of sepsis and its related syndromes. In addition, the authors will discuss the elements related to treatment of sepsis from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines that are particularly germane to the management of sepsis in the ED. Direct support such as source control, early broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, hemodynamic assessment, and continuous monitoring are essential. In addition, early aggressive fluid resuscitation with titration of therapy to mixed venous oxygen saturation >70%, tight glycemic control and choice of vasopressors and inotropes have been shown to decrease mortality in sepsis. Mechanical ventilation with low tidal volumes, renal replacement therapies, early enteral nutritional support, and stress ulcer prophylaxis are also important considerations in septic patients. Controversies in therapy such as the utility of drotrecogin α activated, low-dose corticosteroids, and vasopressin are also discussed.

Practice of hemodynamic monitoring and management in German, Austrian, and Swiss intensive care units: the multicenter cross-sectional ICU-CardioMan Study

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic instability is frequent and outcome-relevant in critical illness. The understanding of complex hemodynamic disturbances and their monitoring and management plays an important role in treatment of intensive care patients. An increasing number of treatment recommendations and guidelines in intensive care medicine emphasize hemodynamic goals, which go beyond the measurement of blood pressures. Yet, it is not known to which extent the infrastructural prerequisites for extended hemodynamic monitoring are given in intensive care units (ICUs) and how hemodynamic management is performed in clinical practice. Further, it is still unclear which factors trigger the use of extended hemodynamic monitoring.

METHODS

In this multicenter, 1-day (November 7, 2013, and the preceding 24 h) cross-sectional study, we retrieved data on patient monitoring from ICUs in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland by means of a web-based case report form. One hundred and sixty-one intensive care units contributed detailed information on availability of hemodynamic monitoring. In addition, detailed information on hemodynamic monitoring of 1789 patients that were treated on due date was collected, and independent factors triggering the use of extended hemodynamic monitoring were identified by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Besides basic monitoring with electrocardiography (ECG), pulse oximetry, and blood pressure monitoring, the majority of patients received invasive arterial (77.9 %) and central venous catheterization (55.2 %). All over, additional extended hemodynamic monitoring for assessment of cardiac output was only performed in 12.3 % of patients, while echocardiographic examination was used in only 1.9 %. The strongest independent predictors for the use of extended hemodynamic monitoring of any kind were mechanical ventilation, the need for catecholamine therapy, and treatment backed by protocols. In 71.6 % of patients in whom extended hemodynamic monitoring was added during the study period, this extension led to changes in treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended hemodynamic monitoring, which goes beyond the measurement of blood pressures, to date plays a minor role in the surveillance of critically ill patients in German, Austrian, and Swiss ICUs. This includes also consensus-based recommended diagnostic and monitoring applications, such as echocardiography and cardiac output monitoring. Mechanical ventilation, the use of catecholamines, and treatment backed by protocol could be identified as factors independently associated with higher use of extended hemodynamic monitoring.

Temporal trends in the utilization of vasopressors in intensive care units: an epidemiologic study

Background

The choice of vasopressor use in the intensive care unit (ICU) depends primarily on provider preference. This study aims to describe the rate of vasopressor utilization and the trends of each vasoactive agent usage in the ICU over the span of 7 years in a tertiary referral center.

Methods

All adult ICU admissions, including medical, cardiac, and surgical ICUs from January 1st, 2007 through December 31st, 2013 were included in this study. Vasopressor use was defined as the continuous intravenous administration of epinephrine, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, dopamine, or vasopressin within a given ICU day. The vasopressor utilization index (VUI) was defined as the proportion of ICU days on each vasoactive agent divided by the total ICU days with vasopressor usage.

Results

During the study period, 72,005 ICU admissions and 272,271 ICU days were screened. Vasopressors were used in 19,575 ICU admissions (27 %) and 59,811 ICU days (22 %). Vasopressin was used in 24,496 (41 %), epinephrine in 23,229 (39 %), norepinephrine in 20,648 (34 %), dopamine in 9449 (16 %), and phenylephrine in 7508 (13 %) ICU days. The VUI_{norepinephrine} increased from 0.24 in 2007 to 0.46 in 2013 and VUI_{phenylephrine} decreased from 0.20 in 2007 to 0.08 in 2013 (p < 0.001 both). For epinephrine, dopamine, and vasopressin VUI did not change over the course of study.

Conclusion

Vasopressors were used in about one fourth of ICU admissions and about one-fifth of ICU days. Although vasopressin is the most commonly used vasopressor, the use of norepinephrine found to have an increasing trajectory.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40360-016-0063-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Safety of peripheral administration of phenylephrine in a neurologic intensive care unit: A pilot study

Integral to the management of the neurocritically injured patient are the prevention and treatment of hypotension, maintenance of cerebral perfusion pressure, and occasionally blood pressure augmentation. When adequate volume resuscitation fails to meet perfusion needs, vasopressors are often used to restore end-organ perfusion. This has historically necessitated central venous access given well-documented incidence of extravasation injuries associated with peripheral administration of vasopressors. In this pilot study, we report our 6-month experience with peripheral administration of low-concentration phenylephrine (40 μg/mL) in our neurocritical care unit. We were able to administer peripheral phenylephrine, up to a dose of 2 μg/(kg min), for an average of 14.29hours (1-54.3) in 20 patients with only 1 possible minor complication and no major complications. This was achieved by adding additional safety measures in our computerized physician order entry system and additional nurse-driven safety protocols. Thus, with careful monitoring and safety precautions, peripheral administration of phenylephrine at an optimized concentration appears to have an acceptable safety profile for use in the neurocritical care unit up to a mean infusion time of 14hours.

Should the norepinephrine maximal dosage rate be greatly increased in late shock?

Any advanced shock eventually degenerates into vasoplegia, which responds weakly to vasopressors. The highest reported norepinephrine flow rate is 3 μg/kg/min. We present the case of a young explosion victim, who was transferred in late haemorrhagic shock. Apart from usual treatment (hydration, mass transfusion protocol), single-agent norepinephrine was used to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of >60-65 mm Hg. For several hours, norepinephrine flow was 7-10 times the aforementioned (highest reported) in order to achieve our goal; during which, further hydration or transfusion would not contribute to MAP elevation. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) severity score was 18 (expected mortality >99%). The patient survived without underperfusion-related damage. We conclude that norepinephrine dosages could potentially be greatly increased in late shock. We must resist giving up flow escalation based on its numerical value.

A rational approach to fluid therapy in sepsis

Aggressive fluid resuscitation to achieve a central venous pressure (CVP) greater than 8 mm Hg has been promoted as the standard of care, in the management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. However recent clinical trials have demonstrated that this approach does not improve the outcome of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Pathophysiologically, sepsis is characterized by vasoplegia with loss of arterial tone, venodilation with sequestration of blood in the unstressed blood compartment and changes in ventricular function with reduced compliance and reduced preload responsiveness. These data suggest that sepsis is primarily not a volume-depleted state and recent evidence demonstrates that most septic patients are poorly responsive to fluids. Furthermore, almost all of the administered fluid is sequestered in the tissues, resulting in severe oedema in vital organs and, thereby, increasing the risk of organ dysfunction. These data suggest that a physiologic, haemodynamically guided conservative approach to fluid therapy in patients with sepsis would be prudent and would likely reduce the morbidity and improve the outcome of this disease.

Vasopressors for the Treatment of Septic Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.

Results

Thirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels.

Conclusions

Evidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.

Sepsis-induced acute kidney injury revisited: pathophysiology, prevention and future therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in critically ill patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Sepsis is the most common cause of AKI. Considerable evidence now suggests that the pathogenic mechanisms of sepsis-induced AKI are different from those seen in other causes of AKI. This review focuses on the recent advances in this area and discusses possible therapeutic interventions that might derive from these new insights into the pathogenesis of sepsis-induced AKI.

RECENT FINDINGS

The traditional paradigm that sepsis-induced AKI arises from ischemia has been challenged by recent evidence that total renal blood flow in is not universally impaired during sepsis, and AKI can develop in the presence of normal or even increased renal blood flow. Animal and human studies suggest that adaptive responses of tubular epithelial cells to injurious signals are responsible for renal dysfunction. Simultaneously occurring renal inflammation and microcirculatory dysfunction further amplify these mechanisms.

SUMMARY

An understanding of the pathologic mechanisms of sepsis-induced AKI emphasizes the important role of maladaptive responses to the septic insult. Preventive and therapeutic measures should be based on counteracting these maladaptive responses of tubular epithelial cells, inflammation, and microvascular dysfunction.

Pulse Wave Transit Time Measurements of Cardiac Output in Septic Shock Patients: A Comparison of the Estimated Continuous Cardiac Output System with Transthoracic Echocardiography

Background

We determined reliability of cardiac output (CO) measured by pulse wave transit time cardiac output system (esCCO system; CO_esCCO) vs transthoracic echocardiography (CO_TTE) in mechanically ventilated patients in the early phase of septic shock. A secondary objective was to assess ability of esCCO to detect change in CO after fluid infusion.

Methods

Mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU, aged >18 years, in sinus rhythm, in the early phase of septic shock were prospectively included. We performed fluid infusion of 500ml of crystalloid solution over 20 minutes and recorded CO by EsCCO and TTE immediately before (T0) and 5 minutes after (T1) fluid administration. Patients were divided into 2 groups (responders and non-responders) according to a threshold of 15% increase in CO_TTE in response to volume expansion.

Results

In total, 25 patients were included, average 64±15 years, 15 (60%) were men. Average SAPSII and SOFA scores were 55±21.3 and 13±2, respectively. ICU mortality was 36%. Mean cardiac output at T0 was 5.8±1.35 L/min by esCCO and 5.27±1.17 L/min by CO_TTE. At T1, respective values were 6.63 ± 1.57 L/min for esCCO and 6.10±1.29 L/min for CO_TTE. Overall, 12 patients were classified as responders, 13 as non-responders by the reference method. A threshold of 11% increase in CO_esCCO was found to discriminate responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 0.46-0.95).

Conclusion

We show strong correlation esCCO and echocardiography for measuring CO, and change in CO after fluid infusion in ICU patients.

Initial Low Oxygen Extraction Ratio Is Related to Severe Organ Dysfunction and High In-Hospital Mortality in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients

BACKGROUND

In severe sepsis and septic shock, global tissue hypoxia is a key development preceding multi-organ failure and death.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to find whether the initial low oxygen extraction ratio (OER) is related to the severity of organ dysfunction and to predict the in-hospital mortality in severe sepsis or septic shock patients.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of 169 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in an emergency department. We calculated OER with 1- central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2)/arterial oxygen saturation and compared the data according to the level of OER (high > 0.3, 0.2 ≤ normal ≤ 0.3, lower < 0.2).

RESULTS

A total 133 patients were selected for analysis. OER was inversely proportional to ScvO2 (r(2) = 0.878; p < 0.001). The sepsis-related organ failure assessment score and in-hospital mortality of each group were 6.2 ± 3.7 and 37.0% for high OER, 5.7 ± 3.0 and 11.8% for normal OER, and 7.7 ± 3.9 and 41.7% for low OER, respectively (p = 0.034; p = 0.003). In patients with initial ScvO2 of >70%, in-hospital mortality of patients with low OER was significantly higher than patients with normal OER.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial low OER was associated with severe organ dysfunction that resulted in high mortality with severe sepsis and septic shock. When patients had initial ScvO2 of > 70% but abnormally low OER, their in-hospital mortality was higher than in normal OER patients. Therefore, the OER should be considered when attempting to predict the outcome of septic patients using ScvO2 at an early stage of management for sepsis.

The interface between monitoring and physiology at the bedside

Hemodynamic instability as a clinical state represents either a perfusion failure with clinical manifestations of circulatory shock or heart failure or 1 or more out-of-threshold hemodynamic monitoring values, which may not necessarily be pathologic. Different types of causes of circulatory shock require different types of treatment modalities, making these distinctions important. Diagnostic approaches or therapies based on data derived from hemodynamic monitoring assume that specific patterns of derangements reflect specific disease processes, which respond to appropriate interventions. Hemodynamic monitoring at the bedside improves patient outcomes when used to make treatment decisions at the right time for patients experiencing hemodynamic instability.

Blood transfusion practices in sepsis

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome characterised by systemic inflammation due to infection. There is a spectrum with severity ranging from sepsis to severe sepsis and septic shock. Even with optimal treatment, mortality due to severe sepsis or septic shock is significant and poses a challenge to management. Antibiotics, source control, resuscitation with fluids, vasopressor and inotropic agents are the main-stay of treatment for septic shock. These may be supplemented with transfusion of red blood cells and or blood products, in the case of anaemia to sustain sufficient oxygen delivery^[1] or to manage associated haematological issues. Transfusion in sepsis has always been a debatable issue, especially in relation to choice of the fluid and the role of blood or blood product transfusion.

FPR2/ALX activation reverses LPS-induced vascular hyporeactivity in aorta and increases survival in a pneumosepsis model

The formylpeptide receptor 2 (FPR2/ALX) is a very promiscuous receptor, utilized by lipid and protein ligands that trigger pro- or anti-inflammatory responses. FPR2/ALX expression is increased in lung tissues of septic animals and its activation has a beneficial therapeutic effect by controlling exacerbated inflammation. Although FPR2/ALX expression was observed in vascular smooth muscle cells, its role in vascular reactivity in inflammatory conditions has not been studied. In this study, we report that LPS increases FPR2/ALX expression in vascular smooth muscle cells (A7r5 cells) and aorta tissue, and that the selective agonist WKYMVm reverses LPS-induced vascular hyporeactivity in mouse aorta rings. Mice bearing pneumosepsis by Klebsiella pneumoniae and treated with WKYMVm recovered the reactivity to vasoconstrictors and the survival improved by 40%. As for the mechanisms involved, FPR2/ALX activation decreases NO production in LPS-stimulated cells and aorta, but it does not seem involve the regulation of NOS-2 expression. The molecular mechanism by which the peptide inhibits NO production still needs to be elucidated, but our data suggests an important role for NO in the WKYMVm beneficial effect observed in LPS injury and sepsis. In conclusion, our data suggest, for the first time, that a receptor, primarily described as a mediator of immune responses, may have an important role in the vascular dysfunctions observed in sepsis and may be a possible target for new therapeutic interventions.

Iatrogenic salt water drowning and the hazards of a high central venous pressure

Current teaching and guidelines suggest that aggressive fluid resuscitation is the best initial approach to the patient with hemodynamic instability. The source of this wisdom is difficult to discern, however, Early Goal Directed therapy (EGDT) as championed by Rivers et al. and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines appears to have established this as the irrefutable truth. However, over the last decade it has become clear that aggressive fluid resuscitation leading to fluid overload is associated with increased morbidity and mortality across a diverse group of patients, including patients with severe sepsis as well as elective surgical and trauma patients and those with pancreatitis. Excessive fluid administration results in increased interstitial fluid in vital organs leading to impaired renal, hepatic and cardiac function. Increased extra-vascular lung water (EVLW) is particularly lethal, leading to iatrogenic salt water drowning. EGDT and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend targeting a central venous pressure (CVP) > 8 mmHg. A CVP > 8 mmHg has been demonstrated to decrease microcirculatory flow, as well as renal blood flow and is associated with an increased risk of renal failure and death. Normal saline (0.9% salt solution) as compared to balanced electrolyte solutions is associated with a greater risk of acute kidney injury and death. This paper reviews the adverse effects of large volume resuscitation, a high CVP and the excessive use of normal saline.

Laboratory detection of sepsis: biomarkers and molecular approaches

Sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Rapid diagnosis and therapeutic interventions are desirable to improve the overall mortality in patients with sepsis. However, gold standard laboratory diagnostic methods for sepsis, pose a significant challenge to rapid diagnosis of sepsis by physicians and laboratories. This article discusses the usefulness and potential of biomarkers and molecular test methods for a more rapid clinical and laboratory diagnosis of sepsis. Because new technologies are quickly emerging, physicians and laboratories must appreciate the key factors and characteristics that affect the clinical usefulness and diagnostic accuracy of these test methodologies.

Computer versus paper system for recognition and management of sepsis in surgical intensive care

BACKGROUND

A system to provide surveillance, diagnosis, and protocolized management of surgical intensive care unit (SICU) sepsis was undertaken as a performance improvement project. A system for sepsis management was implemented for SICU patients using paper followed by a computerized system. The hypothesis was that the computerized system would be associated with improved process and outcomes.

METHODS

A system was designed to provide early recognition and guide patient-specific management of sepsis including (1) modified early warning signs-sepsis recognition score (MEWS-SRS; summative point score of ranges of vital signs, mental status, white blood cell count; after every 4 hours) by bedside nurse; (2) suspected site assessment (vascular access, lung, abdomen, urinary tract, soft tissue, other) at bedside by physician or extender; (3) sepsis management protocol (replicable, point-of-care decisions) at bedside by nurse, physician, and extender. The system was implemented first using paper and then a computerized system. Sepsis severity was defined using standard criteria.

RESULTS

In January to May 2012, a paper system was used to manage 77 consecutive sepsis encounters (3.9 ± 0.5 cases per week) in 65 patients (77% male; age, 53 ± 2 years). In June to December 2012, a computerized system was used to manage 132 consecutive sepsis encounters (4.4 ± 0.4 cases per week) in 119 patients (63% male; age, 58 ± 2 years). MEWS-SRS elicited 683 site assessments, and 201 had sepsis diagnosis and protocol management. The predominant site of infection was abdomen (paper, 58%; computer, 53%). Recognition of early sepsis tended to occur more using the computerized system (paper, 23%; computer, 35%). Hospital mortality rate for surgical ICU sepsis (paper, 20%; computer, 14%) was less with the computerized system.

CONCLUSION

A computerized sepsis management system improves care process and outcome. Early sepsis is recognized and managed with greater frequency compared with severe sepsis or septic shock. The system has a beneficial effect as a clinical standard of care for SICU patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level III.

Validation of sepsis screening tool using StO2 in emergency department patients

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a deleterious systemic response to an infection with a high incidence of morbidity and mortality, affecting more than a million patients a year in the US. The purpose of this study was to develop a screening tool for the early identification of sepsis in emergency department patients using readily available information at triage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, observational study took place at an academic tertiary referral hospital. Over a period of 10 wk, all patients who were seen at triage were screened for study enrollment. Inclusion criteria were adult (age≥18 y) nontrauma patients and exclusion criteria were prisoners and pregnant women. Using a Spot Check StO2 device to measure StO2 value, heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature, these values were used to generate a cumulative screening score indicating whether a patient may have sepsis.

RESULTS

A total of 500 patients were screened. The incidence of sepsis in the present study population was 8.4%. The screening tool yielded a sensitivity of 85.7%, a specificity of 78.4%, a positive predictive value of 26.7%, and a negative predictive value of 98.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature have good diagnostic potential for the early identification of sepsis among emergency department triage personnel. Additionally, early evidence suggests StO2 may play a complementary and synergistic role in the early identification of sepsis by triage personnel.

Treatment options for severe sepsis and septic shock

Despite significant advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock continue to be associated with high morbidity and mortality. Eradication of infection, with appropriate antibiotics and source control, remains the cornerstone of sepsis management, but does not ensure survival. Aggressive supportive care, such as fluid resuscitation, vasoactive agents or mechanical ventilation, is often required. With the exception of drotrecogin alfa, attempts to modulate the inflammatory response in sepsis have generally been unsuccessful. Early goal-directed therapy targeting adequate central venous oxygen saturation appears to improve outcome. Recently, there has been renewed interest in the use of corticosteroids, not as anti-inflammatory agents, but as replacement therapy. There is also some evidence to suggest that tight glucose control may improve outcome in these patients.

Profile of the risk of death after septic shock in the present era: an epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate mortality of ICU patients over a 3-month period after an initial episode of septic shock and to identify factors associated with mortality.

DESIGN

Prospective multicenter observational cohort study.

SETTING

Fourteen ICUs from 10 French nonacademic and university teaching hospitals.

PATIENTS

All consecutive adult patients with septic shock admitted between October 2009 and September 2011 were eligible.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Multivariable analyses were performed using a Cox proportional hazard model and a flexible extension of the Cox model. In total, 1,495 of 10,941 patients (13.7%) had septic shock and 1,488 patients (99.5%) were included. Median age was 68 years (range, 58-78 yr). The majority of admissions (84%) were medical. Median (interquartile range) Simplified Acute Physiological Score II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment were, respectively, 56 (45-70) and 11 (9-14). ICU and hospital mortality were, respectively, 39.4% and 48.6%. At 3 months, 776 patients (52.2%) had died. Factors significantly associated with increased risk of death in the multivariable Cox model were older age, male sex, comorbidities (immune deficiency, cirrhosis), Knaus C/D score, and high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Flexible analyses indicated that the impact of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was greatest early after septic shock, while the onset of the effect of age, nosocomial infection, and cirrhosis was later.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the most recent large-scale epidemiological study to investigate medium-term mortality in nonselected patients hospitalized in the ICU for septic shock. Advances in early management have improved survival at the initial phase, but risk of death persists in the medium term. Flexible modeling techniques yield insights into the profile of the risk of death in the first 3 months.

Acute kidney injury is surprisingly common and a powerful predictor of mortality in surgical sepsis

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and often catastrophic complication in hospitalized patients; however, the impact of AKI in surgical sepsis remains unknown. We used Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End stage (RIFLE) consensus criteria to define the incidence of AKI in surgical sepsis and characterize the impact of AKI on patient morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

Our prospective, institutional review board-approved sepsis research database was retrospectively queried for the incidence of AKI by RIFLE criteria, excluding those with chronic kidney disease. Patients were grouped into sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock by refined consensus criteria. Data including demographics, baseline biomarkers of organ dysfunction, and outcomes were compared by Student's t test and χ test. Multivariable regression analysis was performed for the effect of AKI on mortality adjusting for age, sex, African-American race, elective surgery, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, septic shock versus severe sepsis, and sepsis source.

RESULTS

During the 36-month study period ending on December 2010, 246 patients treated for surgical sepsis were evaluated. AKI occurred in 67% of all patients, and 59%, 60%, and 88% of patients had sepsis, surgical sepsis, and septic shock, respectively. AKI was associated with Hispanic ethnicity, several baseline biomarkers of organ dysfunction, and a greater severity of illness. Patients with AKI had fewer ventilator-free and intensive care unit-free days and a decreased likelihood of discharge to home. Morbidity and mortality increased with severity of AKI, and AKI of any severity was found to be a strong predictor of hospital mortality (odds ratio, 10.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-87.35; p = 0.03) in surgical sepsis.

CONCLUSION

AKI frequently complicates surgical sepsis, and serves as a powerful predictor of hospital mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and epidemiologic study, level III.

Focused critical care echocardiography

OBJECTIVE

Portable ultrasound is now used routinely in many ICUs for various clinical applications. Echocardiography performed by noncardiologists, both transesophageal and transthoracic, has evolved to broad applications in diagnosis, monitoring, and management of critically ill patients. This review provides a current update on focused critical care echocardiography for the management of critically ill patients.

METHOD

Source data were obtained from a PubMed search of the medical literature, including the PubMed "related articles" search methodology.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Although studies demonstrating improved clinical outcomes for critically ill patients managed by focused critical care echocardiography are generally lacking, there is evidence to suggest that some intermediate outcomes are improved. Furthermore, noncardiologists can learn focused critical care echocardiography and adequately interpret the information obtained. Noncardiologists can also successfully incorporate focused critical care echocardiography into advanced cardiopulmonary life support. Formal training and proctoring are important for safe application of focused critical care echocardiography in clinical practice. Further outcomes-based research is urgently needed to evaluate the efficacy of focused critical care echocardiography.

Sepsis: multiple abnormalities, heterogeneous responses, and evolving understanding

Sepsis represents the host's systemic inflammatory response to a severe infection. It causes substantial human morbidity resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Despite decades of intense research, the basic mechanisms still remain elusive. In either experimental animal models of sepsis or human patients, there are substantial physiological changes, many of which may result in subsequent organ injury. Variations in age, gender, and medical comorbidities including diabetes and renal failure create additional complexity that influence the outcomes in septic patients. Specific system-based alterations, such as the coagulopathy observed in sepsis, offer both potential insight and possible therapeutic targets. Intracellular stress induces changes in the endoplasmic reticulum yielding misfolded proteins that contribute to the underlying pathophysiological changes. With these multiple changes it is difficult to precisely classify an individual's response in sepsis as proinflammatory or immunosuppressed. This heterogeneity also may explain why most therapeutic interventions have not improved survival. Given the complexity of sepsis, biomarkers and mathematical models offer potential guidance once they have been carefully validated. This review discusses each of these important factors to provide a framework for understanding the complex and current challenges of managing the septic patient. Clinical trial failures and the therapeutic interventions that have proven successful are also discussed.

Prescribed targets for titration of vasopressors in septic shock: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Without robust clinical evidence to guide titration of vasopressors in septic shock, it is unclear how dosing of these potent medications occurs. We sought to measure the proportion of vasopressor prescriptions for septic shock that were missing explicit targets and to describe the targets that we identified.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study involving 9 intensive care units (ICUs) located at 3 academic hospitals in Canada and Australia. We reviewed charts of consecutive patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to the ICU for a presumptive diagnosis of sepsis. Other inclusion criteria were hypotension (systolic arterial pressure ≤ 90 mm Hg or mean arterial pressure [MAP] ≤ 65 mm Hg) and continuous infusion of vasopressors for at least 1 hour within the initial 48 hours of ICU stay, the period of observation for this study.

RESULTS

We included data from 369 patient charts. At least 1 target was specified in 99% of charts. The most common targets were MAP measurements (73%). The median initial MAP target was 65 (range 55-90) mm Hg. In multivariable regression models, hospital site and older age of the patient, but not comorbidities of the patient, were associated with MAP targets. In 40% of patients, the treating team modified the initial target at least once.

INTERPRETATION

This study suggests that an explicit blood pressure target accompanies nearly every vasopressor prescription and that patient characteristics have little influence on its value. Identification of a titration strategy that will maximize benefit and minimize harm constitutes a research priority.

Hemodynamic monitoring

Hemodynamic assessment is a key component of the evaluation of the critically ill patients and has both diagnostic and prognostic utility. This review outlines a general approach to assessment of hemodynamics and perfusion, and then discusses various hemodynamic parameters: heart rate, BP, intravascular (central venous and pulmonary artery) pressures, cardiac output, and myocardial performance, within the context not only of how they are best measured but also how they should be used in a clinical context. Hemodynamics are best assessed using a combination of not only different hemodynamic parameters but also those with the inclusion of clinical indices of perfusion. The benefits of these techniques, as with all medical testing and interventions, must be weighed against any potential risks. Although what to measure and how to measure it is important, what is most important is how to use the information. Evaluating the response to therapeutic interventions is frequently the most useful way to employ hemodynamic monitoring techniques. For the practitioner, learning how to select from a robust set of hemodynamic tools and how to tailor their use to individual clinical settings will allow for optimal patient care.

The identification of thyroid dysfunction in surgical sepsis

BACKGROUND

Studies have documented a correlation between hypothyroxinemia and mortality in critically ill patients; however, there are limited data in sepsis. The objective of this study was to assess baseline thyroid function studies and their association with mortality in surgical sepsis. We hypothesized that the relatively decreased levels of free thyroxine (T4), decreased levels of triiodothyronine (T3), and increased thyrotropin-stimulating hormone levels would be associated with mortality.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data in a surgical intensive care unit. Data evaluated included patient demographics, baseline thyroid function studies, and mortality. Patients were categorized as having sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Within 24 months, 231 septic patients were accrued. The mean age was 59 ± 3 years, and 43% were male. Thirty-nine patients were diagnosed as having sepsis, 131 as having severe sepsis, and 61 as having septic shock. There were no statistically significant differences between the T3, free T4, or thyrotropin-stimulating hormone levels at baseline and the different categorizations of sepsis.T4 levels were increased in all patients but to a significantly lesser extent in those who died. Similarly, T3 levels were significantly decreased in patients who died.

CONCLUSION

In surgical sepsis, decreased T3 levels at baseline are associated with mortality. These data do not support the administration of levothyroxine (T4) because it is already elevated and would preferentially be converted to reverse T3 (inactive) in critical illness; however, replacement with liothyronine (T3) might be rational.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic study, level III.

Mean perfusion pressure deficit during the initial management of shock--an observational cohort study

PURPOSE

It is unclear if blood pressure targets for patients with shock should be adjusted to pre-morbid levels. We aimed to investigate mean deficit between the achieved mean perfusion pressure (MPP) in vasopressor-treated patients and their estimated basal (resting) MPP, and assess whether MPP deficit has any association with subsequent acute kidney injury (AKI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-one consecutive, non-trauma patients, aged ≥40 years, with ≥2 organ dysfunction and requiring vasopressor≥4 hours were observed at an academic intensive care unit. Mean MPP deficit [=%(basal MPP-achieved MPP)/basal MPP] and % time spent with >20% MPP deficit were assessed during initial 72 vasopressor hours (T0-T72) for each patient.

RESULTS

Achieved MPP was unrelated to basal MPP (P=.99). Mean MPP deficit was 18% (95% CI 15-21). Patients spent 48% (95% CI 39-57) time with >20% MPP deficit. Despite similar risk scores at T0, subsequent AKI (≥2 RIFLE class increase from T0) occurred more frequently in patients with higher (>median) MPP deficit compared to patients with lower MPP deficit (56% vs 28%; P=.045). Incidence of subsequent AKI was also higher among patients who spent greater % time with >20% MPP deficit (P=.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Achieved blood pressure during vasopressor therapy had no relationship to the pre-morbid basal level. This resulted in significant and varying degree of relative hypotension (MPP deficit), which could be a modifiable risk factor for AKI in patients with shock.

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

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 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.

METHODS

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. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). 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.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs 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 hr of 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 hrs 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 (1C); 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, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (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 PaO2/FIO2 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 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 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 hrs 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 hrs 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 to 10 mins (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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

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 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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Optimizing drug therapy in the surgical intensive care unit

This article provides a review of commonly prescribed medications in the surgical ICU, focusing on sedatives, antipsychotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, cardiovascular agents, anticoagulants, and antibiotics. A brief overview of pharmacology is followed by practical considerations to aid prescribers in selecting the best therapy within a given category of drugs to optimize patient outcomes.