Impact of the implementation of a sepsis protocol for the management of fluid-refractory septic shock: A single-center, before-and-after study

Quality improvement in neonatal care through enhanced patient safety and clinical risk management: a before-and-after study about neonatal sepsis

Introduction

Neonatal sepsis, classified into early-onset and late-onset based on symptom timing, poses significant risks of morbidity and mortality, especially in low birth weight infants. Effective clinical risk management protocols are crucial in reducing these risks.

Methods

This before-and-after study evaluated the impact of a newly implemented clinical risk management protocol in the Neonatology and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at Policlinico Hospital-University of Bari. The study included 399 neonates over three years, comparing pre- and post-protocol outcomes. Data collection focused on maternal and neonatal demographics, infection rates, and hospital stay lengths. Statistical analysis included t-tests, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, and logistic regression models.

Results

The study found no significant differences in neonatal pathologies or demographics between pre- and post-protocol groups. However, post-protocol implementation showed a notable reduction in umbilical venous catheter (UVC) infections (p = 0.018) and improved hospital stay lengths. Blood and urine cultures did not show significant changes in microbial patterns post-protocol.

Discussion

The findings underscore the effectiveness of structured clinical risk management protocols in enhancing neonatal outcomes, particularly in reducing specific infection risks. Despite the study's limitations, including its observational nature and sample size, the results advocate for broader adoption and further research on these protocols in diverse healthcare settings. The positive outcomes highlight the importance of continuous clinical risk management efforts in high-risk neonatal environments.

Comparing Open-Access Database and Traditional Intensive Care Studies Using Machine Learning: Bibliometric Analysis Study

BACKGROUND

Intensive care research has predominantly relied on conventional methods like randomized controlled trials. However, the increasing popularity of open-access, free databases in the past decade has opened new avenues for research, offering fresh insights. Leveraging machine learning (ML) techniques enables the analysis of trends in a vast number of studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis using ML to compare trends and research topics in traditional intensive care unit (ICU) studies and those done with open-access databases (OADs).

METHODS

We used ML for the analysis of publications in the Web of Science database in this study. Articles were categorized into "OAD" and "traditional intensive care" (TIC) studies. OAD studies were included in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC), eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD), Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb), High Time Resolution ICU Dataset (HiRID), and Pediatric Intensive Care database. TIC studies included all other intensive care studies. Uniform manifold approximation and projection was used to visualize the corpus distribution. The BERTopic technique was used to generate 30 topic-unique identification numbers and to categorize topics into 22 topic families.

RESULTS

A total of 227,893 records were extracted. After exclusions, 145,426 articles were identified as TIC and 1301 articles as OAD studies. TIC studies experienced exponential growth over the last 2 decades, culminating in a peak of 16,378 articles in 2021, while OAD studies demonstrated a consistent upsurge since 2018. Sepsis, ventilation-related research, and pediatric intensive care were the most frequently discussed topics. TIC studies exhibited broader coverage than OAD studies, suggesting a more extensive research scope.

CONCLUSIONS

This study analyzed ICU research, providing valuable insights from a large number of publications. OAD studies complement TIC studies, focusing on predictive modeling, while TIC studies capture essential qualitative information. Integrating both approaches in a complementary manner is the future direction for ICU research. Additionally, natural language processing techniques offer a transformative alternative for literature review and bibliometric analysis.

Effect of ICU care bundles on long-term patient-relevant outcomes: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Care bundles are considered a key tool to improve bedside quality of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). We explored their effect on long-term patient-relevant outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic literature search and scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, CDSR and CENTRAL for keywords of intensive care, care bundles, patient-relevant outcomes, and follow-up studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original articles with patients admitted to adult ICUs assessing bundle implementations and measuring long-term (ie, ICU discharge or later) patient-relevant outcomes (ie, mortality, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), care-related outcomes, adverse events, and social health).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

After dual, independent, two-stage selection and charting, eligible records were critically appraised and assessed for bundle type, implementation strategies, and effects on long-term patient-relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 2012 records, 38 met inclusion criteria; 55% (n=21) were before-after studies, 21% (n=8) observational cohort studies, 13% (n=5) randomised controlled trials, and 11% (n=4) had other designs. Bundles pertained to sepsis (n=11), neurocognition (n=6), communication (n=4), early rehabilitation (n=3), pharmacological discontinuation (n=3), ventilation (n=2) or combined bundles (n=9). Almost two-thirds of the studies reported on survival (n=24), 45% (n=17) on care-related outcomes (eg, discharge disposition), and 13% (n=5) of studies on HrQoL. Regarding PICS, 24% (n=9) assessed cognition, 13% (n=5) physical health, and 11% (n=4) mental health, up to 1 year after discharge. The effects of bundles on long-term patient-relevant outcomes was inconclusive, except for a positive effect of sepsis bundles on survival. The inconclusive effects may have been due to the high risk of bias in included studies and the variability in implementation strategies, instruments, and follow-up times.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to explore the long-term effects of ICU bundles on HrQoL and PICS. Closing this knowledge gap appears vital to determine if there is long-term patient value of ICU bundles.

Applying artificial neural network for early detection of sepsis with intentionally preserved highly missing real-world data for simulating clinical situation

Purpose

Some predictive systems using machine learning models have been developed to predict sepsis; however, they were mostly built with a low percent of missing values, which does not correspond with the actual clinical situation. In this study, we developed a machine learning model with a high rate of missing and erroneous data to enable prediction under missing, noisy, and erroneous inputs, as in the actual clinical situation.

Materials and methods

The proposed artificial neural network model was implemented using the MATLAB ANN toolbox, based on stochastic gradient descent. The dataset was collected over the past decade with approval from the appropriate institutional review boards, and the sepsis status was identified and labeled using Sepsis-3 clinical criteria. The imputation method was built by last observation carried forward and mean value, aimed to simulate clinical situation.

Results

The mean area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of classifying sepsis and nonsepsis patients was 0.82 and 0.786 at 0 h and 40 h prior to onset, respectively. The highest model performance was found for one-hourly data, demonstrating that our ANN model can perform adequately with limited hourly data provided.

Conclusions

Our model has the moderate ability to predict sepsis up to 40 h in advance under simulated clinical situation with real-world data.

Improvement of 1st-hour bundle compliance and sepsis mortality in pediatrics after the implementation of the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To study the impact of the implementation of the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign protocol on early recognition of sepsis, 1-h treatment bundle and mortality.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-center study, before and after the implementation of the sepsis protocol.

OUTCOMES

sepsis recognition, compliance with the 1-h bundle (fluid resuscitation, blood culture, antibiotics), time interval to fluid resuscitation and antibiotics administration, and mortality. Patients with febrile neutropenia were excluded. The comparisons between the periods were performed using non-parametric tests and odds ratios or relative risk were calculated.

RESULTS

We studied 84 patients before and 103 after the protocol implementation. There was an increase in sepsis recognition (OR 21.5 [95% CI: 10.1-45.7]), in the compliance with the 1-h bundle as a whole (62% x 0%), and with its three components: fluid resuscitation (OR 31.1 [95% CI: 3.9-247.2]), blood culture (OR 15.9 [95% CI: 3.9-65.2]), and antibiotics (OR 35.6 [95% CI: 8.9-143.2]). Significant reduction between sepsis recognition to fluid resuscitation (152min×12min, p<0.001) and to antibiotics administration (137min×30min) also occurred. The risk of death before protocol implementation was four times greater (RR 4.1 [95% CI: 1.2-14.4]), and the absolute death risk reduction was 9%.

CONCLUSION

Even if we considered the low precision of some estimates, the lower limits of the Confidence Intervals show that the implementation of the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines alongside a qualitive assurance initiative has led to improvements in sepsis recognition, compliance with the 1-h treatment bundle, reduction in the time interval to fluid resuscitation and antibiotics, and reduction in sepsis mortality.

Impact of the implementation of new guidelines on the management of patients with HIV infection at an advanced HIV clinic in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

BACKGROUND

HIV continues to be the main determinant morbidity with high mortality rates in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a high number of patients being late presenters with advanced HIV. Clinical management of advanced HIV patients is thus complex and requires strict adherence to updated, empirical and simplified guidelines. The current study investigated the impact of the implementation of a new clinical guideline on the management of advanced HIV in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of routine clinical data of advanced HIV patients was conducted for the periods; February 2016 to March 2017, before implementation of new guidelines, and November 2017 to July 2018, after the implementation of new guidelines. Eligible patients were patients with CD4 < 200 cell/μl and presenting with at least 1 of 4 opportunistic infections. Patient files were reviewed by a medical doctor and a committee of 3 other doctors for congruence. Statistical significance was set at 0.05%.

RESULTS

Two hundred four and Two hundred thirty-one patients were eligible for inclusion before and after the implementation of new guidelines respectively. Sex and age distributions were similar for both periods, and median CD4 were 36 & 52 cell/μl, before and after the new guidelines implementation, respectively. 40.7% of patients had at least 1 missed/incorrect diagnosis before the new guidelines compared to 30% after new guidelines, p < 0.05. Clinical diagnosis for TB and toxoplasmosis were also much improved after the implementation of new guidelines. In addition, only 63% of patients had CD4 count test results before the new guidelines compared to 99% of patients after new guidelines. Death odds after the implementation of new guidelines were significantly lower than before new guidelines in a multivariate regression model that included patients CD4 count and 10 other covariates, p < 0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Simplification and implementation of a new and improved HIV clinical guideline coupled with the installation of laboratory equipment and point of care tests potentially helped reduce incorrect diagnosis and improve clinical outcomes of patients with advanced HIV. Regulating authorities should consider developing simplified versions of guidelines followed by the provision of basic diagnostic equipment to health centers.

Why Not Life and Limb? Vasopressor Use in Intensive Care Unit Patients the Cause of Acute Limb Ischemia

Background: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) of the upper extremity is a rare yet severe condition in intensive care unit (ICU) patients that generally leads to amputation. The aim of this study is to determine risk factors for development of upper extremity limb ischemia in ICU patients requiring vasopressor support. Methods: This is a retrospective study conducted from 2010 to 2015. Patients who received vasopressors during ICU admission were considered for the study. Patients were identified via Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) billing codes. ALI patients were matched to control patients based on diagnosis and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. Days on pressors, number of pressors, total doses, and level of ischemia were recorded. Primary end point was doses, types, and days on vasopressors. Secondary end point was level of ALI. Results: Patients in the ALI group were more likely to be started on a higher number of different types of pressors (2.6 vs 1.3 pressors). ALI patients received pressors for 8.5 days compared with 1.6 days in control patients, and received 12.8 doses compared with 3.0 doses in control patients. In addition, vasopressors with alpha-adrenergic activity were more likely to be used in the ALI group. Level of ischemia was not linked to any of the tested variables. Conclusion: Patients admitted to the ICU are more likely to sustain an acute ischemic event of an upper extremity with more vasopressor usage. Patients who received alpha-adrenergic activating vasopressors were more likely to sustain limb ischemia. When discoloration of an extremity is detected, patients should receive counteractive treatments in an effort to salvage the extremity and prevent function loss.

Impact of premix antimicrobial preparation and time to administration in septic patients

OBJECTIVE

Strategies that reduce the time to antimicrobial administration, such as the availability of premix antimicrobials (PMAs) in the emergency department (ED), may better align with the goals of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and improve outcomes in septic patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of antimicrobial preparation on time to administration in septic patients located in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study and adult patients with a diagnosis of sepsis who received at least one initial intravenous (IV) antimicrobial in the ED were included. Time to complete an empiric antimicrobial therapy was defined as the time between prescriber order entry and the infusion initiation time of the final antimicrobial agent of a patient's antimicrobial regimen. Appropriate, empiric antimicrobial therapy was based on treatment recommendations by nationally accepted guidelines for the specific indication.

RESULTS

The first antimicrobial was initiated earlier when available as a PMA preparation (median (IQR): premix 25 minutes (16.5-42.3) vs. non-premix 46 minutes (20-102), p=0.027). When comparing complete, empiric antimicrobial regimen administration, there was no difference in time to administration between regimens containing one or more non-premix antimicrobials and regimens containing all PMAs (median (IQR): premix 69 minutes (21-115) vs. non-premix 65 minutes (38.5-133.8); p=0.455).

CONCLUSIONS

PMA preparations significantly reduced time to administration of the first antimicrobial agent for septic patients treated in the ED, but time to administration of subsequent antimicrobials were not improved.

A survey of critical care nurses' practices and perceptions surrounding early intravenous antibiotic initiation during septic shock

BACKGROUND

Delays in antibiotic administration after severe sepsis recognition increases mortality. While physician and pharmacy-related barriers to early antibiotic initiation have been well evaluated, those factors that affect the speed by which critical care nurses working in either the emergency department or the intensive care unit setting initiate antibiotic therapy remains poorly characterized.

AIM

To evaluate the knowledge, practices and perceptions of critical care nurses regarding antibiotic initiation in patients with newly recognised septic shock.

METHODS

A validated survey was distributed to 122 critical care nurses at one 320-bed academic institution with a sepsis protocol advocating intravenous(IV) antibiotic initiation within 1hour of shock recognition.

RESULTS

Among 100 (82%) critical care nurses responding, nearly all (98%) knew of the existence of the sepsis protocol. However, many critical care nurses stated they would optimise blood pressure [with either fluid (38%) or both fluid and a vasopressor (23%)] before antibiotic initiation. Communicated barriers to rapid antibiotic initiation included: excessive patient workload (74%), lack of awareness IV antibiotic(s) ordered (57%) or delivered (69%), need for administration of multiple non-antibiotic IV medications (54%) and no IV access (51%).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple nurse-related factors influence IV antibiotic(s) initiation speed and should be incorporated into sepsis quality improvement efforts.

Early management of sepsis with emphasis on early goal directed therapy: AME evidence series 002

Severe sepsis and septic shock are major causes of morbidity and mortality in patients entering the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU). Despite substantial efforts to improve patient outcome, treatment of sepsis remains challenging to clinicians. In this context, early goal directed therapy (EGDT) represents an important concept emphasizing both early recognition of sepsis and prompt initiation of a structured treatment algorithm. As part of the AME evidence series on sepsis, we conducted a systematic review of all randomized controlled EGDT trials. Focus was laid on the setting (emergency department versus ICU) where EGDT was carried out. Early recognition of sepsis, through clinical or automated systems for early alert, together with well-timed initiation of the recommended therapy bundles may improve patients' outcome. However, the original "EGDT" protocol by Rivers and coworkers has been largely modified in subsequent trials. Currently, many investigators opt for an "expanded" EGDT (as suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign). Evidence is also presented on the effectiveness of automated systems for early sepsis alert. Early recognition of sepsis and well-timed initiation of the SSC bundle may improve patient outcome.

Early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: insights and comparisons to ProCESS, ProMISe, and ARISE

Prior to 2001 there was no standard for early management of severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department. In the presence of standard or usual care, the prevailing mortality was over 40-50 %. In response, a systems-based approach, similar to that in acute myocardial infarction, stroke and trauma, called early goal-directed therapy was compared to standard care and this clinical trial resulted in a significant mortality reduction. Since the publication of that trial, similar outcome benefits have been reported in over 70 observational and randomized controlled studies comprising over 70,000 patients. As a result, early goal-directed therapy was largely incorporated into the first 6 hours of sepsis management (resuscitation bundle) adopted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and disseminated internationally as the standard of care for early sepsis management. Recently a trio of trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe), while reporting an all-time low sepsis mortality, question the continued need for all of the elements of early goal-directed therapy or the need for protocolized care for patients with severe and septic shock. A review of the early hemodynamic pathogenesis, historical development, and definition of early goal-directed therapy, comparing trial conduction methodology and the changing landscape of sepsis mortality, are essential for an appropriate interpretation of these trials and their conclusions.

The Impact of Timing of Antibiotics on Outcomes in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on the association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive search criteria was performed using a predefined protocol.

STUDY SELECTION

INCLUSION CRITERIA

adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, reported time to antibiotic administration in relation to emergency department triage and/or shock recognition, and mortality.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

immunosuppressed populations, review article, editorial, or nonhuman studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers screened abstracts with a third reviewer arbitrating. The effect of time to antibiotic administration on mortality was based on current guideline recommendations: 1) administration within 3 hours of emergency department triage and 2) administration within 1 hour of severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Odds ratios were calculated using a random effect model. The primary outcome was mortality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 1,123 publications were identified and 11 were included in the analysis. Among the 11 included studies, 16,178 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from emergency department triage. Patients who received antibiotics more than 3 hours after emergency department triage (< 3 hr reference) had a pooled odds ratio for mortality of 1.16 (0.92-1.46; p = 0.21). A total of 11,017 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Patients who received antibiotics more than 1 hour after severe sepsis/shock recognition (< 1 hr reference) had a pooled odds ratio for mortality of 1.46 (0.89-2.40; p = 0.13). There was no increased mortality in the pooled odds ratios for each hourly delay from less than 1 to more than 5 hours in antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/shock recognition.

CONCLUSION

Using the available pooled data, we found no significant mortality benefit of administering antibiotics within 3 hours of emergency department triage or within 1 hour of shock recognition in severe sepsis and septic shock. These results suggest that currently recommended timing metrics as measures of quality of care are not supported by the available evidence.

Effect of an electronic medical record alert for severe sepsis among ED patients

BACKGROUND

Severe sepsis and septic shock are a major health concern worldwide. The objective of this study is to determine if Severe Sepsis Best Practice Alert (SS-BPA) implementation was associated with improved processes of care and clinical outcomes among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This is a single-center, before-and-after observational study. The intervention group (n = 103) consisted of adult patients presenting to the ED with severe sepsis or septic shock during a 7-month period after implementation of the SS-BPA. The control group (n = 111) consisted of patients meeting the same criteria over a prior 7-month period. The SS-BPA primarily acts by automated, real-time, algorithm-based detection of severe sepsis or septic shock via the electronic medical record system. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), time to antibiotic administration, and proportion of patients who received antibiotics within the target 60 minutes.

RESULTS

Time to antibiotics was significantly reduced in the SS-BPA cohort (29 vs 61.5 minutes, P < .001). In addition, there was a higher proportion of patients who received antibiotics within 60 minutes (76.7 vs 48.6%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, in-hospital mortality was not significantly reduced in the intervention group (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.57). Multivariable analysis of LOS indicated a significant reduction among patients in the SS-BPA cohort (geometric mean ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.82).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the SS-BPA for severe sepsis or septic shock among ED patients is associated with significantly improved timeliness of antibiotic administration and reduced hospital LOS.

An Electronic Tool for the Evaluation and Treatment of Sepsis in the ICU: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether addition of an electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool to electronic sepsis alerting improves compliance with treatment guidelines and clinical outcomes in septic ICU patients.

DESIGN

A pragmatic randomized trial.

SETTING

Medical and surgical ICUs of an academic, tertiary care medical center.

PATIENTS

Four hundred and seven patients admitted during a 4-month period to the medical or surgical ICU with a diagnosis of sepsis established at the time of admission or in response to an electronic sepsis alert.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to usual care or the availability of an electronic tool capable of importing, synthesizing, and displaying sepsis-related data from the medical record, using logic rules to offer individualized evaluations of sepsis severity and response to therapy, informing users about evidence-based guidelines, and facilitating rapid order entry.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There was no difference between the electronic tool (218 patients) and usual care (189 patients) with regard to the primary outcome of time to completion of all indicated Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-hour Sepsis Resuscitation Bundle elements (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.75-5.20; p = 0.159) or time to completion of each element individually. ICU mortality, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days did not differ between intervention and control. Providers used the tool to enter orders in only 28% of available cases.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool is feasible and safe but did not influence guideline compliance or clinical outcomes, perhaps due to low utilization.

Early goal-directed therapy vs usual care in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sepsis is a common and high-burden healthcare problem with a mortality exceeding 20 % in severe sepsis and nearly 50 % when septic shock is present. Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended by sepsis guidelines as the standard of care following a landmark study by Rivers et al. alongside other observational studies. Three recent randomized controlled trials have questioned the Rivers' results. The objective of our systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of EGDT in reducing the mortality of severe sepsis or septic shock. Relevant primary studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of EGDT for sepsis. Data from all trials were combined and analyzed using a random effects model. Five studies, enrolling a total of 4033 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality did not differ between the two treatment groups (RR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.77-1.11, P = 0.42), although moderate heterogeneity between studies was noted (I (2) = 48 %). A non-significant trend toward reduction in 60-day mortality in the EGDT group was noted (RR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.82-1.05, P = 0.22, I (2) = 24 %). Heterogeneity between trials precludes a definitive conclusion on the utility of EGDT in severe sepsis. Until further evidence is available, it is reasonable to consider EGDT in the care of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Background

Several reports suggest that implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines is associated with mortality reduction in sepsis. However, adherence to the guideline-based resuscitation and management sepsis bundles is still poor.

Objective

To perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the impact of performance improvement programs on compliance with Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline-based bundles and/or mortality.

Data Sources

Medline (PubMed), Scopus and Intercollegiate Studies Institute Web of Knowledge databases from 2004 (first publication of the SSC guidelines) to October 2014.

Study Selection

Studies on adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock that evaluated changes in compliance to individual/combined bundle targets and/or mortality following the implementation of performance improvement programs. Interventions may consist of educational programs, process changes or both.

Data Extraction

Data from the included studies were extracted independently by two authors. Unadjusted binary data were collected in order to calculate odds ratios (OR) for compliance to individual/combined bundle targets. Adjusted (if available) or unadjusted data of mortality were collected. Random-effects models were used for the data synthesis.

Results

Fifty observational studies were selected. Despite high inconsistency across studies, performance improvement programs were associated with increased compliance with the complete 6-hour bundle (OR = 4.12 [95% confidence interval 2.95-5.76], I² = 87.72%, k = 25, N = 50,081) and the complete 24-hour bundle (OR = 2.57 [1.74-3.77], I² = 85.22%, k = 11, N = 45,846) and with a reduction in mortality (OR = 0.66 [0.61-0.72], I² = 87.93%, k = 48, N = 434,447). Funnel plots showed asymmetry.

Conclusions

Performance improvement programs are associated with increased adherence to resuscitation and management sepsis bundles and with reduced mortality in patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock.

Increased fluid administration in the first three hours of sepsis resuscitation is associated with reduced mortality: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The surviving sepsis guidelines recommend early aggressive fluid resuscitation within 6 h of sepsis onset. Although rapid fluid administration may offer benefit, studies on the timing of resuscitation are lacking. We hypothesized that there is an association between quicker, adequate fluid resuscitation and patient outcome from sepsis onset time.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to a quaternary care medical ICU between January 2007 and December 2009. Data were collected from a previously validated electronic medical database. Multivariate regression modeling was performed, adjusting for age, admission weight, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination) III score, and total fluid administration within the first 6 h of sepsis onset time.

RESULTS

Of 651 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock screened, 594 had detailed fluid data. In a univariate analysis, the median amount of fluid within the first 3 h for survivors at discharge was 2,085 mL (940-4,080 mL) and for nonsurvivors, 1,600 mL (600-3,010 mL; P = .007). In comparison, during the latter 3 h, the median amount was 660 mL (290-1,485 mL) vs 800 mL (360-1,680 mL; P = .09), respectively. After adjusting for confounders, the higher proportion of total fluid received within the first 3 h was associated with decreased hospital mortality (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier fluid resuscitation (within the first 3 h) is associated with a greater number of survivors with severe sepsis and septic shock.

An alternate pathophysiologic paradigm of sepsis and septic shock: implications for optimizing antimicrobial therapy

The advent of modern antimicrobial therapy following the discovery of penicillin during the 1940s yielded remarkable improvements in case fatality rate of serious infections including septic shock. Since then, pathogens have continuously evolved under selective antimicrobial pressure resulting in a lack of significant improvement in clinical effectiveness in the antimicrobial therapy of septic shock despite ever more broad-spectrum and potent drugs. In addition, although substantial effort and money has been expended on the development novel non-antimicrobial therapies of sepsis in the past 30 years, clinical progress in this regard has been limited. This review explores the possibility that the current pathophysiologic paradigm of septic shock fails to appropriately consider the primacy of the microbial burden of infection as the primary driver of septic organ dysfunction. An alternate paradigm is offered that suggests that has substantial implications for optimizing antimicrobial therapy in septic shock. This model of disease progression suggests the key to significant improvement in the outcome of septic shock may lie, in great part, with improvements in delivery of existing antimicrobials and other anti-infectious strategies. Recognition of the role of delays in administration of antimicrobial therapy in the poor outcomes of septic shock is central to this effort. However, therapeutic strategies that improve the degree of antimicrobial cidality likely also have a crucial role.

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.

Pediatric sepsis: preparing for the future against a global scourge

Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among children worldwide. As consensus statements emerge regarding early recognition and goal-directed management of sepsis, scrutiny should be given to the unique characteristics of sepsis in children. Pediatric patients are not small adults! Sepsis epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management strategy can vary significantly from those for adults. Herein, we describe the epidemiology of pediatric sepsis, in both resource-rich and resource-poor worlds, and discuss how the pathophysiology of pediatric sepsis differs from that for adults. We discuss the timeline of management of pediatric sepsis, studying how discoveries over the past 50 years have changed the way sepsis is treated. Finally, we discuss the future of pediatric sepsis. We focus on approaches that carry the most substantive impact on the global burden of disease.

Sepsis bundles: just do it

The initial management of patients with septic shock appears to be critical in terms of determining outcome; a standardized systematic approach for the management of patients with severe infections appears to consistently improve the delivery of recommended therapies and, as a result, may improve patient outcomes. With minimal-to-no risk or acquisition costs, severe sepsis bundle implementation should become the standard of care for the management of septic shock. A multifaceted approach may aid in the success of implementation of sepsis bundles in teaching and nonteaching institutions. Bundle implementation should change clinical practice by including surveillance, feedback reporting, and staff education to organize the target interventions into packages that must be implemented in strict compliance, for every patient, to ensure uniformity and provide practical applicability. Quality improvement via utilization of protocols can be achieved, regardless of institution size or academic status, and should continue to be promoted in the intensive care unit setting.