Protocolized care for early shock resuscitation

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis

Objective

To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis.

Design

As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis.

Methods

Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process.

Results

The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis?

Conclusions

There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care.

Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Versus Conventional Therapy in Severe Pediatric Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The role of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the treatment of severe pediatric septic shock continues to be intensely debated. Our objective was to determine whether the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe septic shock was associated with altered patient mortality, morbidity, and/or length of ICU and hospital stay when compared with conventional therapy.

DESIGN

International multicenter, retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data of children admitted to intensive care with a diagnosis of severe septic shock between the years 2006 and 2014.

SETTING

Tertiary PICUs in Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States.

PATIENTS

Children greater than 30 days old and less than 18 years old.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 2,452 children with a diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock, 164 patients met the inclusion criteria for severe septic shock. With conventional therapy (n = 120), survival to hospital discharge was 40%. With venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 44), survival was 50% (p = 0.25; CI, -0.3 to 0.1). In children who suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest, survival to hospital discharge was 18% with conventional therapy and 42% with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (Δ = 24%; p = 0.02; CI, 2.5-42%). Survival was significantly higher in patients who received high extracorporeal membrane oxygenation flows of greater than 150 mL/kg/min compared with children who received standard extracorporeal membrane oxygenation flows or no extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (82%, 43%, and 48%; p = 0.03; CI, 0.1-0.7 and p < 0.01; CI, 0.2-0.7, respectively). Lengths of ICU and hospital stay were significantly longer for children who had venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe pediatric sepsis is not by itself associated with improved survival. However, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation significantly reduces mortality after cardiac arrest due to septic shock. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation flows greater than 150 mL/kg/min are associated with almost twice the survival rate of conventional therapy or standard-flow extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Critical care ultrasonography in circulatory shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objective was to define the role of ultrasound in the diagnosis and the management of circulatory shock by critical appraisal of the literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Assessment of any patient's hemodynamic profile based on clinical examination can be sufficient in several cases, but many times unclarities remain. Arterial catheters and central venous lines are commonly used in critically ill patients for practical reasons, and offer an opportunity for advanced hemodynamic monitoring. Critical care ultrasonography may add to the understanding of the hemodynamic profile at hand. Improvements in ultrasound techniques, for example, smaller devices and improved image quality, may reduce limitations and increase its value as a complementary tool. Critical care ultrasonography has great potential to guide decisions in the management of shock, but operators should be aware of limitations and pitfalls as well. Current evidence comes from cohort studies with heterogeneous design and outcomes.

SUMMARY

Use of ultrasonography for hemodynamic monitoring in critical care expands, probably because of absence of procedure-related adverse events. Easy applicability and the capacity of distinguishing different types of shock add to its increasing role, further supported by consensus statements promoting ultrasound as the preferred tool for diagnostics in circulatory shock.