Recommendations for fluid management of adults with sepsis in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of guidelines

Intravenous maintenance fluid therapy in acutely and critically ill children: state of the evidence

Intravenous maintenance fluid therapy (IV-MFT) is one of the most prescribed, yet one of the least studied, interventions in paediatric acute and critical care settings. IV-MFT is not typically treated in the same way as drugs with specific indications, contraindications, compositions, and associated adverse effects. In the last decade, societies in both paediatric and adult medicine have issued evidence-based practice guidelines for the use of intravenous fluids in clinical practice. The main objective of this Viewpoint is to summarise and compare the rationales on which these international expert guidelines were based and how these recommendations affect IV-MFT practices in paediatric acute and critical care. Although these guidelines recommend the use of isotonic fluids as a standard in IV-MFT, some discrepancies and uncertainties remain regarding the systematic use of balanced fluids, glucose and electrolyte requirements, and appropriate fluid volume. IV-MFT should be considered in the same way as any other prescription drug and none of the components of IV-MFT prescription should be overlooked (ie, choice of drug, dosing rate, duration of treatment, and de-escalation). Furthermore, most evidence that was used to inform the guidelines comes from high-income countries. Although some principles of IV-MFT are universal, the direct relevance to and feasibility of implementing the guidelines in low-income and middle-income countries is uncertain.

Patient diversity and author representation in clinical studies supporting the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021: a systematic review of citations

BACKGROUND

The generalizability of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines to various patient populations and hospital settings has been debated. A quantitative assessment of the diversity and representation in the clinical evidence supporting the guidelines would help evaluate the generalizability of the recommendations and identify strategic research goals and priorities. In this study, we evaluated the diversity of patients in the original studies, in terms of sex, race/ethnicity, and geographical location. We also assessed diversity in sex and geographical representation among study first and last authors.

METHODS

All clinical studies cited in support of the 2021 SSC adult guideline recommendations were identified. Original clinical studies were included, while editorials, reviews, non-clinical studies, and meta-analyses were excluded. For eligible studies, we recorded the proportion of male patients, percentage of each represented racial/ethnic subgroup (when available), and countries in which they were conducted. We also recorded the sex and location of the first and last authors. The World Bank classification was used to categorize countries.

RESULTS

The SSC guidelines included six sections, with 85 recommendations based on 351 clinical studies. The proportion of male patients ranged from 47 to 62%. Most studies did not report the racial/ ethnic distribution of the included patients; when they did so, most were White patients (68-77%). Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (77-99%), which included Europe/Central Asia (33-66%) and North America (36-55%). Moreover, most first/last authors were males (55-93%) and from high-income countries (77-99%).

CONCLUSIONS

To enhance the generalizability of the SCC guidelines, stakeholders should define strategies to enhance the diversity and representation in clinical studies. Though there was reasonable representation in sex among patients included in clinical studies, the evidence did not reflect diversity in the race/ethnicity and geographical locations. There was also lack of diversity among the first and last authors contributing to the evidence.

Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome encompassing physiologic and biological abnormalities caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis progression into septic shock is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality, hence the importance of early identification and treatment. Over the last two decades, the definition of sepsis has evolved to improve early sepsis recognition and screening, standardize the terms used to describe sepsis and highlight its association with organ dysfunction and higher mortality. The early 2000s witnessed the birth of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), which showed a dramatic reduction in mortality leading to its wide adoption, and the surviving sepsis campaign (SSC), which has been instrumental in developing and updating sepsis guidelines over the last 20 years. Outside of early fluid resuscitation and antibiotic therapy, sepsis management has transitioned to a less aggressive approach over the last few years, shying away from routine mixed venous oxygen saturation and central venous pressure monitoring and excessive fluids resuscitation, inotropes use, and red blood cell transfusions. Peripheral vasopressor use was deemed safe and is rising, and resuscitation with balanced crystalloids and a restrictive fluid strategy was explored. This review will address some of sepsis management's most important yet controversial components and summarize the available evidence from the last two decades.

Using Vital Signs to Place Acutely Ill Patients Quickly and Easily into Clinically Helpful Pathophysiologic Categories: Derivation and Validation of Eight Pathophysiologic Categories in Two Distinct Patient Populations of Acutely Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

Early warning scores reliably identify patients at risk of imminent death, but do not provide insight into what may be wrong with the patient or what to do about it.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore whether the Shock Index (SI), pulse pressure (PP), and ROX Index can place acutely ill medical patients in pathophysiologic categories that could indicate the interventions required.

METHODS

A retrospective post-hoc analysis of previously obtained and reported clinical data for 45,784 acutely ill medical patients admitted to a major regional referral Canadian hospital between 2005 and 2010 and validated on 107,546 emergency admissions to four Dutch hospitals between 2017 and 2022.

RESULTS

SI, PP, and ROX values divided patients into eight mutually exclusive physiologic categories. Mortality was highest in patient categories that included ROX Index value < 22, and a ROX Index value < 22 multiplied the risk of any other abnormality. Patients with a ROX Index value < 22, PP < 42 mm Hg, and SI > 0.7 had the highest mortality and accounted for 40% of deaths within 24 h of admission, whereas patients with a PP ≥ 42 mm Hg, SI ≤ 0.7, and ROX Index value ≥ 22 had the lowest risk of death. These results were the same in both the Canadian and Dutch patient cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

SI, PP, and ROX Index values can place acutely ill medical patients into eight mutually exclusive pathophysiologic categories with different mortality rates. Future studies will assess the interventions needed by these categories and their value in guiding treatment and disposition decisions.

Global critical care: a call to action

Critical care is underprioritized. A global call to action is needed to increase equitable access to care and the quality of care provided to critically ill patients. Current challenges to effective critical care in resource-constrained settings are many. Estimates of the burden of critical illness are extrapolated from common etiologies, but the true burden remains ill-defined. Measuring the burden of critical illness is epidemiologically challenging but is thought to be increasing. Resources, infrastructure, and training are inadequate. Millions die unnecessarily due to critical illness. Solutions start with the implementation of first-step, patient care fundamentals known as Essential Emergency and Critical Care. Such essential care stands to decrease critical-illness mortality, augment pandemic preparedness, decrease postoperative mortality, and decrease the need for advanced level care. The entire healthcare workforce must be trained in these fundamentals. Additionally, physician and nurse specialists trained in critical care are needed and must be retained as leaders of critical care initiatives, researchers, and teachers. Context-specific research is mandatory to ensure care is appropriate for the patient populations served, not just duplicated from high-resourced settings. Governments must increase healthcare spending and invest in capacity to treat critically ill patients. Advocacy at all levels is needed to achieve universal health coverage for critically ill patients.

Norepinephrine may improve survival of septic shock patients in a low-resource setting: a proof-of-concept study on feasibility and efficacy outside the Intensive Care Unit

Septic shock treatment in sub-Saharan African hospitals is challenging due to limited availability of ICUs, central venous catheters, vasopressors, and trained staff. We designed this proof-of-concept study to determine efficacy, safety, and feasibility of norepinephrine (NE) use in a non-intensive setting in a low-resource country, consisting in a peripheral infusion via a mechanical drop counter. Septic shock patients accessing a rural hospital in Uganda were included: the 2020 group (N = 12) was prospectively enrolled (Jan-Mar 2020) when NE was available; the 2019 group (N = 11) was retrospectively enrolled (Oct-Dec 2019). Enrollment was continuous to reduce selection bias. Basic clinical endpoints (noninvasive blood pressure, tissue perfusion, diuresis) defined shock control and the prognostic endpoint was survival at hospital discharge. Shock control at 6 and 12 hours was higher in the 2020 group (p = 0.012 for both). Survival at hospital discharge was 75% and 27.3%, respectively (p = 0.039). NE infusion was associated with a Hazard Ratio of 0.23 (p = 0.041) in a multivariate Cox model. No NE-induced adverse effects were detected. These preliminary results suggest that implementing NE infusion in a low-resource setting without ICU could be a safe and effective strategy in managing septic shock and that this approach could lead to a lower mortality rate.

Emergency care of sepsis in sub-Saharan Africa: Mortality and non-physician clinician management of sepsis in rural Uganda from 2010 to 2019

Introduction

Little data exists from sub-Saharan Africa describing incidence and outcomes of sepsis in emergency units and uncertainty exists surrounding optimal management of sepsis in low-income settings. There exists limited data regarding quality care metrics for non-physician clinicians trained in emergency care. The objective of this study was to describe changes in septic patients over time and evaluate associations between sepsis care and mortality.

Methods

Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of all consecutive patients seen from 2010–2019 in a rural Ugandan emergency unit staffed by non-physician clinicians was performed using an electronic database based on paper charts. Sepsis was defined as suspected infection with a quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (qSOFA)≥1. Multi-variable logistic regression was used to analyze three-day mortality.

Results

Overall, 48,653 patient visits from 2010–2019 yielded 17,490 encounters for patients age≥18 who had suspected infection, including 10,437 with sepsis. The annual proportion of patients with sepsis decreased from 45.0%% to 21.3% and the proportion with malarial sepsis decreased from 17.7% to 2.1% during the study period. Rates of septic patients receiving quality care (“both fluids and anti-infectives”) increased over time (21.2% in 2012 to 32.0% in 2019, p<0.001), but mortality did not significantly improve (4.5% in 2012 to 6.4% in 2019, p = 0.50). The increasing quality of non-physician clinician care was not associated with reduced mortality, and treatment with “both fluids and antibiotics” was associated with increased mortality (RR = 1.55, 95%CI 1.10–2.00).

Conclusion

The largest study of sepsis management and outcomes ever published in both Uganda and sub-Saharan Africa showed sepsis and malarial sepsis decreasing from 2010 to 2019. The increasing quality of non-physician clinician care did not significantly reduce mortality and treatment with “both fluids and antibiotics” increased mortality. With causal associations between antibiotics and mortality deemed implausible, associations between sepsis mortality and interventions likely represent confounding by indication. Defining optimal sepsis care regionally will likely require randomized controlled trials.

On prioritising global health's triple crisis of sepsis, COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance: a mixed-methods study from Malawi

Sepsis causes 20% of global deaths, particularly among children and vulnerable populations living in developing countries. This study investigated how sepsis is prioritised in Malawi’s health system to inform health policy. In this mixed-methods study, twenty multisectoral stakeholders were qualitatively interviewed and asked to quantitatively rate the likelihood of sepsis-related medium-term policy outcomes being realised. Respondents indicated that sepsis is not prioritised in Malawi due to a lack of local sepsis-related evidence and policies. However, they highlighted strong linkages between sepsis and maternal health, antimicrobial resistance and COVID-19, which are already existing national priorities, and offers opportunities for sepsis researchers as policy entrepreneurs. To address the burden of sepsis, we recommend that funding should be channelled to the generation of local evidence, evidence uptake, procurement of resources and treatment of sepsis cases, development of appropriate indicators for sepsis, adherence to infection prevention and control measures, and antimicrobial stewardship.

Improving sepsis care in Africa: an opportunity for change?

Sepsis is common and represents a major public health burden with significant associated morbidity and mortality. However, despite substantial advances in sepsis recognition and management in well-resourced health systems, there remains a distinct lack of research into sepsis in Africa. The lack of evidence affects all levels of healthcare delivery from individual patient management to strategic planning at health-system level. This is particular pertinent as African countries experience some of the highest global burden of sepsis. The 2017 World Health Assembly resolution on sepsis and the creation of the Africa Sepsis Alliance provided an opportunity for change. However, progress so far has been frustratingly slow. The recurrent Ebola virus disease outbreaks and the COVID-19 pandemic on the African continent further reinforce the need for urgent healthcare system strengthening. We recommend that African countries develop national action plans for sepsis which should address the needs of all critically ill patients.