Andrew Rhodes

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.

Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Adults with Septic Shock

BACKGROUND There have been conflicting reports on the efficacy of recombinant human activated protein C, or drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA), for the treatment of patients with septic shock. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we assigned 1697 patients with infection, systemic inflammation, and shock who were receiving fluids and vasopressors above a threshold dose for 4 hours to receive either DrotAA (at a dose of 24 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or placebo for 96 hours. The primary outcome was death from any cause 28 days after randomization. RESULTS At 28 days, 223 of 846 patients (26.4%) in the DrotAA group and 202 of 834 (24.2%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk in the DrotAA group, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.28; P=0.31). At 90 days, 287 of 842 patients (34.1%) in the DrotAA group and 269 of 822 (32.7%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19; P=0.56). Among patients with severe protein C deficiency at baseline, 98 of 342 (28.7%) in the DrotAA group had died at 28 days, as compared with 102 of 331 (30.8%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.17; P=0.54). Similarly, rates of death at 28 and 90 days were not significantly different in other predefined subgroups, including patients at increased risk for death. Serious bleeding during the treatment period occurred in 10 patients in the DrotAA group and 8 in the placebo group (P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS DrotAA did not significantly reduce mortality at 28 or 90 days, as compared with placebo, in patients with septic shock. (Funded by Eli Lilly; PROWESS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604214.).

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of preemptive hemodynamic intervention to improve postoperative outcomes in moderate and high-risk surgical patients

BACKGROUND: Complications from major surgery are undesirable, common, and potentially avoidable. The long-term consequences of short-term surgical complications have recently been recognized to have a profound influence on longevity and quality of life in survivors. In the past 30 years, there have been a number of studies conducted attempting to reduce surgical mortality and morbidity by deliberately and preemptively manipulating perioperative hemodynamics. Early studies had a high control-group mortality rate and were criticized for this as being unrepresentative of current practice and raised opposition to its implementation as routine care. We performed this review to update this body of literature and to examine the effect of changes in current practice and quality of care to see whether the conclusions from previous quantitative analyses of this field remain valid. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials evaluating the use of preemptive hemodynamic intervention to improve surgical outcome were identified using multiple methods. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials register) were screened for potential trials, reference lists of identified trials were examined, and additional sources were sought from experts and industry representatives. Identified studies that fulfilled the entry criteria were examined in full and subjected to quantifiable analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis where possible. RESULTS: There were 29 studies identified, 23 of which reported surgical complications. In total, the 29 trials involved 4805 patients with an overall mortality of 7.6%. The use of preemptive hemodynamic intervention significantly reduced mortality (pooled odds ratio [95% confidence interval] of 0.48 [0.33–0.78]; P = 0.0002) and surgical complications (odds ratio 0.43 [0.34–0.53]; P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed significant reductions in mortality for studies using a pulmonary artery catheter, supranormal resuscitation targets, studies using cardiac index or oxygen delivery as goals, and the use of fluids and inotropes as opposed to fluids alone. By contrast, there was a significant reduction in morbidity for each of the 4 subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: The use of a preemptive strategy of hemodynamic monitoring and coupled therapy reduces surgical mortality and morbidity.

Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study

Summary Background Clinical outcomes after major surgery are poorly described at the national level. Evidence of heterogeneity between hospitals and health-care systems suggests potential to improve care for patients but this potential remains unconfirmed. The European Surgical Outcomes Study was an international study designed to assess outcomes after non-cardiac surgery in Europe. Methods We did this 7 day cohort study between April 4 and April 11, 2011. We collected data describing consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and admission to critical care. We used χ2 and Fishers exact tests to compare categorical variables and the t test or the Mann-Whitney U test to compare continuous variables. Significance was set at p<0·05. We constructed multilevel logistic regression models to adjust for the differences in mortality rates between countries. Findings We included 46 539 patients, of whom 1855 (4%) died before hospital discharge. 3599 (8%) patients were admitted to critical care after surgery with a median length of stay of 1·2 days (IQR 0·9–3·6). 1358 (73%) patients who died were not admitted to critical care at any stage after surgery. Crude mortality rates varied widely between countries (from 1·2% [95% CI 0·0–3·0] for Iceland to 21·5% [16·9–26·2] for Latvia). After adjustment for confounding variables, important differences remained between countries when compared with the UK, the country with the largest dataset (OR range from 0·44 [95% CI 0·19–1·05; p=0·06] for Finland to 6·92 [2·37–20·27; p=0·0004] for Poland). Interpretation The mortality rate for patients undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery was higher than anticipated. Variations in mortality between countries suggest the need for national and international strategies to improve care for this group of patients. Funding European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Society of Anaesthesiology.

Early goal-directed therapy after major surgery reduces complications and duration of hospital stay. A randomised, controlled trial [ISRCTN38797445].

IntroductionGoal-directed therapy (GDT) has been shown to improve outcome when commenced before surgery. This requires pre-operative admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). In cardiac surgery, GDT has proved effective when commenced after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of post-operative GDT on the incidence of complications and duration of hospital stay in patients undergoing general surgery.MethodsThis was a randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation. High-risk general surgical patients were allocated to post-operative GDT to attain an oxygen delivery index of 600 ml min-1 m-2 or to conventional management. Cardiac output was measured by lithium indicator dilution and pulse power analysis. Patients were followed up for 60 days.ResultsSixty-two patients were randomised to GDT and 60 patients to control treatment. The GDT group received more intravenous colloid (1,907 SD ± 878 ml versus 1,204 SD ± 898 ml; p < 0.0001) and dopexamine (55 patients (89%) versus 1 patient (2%); p < 0.0001). Fewer GDT patients developed complications (27 patients (44%) versus 41 patients (68%); p = 0.003, relative risk 0.63; 95% confidence intervals 0.46 to 0.87). The number of complications per patient was also reduced (0.7 SD ± 0.9 per patient versus 1.5 SD ± 1.5 per patient; p = 0.002). The median duration of hospital stay in the GDT group was significantly reduced (11 days (IQR 7 to 15) versus 14 days (IQR 11 to 27); p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in mortality (seven patients (11.3%) versus nine patients (15%); p = 0.59).ConclusionPost-operative GDT is associated with reductions in post-operative complications and duration of hospital stay. The beneficial effects of GDT may be achieved while avoiding the difficulties of pre-operative ICU admission.

Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

ObjectiveCirculatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock.MethodsThe European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575–590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact.ResultsForty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring.ConclusionsThis consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.

Assessing and grading congestion in acute heart failure: a scientific statement from the Acute Heart Failure Committee of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Patients with acute heart failure (AHF) require urgent in‐hospital treatment for relief of symptoms. The main reason for hospitalization is congestion, rather than low cardiac output. Although congestion is associated with a poor prognosis, many patients are discharged with persistent signs and symptoms of congestion and/or a high left ventricular filling pressure. Available data suggest that a pre‐discharge clinical assessment of congestion is often not performed, and even when it is performed, it is not done systematically because no method to assess congestion prior to discharge has been validated. Grading congestion would be helpful for initiating and following response to therapy. We have reviewed a variety of strategies to assess congestion which should be considered in the care of patients admitted with HF. We propose a combination of available measurements of congestion. Key elements in the measurement of congestion include bedside assessment, laboratory analysis, and dynamic manoeuvres. These strategies expand by suggesting a routine assessment of congestion and a pre‐discharge scoring system. A point system is used to quantify the degree of congestion. This score offers a new instrument to direct both current and investigational therapies designed to optimize volume status during and after hospitalization. In conclusion, this document reviews the available methods of evaluating congestion, provides suggestions on how to properly perform these measurements, and proposes a method to quantify the amount of congestion present.

Outcomes of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND Mortality from severe sepsis and septic shock differs across continents, countries, and regions. We aimed to use data from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) to compare models of care and outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the USA and Europe. METHODS The SSC was introduced into more than 200 sites in Europe and the USA. All patients identified with severe sepsis and septic shock in emergency departments or hospital wards and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), and those with sepsis in ICUs were entered into the SSC database. Patients entered into the database from its launch in January, 2005, through January, 2010, in units with at least 20 patients and 3 months of enrolment of patients were included in this analysis. Patients included in the cohort were limited to those entered in the first 4 years at every site. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate the hospital mortality odds ratio (OR) for Europe relative to the USA. We used random-effects linear regression to find the relation between lengths of stay in hospital and ICU and geographic region. FINDINGS 25 375 patients were included in the cohort. The USA included 107 sites with 18 766 (74%) patients, and Europe included 79 hospital sites with 6609 (26%) patients. In the USA, 12 218 (65·1%) were admitted to the ICU from the emergency department whereas in Europe, 3405 (51·5%) were admitted from the wards. The median stay on the hospital wards before ICU admission was longer in Europe than in the USA (1·0 vs 0·1 days, difference 0·9, 95% CI 0·8-0·9). Raw hospital mortality was higher in Europe than in the USA (41·1%vs 28·3%, difference 12·8, 95% CI 11·5-14·7). The median length of stay in ICU (7·8 vs 4·2 days, 3·6, 3·3-3·7) and hospital (22·8 vs 10·5 days, 12·3, 11·9-12·8) was longer in Europe than in the USA. Adjusted mortality in Europe was not significantly higher than that in the USA (32·3%vs 31·3%, 1·0, -1·7 to 3·7, p=0·468). Complete compliance with all applicable elements of the sepsis resuscitation bundle was higher in the USA than in Europe (21·6%vs 18·4%, 3·2, 2·2-4·4). INTERPRETATION The significant difference in unadjusted mortality and the fact that this difference disappears with severity adjustment raise important questions about the effect of the approach to critical care in Europe compared with that in the USA. The effect of ICU bed availability on outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock requires further investigation.

Bench-to-bedside review: The importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies – with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output

Bland-Altman analysis is used for assessing agreement between two measurements of the same clinical variable. In the field of cardiac output monitoring, its results, in terms of bias and limits of agreement, are often difficult to interpret, leading clinicians to use a cutoff of 30% in the percentage error in order to decide whether a new technique may be considered a good alternative. This percentage error of ± 30% arises from the assumption that the commonly used reference technique, intermittent thermodilution, has a precision of ± 20% or less. The combination of two precisions of ± 20% equates to a total error of ± 28.3%, which is commonly rounded up to ± 30%. Thus, finding a percentage error of less than ± 30% should equate to the new tested technique having an error similar to the reference, which therefore should be acceptable. In a worked example in this paper, we discuss the limitations of this approach, in particular in regard to the situation in which the reference technique may be either more or less precise than would normally be expected. This can lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from data acquired in validation studies of new monitoring technologies. We conclude that it is not acceptable to present comparison studies quoting percentage error as an acceptability criteria without reporting the precision of the reference technique.

Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring - a consensus of 16

Hemodynamic monitoring plays a fundamental role in the management of acutely ill patients. With increased concerns about the use of invasive techniques, notably the pulmonary artery catheter, to measure cardiac output, recent years have seen an influx of new, less-invasive means of measuring hemodynamic variables, leaving the clinician somewhat bewildered as to which technique, if any, is best and which he/she should use. In this consensus paper, we try to provide some clarification, offering an objective review of the available monitoring systems, including their specific advantages and limitations, and highlighting some key principles underlying hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients.