Mitchell M. Levy

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.

2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference.

ObjectiveIn 1991, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) convened a “Consensus Conference,” the goals of which were “to provide a conceptual and a practical framework to define the systemic inflammatory response to infection, which is a progressive injurious process that falls under the generalized term ‘sepsis’ and includes sepsis-associated organ dysfunction as well.” The general definitions introduced as a result of that conference have been widely used in practice and have served as the foundation for inclusion criteria for numerous clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, there has been an impetus from experts in the field to modify these definitions to reflect our current understanding of the pathophysiology of these syndromes. DesignSeveral North American and European intensive care societies agreed to revisit the definitions for sepsis and related conditions. This conference was sponsored by the SCCM, The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Surgical Infection Society (SIS). MethodsThe conference was attended by 29 participants from Europe and North America. In advance of the conference, five subgroups were formed to evaluate the following areas: signs and symptoms of sepsis, cell markers, cytokines, microbiologic data, and coagulation parameters. The subgroups corresponded electronically before the conference and met in person during the conference. A spokesperson for each group presented the deliberation of each group to all conference participants during a plenary session. A writing committee was formed at the conference and developed the current article based on executive summary documents generated by each group and the plenary group presentations. The present article serves as the final report of the 2001 International Sepsis Definitions Conference. ConclusionThis document reflects a process whereby a group of experts and opinion leaders revisited the 1992 sepsis guidelines and found that apart from expanding the list of signs and symptoms of sepsis to reflect clinical bedside experience, no evidence exists to support a change to the definitions. This lack of evidence serves to underscore the challenge still present in diagnosing sepsis in 2003 for clinicians and researchers and also provides the basis for introducing PIRO as a hypothesis-generating model for future research.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock

ObjectiveTo develop management guidelines for severe sepsis and septic shock that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and improve outcome in severe sepsis.DesignThe process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built upon a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along 5 levels to create recommendation grades from A–E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations were provided to contrast adult and pediatric management.ParticipantsParticipants included 44 critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations.ResultsA total of 46 recommendations plus pediatric management considerations.ConclusionsEvidence-based recommendations can be made regarding many aspects of the acute management of sepsis and septic shock that will hopefully translate into improved outcomes for the critically ill patient. The impact of these guidelines will be formally tested and guidelines updated annually, and even more rapidly when some important new knowledge becomes available.

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

IMPORTANCE Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. OBJECTIVE To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. PROCESS A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). KEY FINDINGS FROM EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. RECOMMENDATIONS Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis.

Objective: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC or “the Campaign”) developed guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. A performance improvement initiative targeted changing clinical behavior (process improvement) via bundles based on key SSC guideline recommendations. Design and Setting: A multifaceted intervention to facilitate compliance with selected guideline recommendations in the intensive care unit, emergency department, and wards of individual hospitals and regional hospital networks was implemented voluntarily in the United States, Europe, and South America. Elements of the guidelines were “bundled” into two sets of targets to be completed within 6 hrs and within 24 hrs. An analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2008. Subjects: A total of 15,022 subjects. Measurements and Main Results: Data from 15,022 subjects at 165 sites were analyzed to determine the compliance with bundle targets and association with hospital mortality. Compliance with the entire resuscitation bundle increased linearly from 10.9% in the first site quarter to 31.3% by the end of 2 yrs (p < .0001). Compliance with the entire management bundle started at 18.4% in the first quarter and increased to 36.1% by the end of 2 yrs (p = .008). Compliance with all bundle elements increased significantly, except for inspiratory plateau pressure, which was high at baseline. Unadjusted hospital mortality decreased from 37% to 30.8% over 2 yrs (p = .001). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality improved the longer a site was in the Campaign, resulting in an adjusted absolute drop of 0.8% per quarter and 5.4% over 2 yrs (95% confidence interval, 2.5–8.4). Conclusions: The Campaign was associated with sustained, continuous quality improvement in sepsis care. Although not necessarily cause and effect, a reduction in reported hospital mortality rates was associated with participation. The implications of this study may serve as an impetus for similar improvement efforts.

The CRIT Study: Anemia and blood transfusion in the critically ill--current clinical practice in the United States.

ObjectiveTo quantify the incidence of anemia and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practice in critically ill patients and to examine the relationship of anemia and RBC transfusion to clinical outcomes. DesignProspective, multiple center, observational cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the United States. Enrollment period was from August 2000 to April 2001. Patients were enrolled within 48 hrs of ICU admission. Patient follow-up was for 30 days, hospital discharge, or death, whichever occurred first. SettingA total of 284 ICUs (medical, surgical, or medical-surgical) in 213 hospitals participated in the study. PatientsA total of 4,892 patients were enrolled in the study. Measurements and Main ResultsThe mean hemoglobin level at baseline was 11.0 ± 2.4 g/dL. Hemoglobin level decreased throughout the duration of the study. Overall, 44% of patients received one or more RBC units while in the ICU (mean, 4.6 ± 4.9 units). The mean pretransfusion hemoglobin was 8.6 ± 1.7 g/dL. The mean time to first ICU transfusion was 2.3 ± 3.7 days. More RBC transfusions were given in study week 1; however, in subsequent weeks, subjects received one to two RBC units per week while in the ICU. The number of RBC transfusions a patient received during the study was independently associated with longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay and an increase in mortality. Patients who received transfusions also had more total complications and were more likely to experience a complication. Baseline hemoglobin was related to the number of RBC transfusions, but it was not an independent predictor of length of stay or mortality. However, a nadir hemoglobin level of <9 g/dL was a predictor of increased mortality and length of stay. ConclusionsAnemia is common in the critically ill and results in a large number of RBC transfusions. Transfusion practice has changed little during the past decade. The number of RBC units transfused is an independent predictor of worse clinical outcome.

Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit : American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004-2005

Objective:To develop clinical practice guidelines for the support of the patient and family in the adult, pediatric, or neonatal patient-centered ICU. Participants:A multidisciplinary task force of experts in critical care practice was convened from the membership of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to include representation from adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units. Evidence:The task force members reviewed the published literature. The Cochrane library, Cinahl, and MedLine were queried for articles published between 1980 and 2003. Studies were scored according to Cochrane methodology. Where evidence did not exist or was of a low level, consensus was derived from expert opinion. Consensus Process:The topic was divided into subheadings: decision making, family coping, staff stress related to family interactions, cultural support, spiritual/religious support, family visitation, family presence on rounds, family presence at resuscitation, family environment of care, and palliative care. Each section was led by one task force member. Each section draft was reviewed by the group and debated until consensus was achieved. The draft document was reviewed by a committee of the Board of Regents of the ACCM. After steering committee approval, the draft was approved by the SCCM Council and was again subjected to peer review by this journal. Conclusions:More than 300 related studies were reviewed. However, the level of evidence in most cases is at Cochrane level 4 or 5, indicating the need for further research. Forty-three recommendations are presented that include, but are not limited to, endorsement of a shared decision-making model, early and repeated care conferencing to reduce family stress and improve consistency in communication, honoring culturally appropriate requests for truth-telling and informed refusal, spiritual support, staff education and debriefing to minimize the impact of family interactions on staff health, family presence at both rounds and resuscitation, open flexible visitation, way-finding and family-friendly signage, and family support before, during, and after a death.

An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Policy Statement: Palliative Care for Patients with Respiratory Diseases and Critical Illnesses

Executive Summary Introduction Methods Goals, Timing, and Settings for Palliative Care Decision-making Process Advance Directives Care Planning and Delivery Hospice Care Alternative End-of-Life Decisions Symptom Management Dyspnea Management Pain Management Management of Psychological and Spiritual Distress and Suffering Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation Process of Decision Making Process of Withdrawing Mechanical Ventilation Bereavement Care Barriers to Palliative Care Program Development, Education, Training, and Research in Palliative Care

Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Reduces Mortality in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock From the First Hour: Results From a Guideline-Based Performance Improvement Program*

Objectives:Compelling evidence has shown that aggressive resuscitation bundles, adequate source control, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and organ support are cornerstone for the success in the treatment of patients with sepsis. Delay in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy has been recognized as a risk factor for mortality. To perform a retrospective analysis on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database to evaluate the relationship between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality. Design:Retrospective analysis of a large dataset collected prospectively for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Setting:One hundred sixty-five ICUs in Europe, the United States, and South America. Patients:A total of 28,150 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, from January 2005 through February 2010, were evaluated. Interventions:Antibiotic administration and hospital mortality. Measurements and Main Results:A total of 17,990 patients received antibiotics after sepsis identification and were included in the analysis. In-hospital mortality was 29.7% for the cohort as a whole. There was a statically significant increase in the probability of death associated with the number of hours of delay for first antibiotic administration. Hospital mortality adjusted for severity (sepsis severity score), ICU admission source (emergency department, ward, vs ICU), and geographic region increased steadily after 1 hour of time to antibiotic administration. Results were similar in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, regardless of the number of organ failure. Conclusions:The results of the analysis of this large population of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock demonstrate that delay in first antibiotic administration was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. In addition, there was a linear increase in the risk of mortality for each hour delay in antibiotic administration. These results underscore the importance of early identification and treatment of septic patients in the hospital setting.

Effect of maximizing oxygen delivery on morbidity and mortality rates in critically ill patients : a prospective, randomized, controlled study

Objective.To determine the effects of optimizing oxygen delivery (Do2) to “supranormal” levels on morbidity and mortality in patients with sepsis, septic shock, and adult respiratory distress syndrome. Design.A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Setting.A 16-bed surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and 14-bed mixed medical/surgical ICU in two separate hospitals in the University of Hawaii Surgical and Internal Medicine Residency programs. Patients.During a 1-yr period, 67 patients who had pulmonary artery catheters and who met the criteria for sepsis or septic shock, adult respiratory distress syndrome, or hypovolemic shock were enrolled in the study. Patients admitted to the ICU who were <18 yrs old, or with a do-not-resuscitate order, or those patients who faced imminent death (<24 hrs), such as those patients with uncontrollable hemorrhage or brain death, were excluded from the study. Interventions.Patients were randomized into treatment and control groups. The treatment group was assigned a therapeutic Do2 indexed (Do2I) goal of >600 mL/min/m2. Interventions to attain this goal included fluid boluses, administration of blood products, and the use of ino-tropes. The control group was not assigned to a specific therapeutic goal other than “normal” values of Do2I of 450 to 550 mL/min/m2. Every attempt was made to reach the therapeutic goals within the first 24 hrs after entry into the study.Hemodynamic measurements were obtained on study patients every 4 hrs until the end of die study. The severity of illness was evaluated using the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scoring system. Measurements and Main Results.There were 32 patients in the control group and 35 patients in the treatment group. The groups were similar in age, sex, number of organ dysfunctions, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Therapeutic Intervention scores. There woe no statistical differences between the two groups in mortality, development of organ failure, ICU days, and hospital days. Upon analysis, it became apparent that the patients comprised clinically distinct subgroups, including: a) a treatment group who achieved supranormal Do2I; b) a control group with normal Do2I; c) a treatment group who failed to reach target Do2I; d) a control group who self-generated to high Do2I; values; and e) a small number of patients who could not even reach a normal Do2I of 450 mL/ min/m2. These subgroups were found to be similar and matched. The mortality rate was significantly lower for patients in groups who reached supranormal values of Do2I whether treated or self-generated as compared with patients who reached normal Do2I values (14% vs. 56%, .01). Conclusions.Although there was no stat cally significant difference in the contr treatment groups, subgroup analysis strated a strong, significant difference patients with supranormal values of transport vs. patients with normal levels Supranormal values of Do2I, whether self ated or as a result of treatment, results statistically significant decrease in rate. This study adds to the weight of