Richard Beale

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.

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.

Assessment of cardiac preload and extravascular lung water by single transpulmonary thermodilution

Objective: Transpulmonary double-indicator dilution is a useful monitoring technique for measurement of intrathoracic blood volume (ITBV) and extravascular lung water (EVLW). In this study, we compared a simpler approach using single arterial thermodilution derived measurements of ITBV and EVLW with the double-indicator dilution technique.¶Design: Prospective observational clinical study.¶Setting: Surgical intensive care units of two university hospitals.¶Patients and methods: Global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) derived from single thermodilution was used for calculation of ITBV. Structural regression analysis of the first two thermo-dye dilution measurements in a derivation population of 57 critically ill patients (38 male, 19 female, 18–79 years, 56 ± 15 years) revealed ITBV = (1.25 · GEDV)–28.4 (ml). This equation was then applied to all first measurements in a validation population of 209 critically ill patients (139 male, 70 female, 10–88 years, mean 53 ± 19 years), and single-thermodilution ITBV (ITBVST) and EVLW (EVLWST) was calculated and compared to thermo-dye dilution derived values (ITBVTD, EVLWTD). For inter-individual comparison, absolute values for ITBV and EVLW were normalised as indexed by body surface area (ITBVI) and body weight (EVLWI), respectively.¶Measurements and results: Linear regression analysis yielded a correlation of ITBVIST = (1.05 · ITBVITD)–58.0 (ml/m2), r = 0.97, P < 0.0001. Bias between ITBVITD and ITBVIST was 7.6 (ml/m2) with a standard deviation of 57.4 (ml/m2). Single-thermodilution EVLWI (EVLWIST) was calculated using ITBVIST and revealed the correlation EVLWIST = (0.83 · EVLWITD) + 1.6 (ml/kg), r = 0.96, P < 0.0001. Bias between EVLWITD and EVLWIST was –0.2 (ml/kg) with a standard deviation of 1.4 (ml/kg). In detail, EVLWIST systematically overestimated EVLWITD at low-normal values for EVLWI and underestimated EVLWI at higher values (above 12 ml/kg).¶Conclusion: Determinations of ITBV and EVLW by single thermodilution agreed closely with the corresponding values from the double-indicator technique. Since transpulmonary single thermodilution is simple to apply, less invasive and cheaper, all these features make it a promising technique for the bedside. Nevertheless, further validation studies are needed in the future.

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.

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment in severe sepsis from the global open-label trial ENHANCE : Further evidence for survival and safety and implications for early treatment

Objective:To provide further evidence for the efficacy and safety of drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment in severe sepsis. Design:Single-arm, open-label, trial of drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment in severe sepsis patients. Enrollment began in March 2001 and day-28 follow-up completed in January 2003. Setting:ENHANCE took place in 25 countries at 361 sites. Patients:Patients with known or suspected infection, three or four systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and one or more sepsis-induced organ dysfunctions. Of 2,434 adults entered, 2,378 received drotrecogin alfa (activated), and of these, 2,375 completed the protocol. Interventions:Drotrecogin alfa (activated) was infused at a dose of 24 &mgr;g/kg/hr for 96 hrs. Measurements and Main Results:The 28-day all-cause mortality approximated that observed in PROWESS (25.3% vs. 24.7%). Although patients in ENHANCE had increased serious bleeding rates compared with patients in the drotrecogin alfa (activated) arm of PROWESS (during infusion, 3.6% vs. 2.4%; postinfusion, 3.2% vs. 1.2%; 28-day, 6.5% vs. 3.5%), increased postinfusion bleeding suggested a higher background bleeding rate. Intracranial hemorrhage was more common in ENHANCE than PROWESS (during infusion, 0.6% vs. 0.2%; 28-day, 1.5% vs. 0.2%). The incidence of fatal intracranial hemorrhage was the same during infusion (0.2%) and higher at 28 days (0.5% vs. 0.2%). ENHANCE patients treated within 0–24 hrs from their first sepsis-induced organ dysfunction had lower observed mortality rate than those treated after 24 hrs (22.9% vs. 27.4%, p = .01). Conclusions:ENHANCE provides supportive evidence for the favorable benefit/risk ratio observed in PROWESS and suggests that more effective use of drotrecogin alfa (activated) might be obtained by initiating therapy earlier.

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.

Vasopressor and inotropic support in septic shock: An evidence- based review

Objective:In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for vasopressor and inotropic support in 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 to improve outcome in severe sepsis. Design:The 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. Methods:The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations to contrast adult and pediatric management are in the article by Parker et al. on p. S591. Conclusion:An arterial catheter should be placed as soon as possible in patients with septic shock. Vasopressors are indicated to maintain mean arterial pressure of <65 mm Hg, both during and following adequate fluid resuscitation. Norepinephrine or dopamine are the vasopressors of choice in the treatment of septic shock. Norepinephrine may be combined with dobutamine when cardiac output is being measured. Epinephrine, phenylephrine, and vasopressin are not recommended as first-line agents in the treatment of septic shock. Vasopressin may be considered for salvage therapy. Low-dose dopamine is not recommended for the purpose of renal protection. Dobutamine is recommended as the agent of choice to increase cardiac output but should not be used for the purpose of increasing cardiac output above physiologic levels.

High frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in adult respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN24242669].

IntroductionTo compare the safety and efficacy of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) with conventional mechanical ventilation (CV) for early intervention in adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a multi-centre randomized trial in four intensive care units was conducted.MethodsPatients with ARDS were randomized to receive either HFOV or CV. In both treatment arms a priority was given to maintain lung volume while minimizing peak pressures. CV ventilation strategy was aimed at reducing tidal volumes. In the HFOV group, an open lung strategy was used. Respiratory and circulatory parameters were recorded and clinical outcome was determined at 30 days of follow up.ResultsThe study was prematurely stopped. Thirty-seven patients received HFOV and 24 patients CV (average APACHE II score 21 and 20, oxygenation index 25 and 18 and duration of mechanical ventilation prior to randomization 2.1 and 1.5 days, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in survival without supplemental oxygen or on ventilator, mortality, therapy failure, or crossover. Adjustment by a priori defined baseline characteristics showed an odds ratio of 0.80 (95% CI 0.22–2.97) for survival without oxygen or on ventilator, and an odds ratio for mortality of 1.15 (95% CI 0.43–3.10) for HFOV compared with CV. The response of the oxygenation index (OI) to treatment did not differentiate between survival and death. In the HFOV group the OI response was significantly higher than in the CV group between the first and the second day. A post hoc analysis suggested that there was a relatively better treatment effect of HFOV compared with CV in patients with a higher baseline OI.ConclusionNo significant differences were observed, but this trial only had power to detect major differences in survival without oxygen or on ventilator. In patients with ARDS and higher baseline OI, however, there might be a treatment benefit of HFOV over CV. More research is needed to establish the efficacy of HFOV in the treatment of ARDS. We suggest that future studies are designed to allow for informative analysis in patients with higher OI.

Trial of the Route of Early Nutritional Support in Critically Ill Adults

BACKGROUND Uncertainty exists about the most effective route for delivery of early nutritional support in critically ill adults. We hypothesized that delivery through the parenteral route is superior to that through the enteral route. METHODS We conducted a pragmatic, randomized trial involving adults with an unplanned admission to one of 33 English intensive care units. We randomly assigned patients who could be fed through either the parenteral or the enteral route to a delivery route, with nutritional support initiated within 36 hours after admission and continued for up to 5 days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. RESULTS We enrolled 2400 patients; 2388 (99.5%) were included in the analysis (1191 in the parenteral group and 1197 in the enteral group). By 30 days, 393 of 1188 patients (33.1%) in the parenteral group and 409 of 1195 patients (34.2%) in the enteral group had died (relative risk in parenteral group, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.08; P=0.57). There were significant reductions in the parenteral group, as compared with the enteral group, in rates of hypoglycemia (44 patients [3.7%] vs. 74 patients [6.2%]; P=0.006) and vomiting (100 patients [8.4%] vs. 194 patients [16.2%]; P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the parenteral group and the enteral group in the mean number of treated infectious complications (0.22 vs. 0.21; P=0.72), 90-day mortality (442 of 1184 patients [37.3%] vs. 464 of 1188 patients [39.1%], P=0.40), in rates of 14 other secondary outcomes, or in rates of adverse events. Caloric intake was similar in the two groups, with the target intake not achieved in most patients. CONCLUSIONS We found no significant difference in 30-day mortality associated with the route of delivery of early nutritional support in critically ill adults. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research; CALORIES Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN17386141.).

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study.

Purpose:To determine the association between compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) performance bundles and mortality. Design:Compliance with the SSC performance bundles, which are based on the 2004 SSC guidelines, was measured in 29,470 subjects entered into the SSC database from January 1, 2005, through June 30, 2012. Compliance was defined as evidence that all bundle elements were achieved. Setting:Two hundred eighteen community, academic, and tertiary care hospitals in the United States, South America, and Europe. Patients:Patients from the emergency department, medical and surgical wards, and ICU who met diagnosis criteria for severe sepsis and septic shock. Methods:A multifaceted, collaborative change intervention aimed at facilitating adoption of the SSC resuscitation and management bundles was introduced. Compliance with the SSC bundles and associated mortality rate was the primary outcome variable. Results:Overall lower mortality was observed in high (29.0%) versus low (38.6%) resuscitation bundle compliance sites (p < 0.001) and between high (33.4%) and low (32.3%) management bundle compliance sites (p = 0.039). Hospital mortality rates dropped 0.7% per site for every three months (quarter) of participation (p < 0.001). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay decreased 4% (95% CI: 1% - 7%; p = 0.012) for every 10% increase in site compliance with the resuscitation bundle. Conclusions:This analysis demonstrates that increased compliance with sepsis performance bundles was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction in mortality rate. Every 10% increase in compliance and additional quarter of participation in the SSC initiative was associated with a significant decrease in the odds ratio for hospital mortality. These results demonstrate that performance metrics can drive change in clinical behavior, improve quality of care, and may decrease mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.