Sean R. Townsend

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.

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.

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.

Sepsis change bundles: converting guidelines into meaningful change in behavior and clinical outcome.

The incidence of severe sepsis (sepsis with organ dysfunction) is increasing (1). Several recently published studies have demonstrated decreased mortality and morbidity as a result of interventions and therapeutics applied to patients with sepsis (2–5). These new data, resulting from rigorously perf

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.

Lactate measurements in sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion: results from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database.

Objective:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend obtaining a serum lactate measurement within 6 hours of presentation for all patients with suspected severe sepsis or septic shock. A lactate greater than 4 mmol/L qualifies for administration of early quantitative resuscitation therapy. We evaluated lactate elevation (with special attention to values > 4 mmol/L) and presence or absence of hypotension as a marker of clinical outcome. Design and Setting:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign developed a database to assess the overall effect of the sepsis bundles as a performance improvement tool for clinical practice and patient outcome. This analysis focuses on one element of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s resuscitation bundle, measuring serum lactate in adult severe sepsis or septic shock patients and its interaction with hypotension. This analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2010. Subjects:Data from 28,150 subjects at 218 sites were analyzed. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:Unadjusted analysis of the 28,150 observations from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database demonstrated a significant mortality increase with the presence of hypotension in conjunction with serum lactate elevation greater than 2 mmol/L. On multivariable analysis, only lactate values greater than 4 mmol/L, in conjunction with hypotension, significantly increased mortality when compared with the referent group of lactate values less than 2 mmol/L and not hypotensive. Mortality was 44.5% in patients with combined lactate greater than 4 mmol/L and hypotension when compared with 29% mortality in patients not meeting either criteria. Conclusions:Serum lactate was commonly measured within 6 hours of presentation in the management of severe sepsis or septic shock in this subset analysis of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database in accordance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Our results demonstrate that elevated lactate levels are highly associated with in-hospital mortality. However, only patients who presented with lactate values greater than 4 mmol/L, with and without hypotension, are significantly associated with in-hospital mortality and is associated with a significantly higher risk than intermediate levels (2–3 and 3–4 mmol/L). This supports the use of the cutoff of greater than 4 mmol/L as a qualifier for future clinical trials in severe sepsis or septic shock in patient populations who use quantitative resuscitation and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles as standard of care.

Reducing mortality in severe sepsis: the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.

This article traces the history and evolution of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a public health initiative through its several stages of development. The literature that has characterized clinical experiences with interventions related to the campaign is reviewed and conclusions discussed.

Sepsis severity score: an internationally derived scoring system from the surviving sepsis campaign database*.

Objective:As the Surviving Sepsis Campaign was assessing patient-level data over multiple countries, we sought to evaluate the use of a pragmatic and parsimonious severity-of-illness scoring system for patients with sepsis in an attempt to provide appropriate comparisons with practical application. Design:Prospective, observational evaluation. Patients:Data from 23,438 patients with suspected or confirmed sepsis from 218 hospitals in 18 countries were evaluated. Setting:This analysis was conducted on prospective data submitted to a database from January 2005 through March 2010. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:Maximum likelihood logistic regression was used to estimate model coefficients, and these were then used to develop a Sepsis Severity Score. The probability of hospital mortality was estimated using the Sepsis Severity Score as the sole variable in a logistic regression model. Univariable logistic regression determined which variables were included in the multivariable predictor model. The scale of continuous variables was assessed using fractional polynomials. Two-way interactions between variables were considered for model inclusion if the interaction p value is less than 0.05. The prediction model was developed based on randomly selecting 90% of available patients and was validated on the remaining 10%, as well as by using a bootstrapping technique. The p values for the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodnessof-fit statistic in the developmental and validation datasets were considerably greater than 0.05, suggesting good calibration. Development and validation areas under the receiver operator curve curves were 0.736 and 0.748, respectively. Observed and estimated probabilities of hospital mortality for the total population were both 0.334. The validation and the developmental datasets were gradually compared over deciles of predicted mortality and found to be very similar. Conclusion:The Sepsis Severity Score accurately estimated the probability of hospital mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock patients. It performed well with respect to calibration and discrimination, which remained consistent over deciles. It functioned well over international geographic regions. This robust, population-specific evaluation of international severe sepsis patients provides an effective and accurate mortality estimate allowing for appropriate quality comparisons with practical clinical and research application.

Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock

In Reply Sepsis-3 defines septic shock as a life-threatening, generalized form of acute circulatory dysfunction (represented as vasopressor-dependent hypotension) associated with inadequate oxygen utilization (represented as hyperlactatemia), but with the important caveat of adequate fluid resuscitation. This definition has strong similarities to the consensus recommendations1 cited by Dr Hernández and colleagues. This change in clinical criteria describing this definition will alter the epidemiology of septic shock because of reclassification2 but should offer greater consistency, as the current incidence varies 10-fold and mortality 4-fold. An accepted framework was applied to evaluate complex syndromes that incorporated content, criterion, predictive, and construct validity principles.2 The task force considered patients with septic shock as representing a population with a higher risk of dying than those with sepsis alone. Using the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database, crude mortality for patients with a combination of vasopressor-dependent hypotension and hyperlactatemia (>2 mmol/L) after fluids was 42.3%. This compares with 30.1% for patients with hypotension after fluids without hyperlactatemia and 25.7% for hyperlactatemia after fluids without hypotension; these differences persisted after risk adjustment. Importantly, mortality in the latter 2 groups, which perhaps represent a state of “preshock” rather than “early shock,” was similar to that for patients without hyperlactatemia or vasopressor-dependent hypotension (25.0%). Hernández and colleagues also raise concerns about the availability of lactate measurement in lowand middleincome settings. We too proposed clinical assessment of the peripheral circulation as an alternative to detect other signs of shock,3 although such a tool must be validated and readily reproducible. In response to Dr Jaehne and colleagues, several factors explain the lower mortality in trials evaluating early goaldirected therapy. Multiple exclusion criteria were operant; patients could be enrolled with hyperlactatemia (>4 mmol/L), irrespective of fluid resuscitation, many of whom respond quickly to fluid therapy or could have fluid-refractory hypotension, and only 16% of enrolled cases had the more lifethreatening combination of hypotension and hyperlactatemia. The mortality data we derived using the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database were confirmed in 2 additional data sets3 and in 12 004 critical care patients in England.4 Although patients without both cardiovascular dysfunction and elevated lactate levels would not meet the new definition of septic shock, we would expect a hypotensive alactatemic patient (suggested by Jaehne and colleagues), a normotensive hyperlactatemic patient, or a normotensive alactatemic patient with other clinical signs of unwellness (suggested by Hernández and colleagues) to receive prompt, appropriate management. Caring for a sick patient should not be delayed simply because they do not meet specific criteria—this is just as true for the old definitions as for the new. We do not agree that the updated septic shock definition will worsen patient outcomes or endanger patient care. The redefinition of a syndrome aims to provide an updated illness concept. We contend that the new definition, offering clearly articulated clinical criteria, will provide a stronger platform on which to build research, education, and quality improvement studies by harmonizing the multiple septic shock case definitions currently in use.2 The framework, which emphasizes reliability and at least 1 form of validity, is a step forward from a simple consensus statement.