Steven M. Opal

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.

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.

Treatment of Septic Shock with the Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor:Fc Fusion Protein

BACKGROUND A recombinant, soluble fusion protein that is a dimer of an extracellular portion of the human tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor and the Fc portion of IgG1 (TNFR:Fc) binds and neutralizes TNF-alpha and prevents death in animal models of bacteremia and endotoxemia. METHODS To evaluate the safety and efficacy of TNFR:Fc in the treatment of septic shock, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. A total of 141 patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or a single intravenous infusion of one of three doses of TNFR:Fc (0.15, 0.45, or 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight). The primary end point was mortality from all causes at 28 days. RESULTS There were 10 deaths among the 33 patients in the placebo group (30 percent mortality), 9 deaths among the 30 patients receiving the low dose of TNFR:Fc (30 percent mortality), 14 deaths among the 29 receiving the middle dose (48 percent mortality), and 26 deaths among the 49 receiving the high dose (53 percent mortality) (P = 0.02 for the dose-response relation). Baseline differences in the severity of illness did not account for the increased mortality in the groups receiving the higher doses of TNFR:Fc. CONCLUSIONS In patients with septic shock, treatment with the TNFR:Fc fusion protein does not reduce mortality, and higher doses appear to be associated with increased mortality.

Confirmatory interleukin-1 receptor antagonist trial in severe sepsis: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. The Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist Sepsis Investigator Group.

OBJECTIVE To determine the therapeutic efficacy and safety of recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (rhIL-1ra) in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis. DESIGN Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial with a planned, midstudy, interim analysis. SETTING Ninety-one academic medical center intensive care units in North America and Europe. PATIENTS Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (n = 696) received standard supportive care and antimicrobial therapy for sepsis, in addition to rhIL-1ra or placebo. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive either rhIL-1ra (100 mg) or placebo (vehicle) by intravenous bolus, followed by a 72-hr continuous intravenous infusion of either rhIL-1ra (2.0 mg/kg/hr) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The study was terminated after an interim analysis found that it was unlikely that the primary efficacy end points would be met. The 28-day, all-cause mortality rate was 33.1% (116/350) in the rhIL-1ra treatment group, while the mortality rate in the placebo group was 36.4% (126/346), yielding a 9% reduction in mortality rate (p = .36). The patients were well matched at the time of study entry; 52.9% of placebo-treated patients were in shock while 50.9% of rhIL-1ra-treated patients were in shock at the time of study entry (p = .30). The mortality rate did not significantly differ between treatment groups when analyzed on the basis of site of infection, infecting microorganism, presence of bacteremia, shock, organ dysfunction, or predicted risk of mortality at the time of study entry. No excess number of adverse reactions or microbial superinfections were attributable to rhIL-1ra treatment in this study. CONCLUSIONS A 72-hr, continuous intravenous infusion of rhIL-1ra failed to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in mortality when compared with standard therapy in this multicenter clinical trial. If rhIL-1ra treatment has any therapeutic activity in severe sepsis, the incremental benefits are small and will be difficult to demonstrate in a patient population as defined by this clinical trial.

Pathogenesis, treatment, and prevention of pneumococcal pneumonia

Pneumococcus remains the most common cause of community-acquired pneumonia worldwide. Streptococcus pneumoniae is well adapted to people, and is a frequent inhabitant of the upper airways in healthy hosts. This seemingly innocuous state of colonisation is a dynamic and competitive process in which the pathogen attempts to engage the host, proliferate, and invade the lower airways. The host in turn continuously deploys an array of innate and acquired cellular and humoral defences to prevent pneumococci from breaching tissue barriers. Discoveries into essential molecular mechanisms used by pneumococci to evade host-sensing systems that are designed to contain the pathogen provide new insights into potential treatment options. Versatility of the genome of pneumococci and the bacterias polygenic virulence capabilities show that a multifaceted approach with many vaccine antigens, antibiotic combinations, and immunoadjuvant therapies will be needed to control this microbe.

initial evaluation of human recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in the treatment of sepsis syndrome: A randomized, open-label, placebocontrolled multicenter trial

Objectives: To evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of human recombinant interleukin‐1 receptor antagonist (IL‐lra) in the treatment of patients with sepsis syndrome. Design: Prospective, open‐label, placebo‐controlled, phase II, multicenter clinical trial using three different doses of human recombinant ILlra. Setting: Twelve academic medical center intensive care units in the United States. Patients: Ninety‐nine patients with sepsis syndrome or septic shock who received standard supportive care and antimicrobial therapy, in addition to infusion with escalating doses of ILlra or placebo. Interventions: Patients received an intravenous loading dose of either human recombinant IL‐lra (100 mg) or placebo, followed by a 72‐hr intravenous infusion of either one of three doses of BL‐lra (17, 67, or 133 mg/hr) or placebo. All patients were evaluated for 28‐day, all‐cause mortality. Measurements and Main Results: A dosedependent, 28‐day survival benefit was associated with IL‐lra treatment (p = .015), as indicated by the following mortality rates: 11 (44%) deaths among 25 placebo patients; eight (32%) deaths among 25 patients receiving IL‐lra 17 mg/hr; six (25%) deaths among 24 patients receiving IL‐lra 67 mg/hr; and four (16%) deaths among 25 patients receiving IL‐lra 133 mg/hr. A dose‐related survival benefit was observed with infusion of IL‐lra in patients with septic shock at study entry (n = 65; p = .002) and in patients with Gram‐negative infection (n = 45; p = .04). Patients with an increased circulating interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) concentration of >100 pg/ mL at study entry demonstrated a dose‐related survival benefit with IL‐lra treatment (p = .009). In patients with an increased IL‐6 concentration at study entry, the magnitude of the decrease in IL‐6 concentration 24 hrs after the initiation of therapy was correlated with increasing the IL‐lra treatment dose (p = .052). A significant dose‐related reduction in the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score was achieved by the end of infusion (p = .038). A renal elimination mechanism for IL‐lra was suggested by the positive correlation between IL‐lra plasma clearance and estimated creatinine clearance (p = .001; r2 = .51). Human recombinant IL‐lra was well tolerated. Conclusions: This initial evaluation suggests that human recombinant IL‐lra is safe and may provide a dose‐related survival advantage to patients with sepsis syndrome. A larger, definitive clinical trial is needed to confirm these findings. (Crit Care Med 1994; 22:12‐21)

Influence of an anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody on cytokine levels in patients with sepsis

ObjectivesTo determine the safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity of an anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α monoclonal antibody in severe sepsis. DesignOpen-label, prospective, phase II multicenter trial with escalating doses of a murine monoclonal antibody (CB0006). SettingTwelve academic medical center intensive care units in the United States and Europe. PatientsEighty patients with severe sepsis or septic shock who received standard supportive care and antimicrobial therapy in addition to the anti-TNF antibody. InterventionsPatients were treated intravenously with one of four dosing regimens with CB0006: 0.1 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg or two doses of 1 mg/kg 24 hrs apart. Measurements and Main ResultsThe murine monoclonal anti-TNF antibody was well tolerated despite the development of anti-murine antibodies in 98% of patients. No survival benefit was found for the total study population, but patients with increased circulating TNF

Relationship between plasma levels of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and LPS- binding protein in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock

Plasma endotoxin and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) levels were measured in a group of 253 patients at the onset of severe sepsis and/or septic shock. Endotoxin levels were significantly greater than control levels (n=33; mean +/- SD, 5.1+/-7.3 pg/mL) in 78.3% of patients. Median endotoxin levels in patients with sepsis were 300 pg/mL (25%-75% interquartile range, 110-726 pg/mL). LBP levels were elevated in 97% of patients compared with normal control values of 4.1+/-1.65 microgram/mL. Median LBP levels in patients with sepsis were 31.2 microgram/mL (interquartile range, 22.5-47.7 microgram/mL). Median endotoxin levels at study entry were more highly elevated (515 vs. 230 pg/mL; P<.01), and LBP levels were less highly elevated (28.0 vs. 33.2 microgram/mL; P<.05) in nonsurvivors than survivors over the 28-day study period. No correlation was found between endotoxin and LBP levels. The quantitative level of both endotoxin and LBP may have prognostic significance in patients with severe sepsis.

Effect of Eritoran, an Antagonist of MD2-TLR4, on Mortality in Patients With Severe Sepsis: The ACCESS Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE Eritoran is a synthetic lipid A antagonist that blocks lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from binding at the cell surface MD2-TLR4 receptor. LPS is a major component of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria and is a potent activator of the acute inflammatory response. OBJECTIVE To determine if eritoran, a TLR4 antagonist, would significantly reduce sepsis-induced mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial in 197 intensive care units. Patients were enrolled from June 2006 to September 2010 and final follow-up was completed in September 2011. INTERVENTIONS Patients with severe sepsis (n = 1961) were randomized and treated within 12 hours of onset of first organ dysfunction in a 2:1 ratio with a 6-day course of either eritoran tetrasodium (105 mg total) or placebo, with n = 1304 and n = 657 patients, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary end points were all-cause mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months after beginning treatment. RESULTS Baseline characteristics of the 2 study groups were similar. In the modified intent-to-treat analysis (randomized patients who received at least 1 dose) there was no significant difference in the primary end point of 28-day all-cause mortality with 28.1% (366/1304) in the eritoran group vs 26.9% (177/657) in the placebo group (P = .59; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.88-1.26; difference in mortality rate, -1.1; 95% CI, -5.3 to 3.1) or in the key secondary end point of 1-year all-cause mortality with 44.1% (290/657) in the eritoran group vs 43.3% (565/1304) in the placebo group, Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to death by 1 year, P = .79 (hazard ratio, 0.98; 0.85-1.13). No significant differences were observed in any of the prespecified subgroups. Adverse events, including secondary infection rates, did not differ between study groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with severe sepsis, the use of eritoran, compared with placebo, did not result in reduced 28-day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00334828.