Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with 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 these critically ill patients with high mortality

Differences in access to coronary care unit among patients with acute myocardial infarction in Rome: old, ill, and poor people hold the burden of inefficiency

Abstract Background Direct admission to Coronary Care Unit (CCU) on hospital arrival can be considered as a good proxy for adequate management in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), as it has been associated with better prognosis. We analyzed a cohort of patients with AMI hospitalized in Rome (Italy) in 1997–2000 to assess the proportion directly admitted to CCU and to investigate the effect of patient characteristics such as gender, age, illness severity on admission, and socio-economic status (SES) on CCU admission practices. Methods Using discharge data, we analyzed a cohort of 9127 AMI patients. Illness severity on admission was determined using the Deyo's adaptation of the Charlson's comorbidity index, and each patient was assigned to one to four SES groups (level I referring to the highest SES) defined by a socioeconomic index, derived by the characteristics of the census tract of residence. The effect of gender, age, illness severity and SES, on risk of non-admission to CCU was investigated using a logistic regression model (OR, CI 95%). Results Only 53.9% of patients were directly admitted to CCU, and access to optimal care was more frequently offered to younger patients (OR = 0.35; 95%CI = 0.25–0.48 when comparing 85+ to >=50 years), those with less severe illness (OR = 0.48; 95%CI = 0.37–0.61 when comparing Charlson index 3+ to 0) and the socially advantaged (OR = 0.81; 95%CI = 0.66–0.99 when comparing low to high SES). Conclusion In Rome, Italy, standard optimal coronary care is underprovided. It seems to be granted preferentially to the better off, even after controversial clinical criteria, such as age and severity of illness, are taken into account.</p

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Genomics and pharmacogenomics of sepsis: so close and yet so far

Sapru et al. show in this issue of Critical Care that variants of thrombomodulin and the endothelial protein C receptor, but not protein C, are associated with mortality and organ dysfunction (ventilation-free and organ failure-free days) in ARDS. Hundreds of gene variants have been found prognostic in sepsis. However, none of these prognostic genomic biomarkers are used clinically. Predictive biomarker discovery (pharmacogenomics) usually follows a candidate gene approach, utilizing knowledge of drug pathways. Pharmacogenomics could be applied to enhance efficacy and safety of drugs used for treatment of sepsis (e.g., norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, and corticosteroids). Pharmacogenomics can enhance drug development in sepsis, which is very important because there is no approved drug for sepsis. Pharmacogenomics biomarkers must pass three milestones: scientific, regulatory, and commercial. Huge challenges remain but great opportunities for pharmacogenomics of sepsis are on the horizon