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

Surviving sepsis: going beyond the guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign is a global effort to improve the care of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The first Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines were published in 2004 with an updated version published in 2008. These guidelines have been endorsed by many professional organizations throughout the world and come regarded as the standard of care for the management of patients with severe sepsis. Unfortunately, most of the recommendations of these guidelines are not evidence-based. Furthermore, the major components of the 6-hour bundle are based on a single-center study whose validity has been recently under increasing scrutiny. This paper reviews the validity of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-hour bundle and provides a more evidence-based approach to the initial resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis

Diarrhoea in the critically ill is common, associated with poor outcome, and rarely due to Clostridium difficile

Diarrhoea is common in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients, with a reported prevalence of 15-38%. Many factors may cause diarrhoea, including Clostridium difficile, drugs (e.g. laxatives, antibiotics) and enteral feeds. Diarrhoea impacts on patient dignity, increases nursing workload and healthcare costs, and exacerbates morbidity through dermal injury, impaired enteral uptake and subsequent fluid imbalance. We analysed a cohort of 9331 consecutive patients admitted to a mixed general intensive care unit to establish the prevalence of diarrhoea in intensive care unit patients, and its relationship with infective aetiology and clinical outcomes. We provide evidence that diarrhoea is common (12.9% (1207/9331) prevalence) in critically ill patients, independently associated with increased intensive care unit length of stay (mean (standard error) 14.8 (0.26) vs 3.2 (0.09) days, p < 0.001) and mortality (22.0% (265/1207) vs 8.7% (705/8124), p < 0.001; adjusted hazard ratio 1.99 (95% CI 1.70-2.32), p < 0.001) compared to patients without diarrhoea even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, and infrequently caused by infective aetiology (112/1207 (9.2%)) such as Clostridium difficile (97/1048 (9.3%) tested) or virological causes (9/172 (5.7%) tested). Our findings suggest non-infective causes of diarrhoea in ICU predominate and pathophysiology of diarrhoea in critically ill patients warrants further investigation

Feasibility of Modified Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines in a Resource-Restricted Setting Based on a Cohort Study of Severe S. Aureus Sepsis

[This corrects the article on p. e29858 in vol. 7.]

A comparison of genomic copy number calls by Partek Genomics Suite, Genotyping Console and Birdsuite algorithms to quantitative PCR

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Copy number variants are >1 kb genomic amplifications or deletions that can be identified using array platforms. However, arrays produce substantial background noise that contributes to high false discovery rates of variants. We hypothesized that quantitative PCR could finitely determine copy number and assess the validity of calling algorithms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using data from 29 Affymetrix SNP 6.0 arrays, we determined copy numbers using three programs: Partek Genomics Suite, Affymetrix Genotyping Console 2.0 and Birdsuite. We compared array calls at 25 chromosomal regions to those determined by qPCR and found nearly identical calls in regions of copy number 2. Conversely, agreement differed in regions called variant by at least one method. The highest overall agreement in calls, 91%, was between Birdsuite and quantitative PCR. Partek Genomics Suite calls agreed with quantitative PCR 76% of the time while the agreement of Affymetrix Genotyping Console 2.0 with quantitative PCR was 79%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In 38 independent samples, 96% of Birdsuite calls agreed with quantitative PCR. Analysis of three copy number calling programs and quantitative PCR showed Birdsuite to have the greatest agreement with quantitative PCR.</p

Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Circulatory 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Forty-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. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock

Delta neutrophil index as an early marker of disease severity in critically ill patients with sepsis

BACKGROUND: The immature granulocyte count has been reported to be a marker of infection and sepsis. The difference in leukocyte subfractions (delta neutrophil index, DNI) in ADVIA 2120 reflects the fraction of circulating immature granulocytes in the blood. This study evaluated the clinical utility of DNI as a severity and prediction marker in critically ill patients with sepsis. METHODS: One hundred and three patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit with sepsis were studied. DNI (the difference in leukocyte subfractions identified by myeloperoxidase and nuclear lobularity channels) was determined using a specific blood cell analyzer. RESULTS: Forty four patients (42.7%) were diagnosed with severe sepsis/septic shock. Overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) occurred in 40 (38.8%). DNI was significantly higher in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock and overt DIC than in patients without (p 6.5% was a better indicator of severe sepsis/septic shock than C-reactive protein, lactate, white blood cell count, and absolute neutrophil count (sensitivity, 81.3%; specificity, 91.0%; positive predictive value, 88.6%; and negative predictive value, 84.7%). In 36 (82%) of the 44 patients with severe sepsis/septic shock, DNI values were already elevated up to 12 hours before the onset of organ/circulatory failure. CONCLUSIONS: DNI may be used as a marker of disease severity in critically ill patients with sepsis. High levels of DNI may help to identify patients with an impending risk of developing severe sepsis/septic shock.ope

Risk factors for multi-drug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremia in patients with colonization in the intensive care unit

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Epidemic outbreaks of multi-drug resistant (MDR) <it>Acinetobacter baumannii </it>(AB) in intensive care units (ICUs) are increasing. The incidence of MDR AB bacteremia, which develops as a result of colonization, is increasing through widespread dissemination of the pathogen, and further colonization. We sought to determine risk factors for MDR AB bacteremia in patients colonized with MDR AB in the ICU.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 200 patients colonized with MDR AB in the ICU at Severance Hospital, South Korea during the outbreak period between January 2008 and December 2009.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 200 patients colonized with MDR AB, 108 developed MDR AB bacteremia, and 92 did not. APACHE II scores were higher in bacteremic than non-bacteremic patients at the time of ICU admission and colonization (24.0 vs. 21.6; <it>P </it>= 0.035, 22.9 vs. 16.8; <it>P </it>< 0.001, respectively). There was no difference between the two groups in the duration of time from ICU admission to colonization (7.1 vs. 7.2 days; <it>P </it>= 0.923), but the duration of time at risk was shorter in bacteremic patients (12.1 vs. 6.0 days; <it>P </it>= 0.016). A recent invasive procedure was a significant risk factor for development of bacteremia (odds ratio = 3.85; 95% CI 1.45-10.24; <it>P </it>= 0.007). Multivariate analysis indicated infection and respiratory failure at the time of ICU admission, maintenance of mechanical ventilation, maintenance of endotracheal tube instead of switching to a tracheostomy, recent central venous catheter insertion, bacteremia caused by other microorganism after colonization by MDR AB, and prior antimicrobial therapy, were significant risk factors for MDR AB bacteremia.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients in the ICU, colonized with MDR AB, should be considered for minimizing invasive procedures and early removal of the invasive devices to prevent development of MDR AB bacteremia.</p