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. 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 h 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 h of the 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 h 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 (1B); 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 is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (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 PaO (2)/FiO (2) 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 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 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 h 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 h 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 5-10 min (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

Medical Guidelines and Performance Measures: The Need to Keep Them Free of Industry Influence

To be unbiased and represent best practice, medical guidelines should be free of industry influence, carefully vetted among experts in the field and encompass treatments widely accepted based on difficult to refute evidence ( Shaneyfelt, Mayo-Smith and Rothwang, 2006; Grilli, et al. , 2000; Grissom, 2000). These requirements are even more important if individual guideline recommendations are to be grouped into "bundles" to serve as performance measures and provide a possible basis for reimbursement. In a fall 2006 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine , we presented our concerns when these requirements are not met ( Eichacker, Natanson and Danner, 2006 ). As an example, which directly affected us as physicians in the field of critical care medicine, we described the close relationship between the development and implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and the marketing efforts of Eli Lilly and Company, the primary financial sponsor for this campaign. Considering solutions to such a problem in the context of our original concerns is worthwhile. [No abstract available.

Lethal and Edema Toxins in the Pathogenesis of Bacillus anthracis Septic Shock: Implications for Therapy

Recent research regarding the structure and function of Bacillus anthracis lethal (LeTx) and edema (ETx) toxins provides growing insights into the pathophysiology and treatment of shock with this lethal bacteria. These are both binary-type toxins composed of protective antigen necessary for their cellular uptake and either lethal or edema factors, the toxigenic moieties. The primary cellular receptors for protective antigen have been identified and constructed and key steps in the extracellular processing and internalization of the toxins clarified. Consistent with the lethal factor's primary action as an intracellular endopeptidase targeting mitogen-activated protein kinase kinases, growing evidence indicates that shock with this toxin does not result from an excessive inflammatory response. In fact, the potent immunosuppressive effects of LeTx may actually contribute to the establishment and persistence of infection. Instead, shock with LeTx may be related to the direct injurious effects of lethal factor on endothelial cell function. Despite the importance of LeTx, very recent studies show that edema factor, a potent adenyl cyclase, has the ability to make a substantial contribution to shock caused by B. anthracis and works additively with LeTx. Furthermore, ETx may contribute to the immunosuppressive effects of LeTx. Therapies under development that target several different steps in the cellular uptake and function of these two toxins have been effective in in vitro and in vivo systems. Understanding how best to apply these agents clinically and how they interact with conventional treatments should be goals for future research

Eritoran tetrasodium (E5564) treatment for sepsis: review of preclinical and clinical studies

Photograph of a scene in Hafer Park after a snow storm

The Potential Pathogenic Contributions of Endothelial Barrier and Arterial Contractile Dysfunction to Shock Due to B. anthracis Lethal and Edema Toxins

Shock with B. anthracis infection is particularly resistant to conventional cardiovascular support and its mortality rate appears higher than with more common bacterial pathogens. As opposed to many bacteria that lack exotoxins directly depressing hemodynamic function, lethal and edema toxin (LT and ET respectively) both cause shock and likely contribute to the high lethality rate with B. anthracis. Selective inhibition of the toxins is protective in infection models, and administration of either toxin alone in animals produces hypotension with accompanying organ injury and lethality. Shock during infection is typically due to one of two mechanisms: (i) intravascular volume depletion related to disruption of endothelial barrier function; and (ii) extravasation of fluid and/or maladaptive dilation of peripheral resistance arteries. Although some data suggests that LT can produce myocardial dysfunction, growing evidence demonstrates that it may also interfere with endothelial integrity thereby contributing to the extravasation of fluid that helps characterize severe B. anthracis infection. Edema toxin, on the other hand, while known to produce localized tissue edema when injected subcutaneously, has potent vascular relaxant effects that could lead to pathologic arterial dilation. This review will examine recent data supporting a role for these two pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying the shock LT and ET produce. Further research and a better understanding of these mechanisms may lead to improved management of B. anthracis in patients

A Review of the Efficacy of FDA-Approved B. anthracis Anti-Toxin Agents When Combined with Antibiotic or Hemodynamic Support in Infection- or Toxin-Challenged Preclinical Models

Anti-toxin agents for severe B. anthracis infection will only be effective if they add to the benefit of the two mainstays of septic shock management, antibiotic therapy and titrated hemodynamic support. Both of these standard therapies could negate benefits related to anti-toxin treatment. At present, three anthrax anti-toxin antibody preparations have received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval: Raxibacumab, Anthrax Immune Globulin Intravenous (AIGIV) and ETI-204. Each agent is directed at the protective antigen component of lethal and edema toxin. All three agents were compared to placebo in antibiotic-treated animal models of live B. anthracis infection, and Raxibacumab and AIGIV were compared to placebo when combined with standard hemodynamic support in a 96 h canine model of anthrax toxin-associated shock. However, only AIG has actually been administered to a group of infected patients, and this experience was not controlled and offers little insight into the efficacy of the agents. To provide a broader view of the potential effectiveness of these agents, this review examines the controlled preclinical experience either in antibiotic-treated B. anthracis models or in titrated hemodynamic-supported toxin-challenged canines. The strength and weaknesses of these preclinical experiences are discussed

The Effects of Obesity on Outcome in Preclinical Animal Models of Infection and Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Clinical studies suggest obesity paradoxically increases survival during bacterial infection and sepsis but decreases it with influenza, but these studies are observational. By contrast, animal studies of obesity in infection can prospectively compare obese versus nonobese controls. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal investigations to further examine obesity’s survival effect in infection and sepsis. Methods. Databases were searched for studies comparing survival in obese versus nonobese animals following bacteria, lipopolysaccharide, or influenza virus challenges. Results. Twenty-one studies (761 obese and 603 control animals) met the inclusion criteria. Obesity reduced survival in 19 studies (11 significantly) and the odds ratio (95% CI) of survival (0.21(0.13, 0.35); I2 = 64%, p<0.01p < 0.01) but with high heterogeneity. Obesity reduced survival (1) consistently in both single-strain bacteria- and lipopolysaccharide-challenged studies (n = 6 studies, 0.21(0.13, 0.34); I2 = 31%, p=0.20 and n = 5, 0.22(0.13, 0.36); I2 = 0%, p=0.59, respectively), (2) not significantly with cecal ligation and puncture (n = 4, 0.72(0.08, 6.23); I2 = 75%, p<0.01), and (3) significantly with influenza but with high heterogeneity (n = 6, 0.12(0.04, 0.34); I2 = 73%, p<0.01). Obesity’s survival effects did not differ significantly comparing the four challenge types (p=0.49). Animal models did not include antimicrobials or glycemic control and study quality was low. Conclusions. Preclinical and clinical studies together emphasize the need for prospective studies in patients accurately assessing obesity’s impact on survival during severe infection

The Potential Contributions of Lethal and Edema Toxins to the Pathogenesis of Anthrax Associated Shock

Outbreaks of Bacillus anthracis in the US and Europe over the past 10 years have emphasized the health threat this lethal bacteria poses even for developed parts of the world. In contrast to cutaneous anthrax, inhalational disease in the US during the 2001 outbreaks and the newly identified injectional drug use form of disease in the UK and Germany have been associated with relatively high mortality rates. One notable aspect of these cases has been the difficulty in supporting patients once shock has developed. Anthrax bacilli produce several different components which likely contribute to this shock. Growing evidence indicates that both major anthrax toxins may produce substantial cardiovascular dysfunction. Lethal toxin (LT) can alter peripheral vascular function; it also has direct myocardial depressant effects. Edema toxin (ET) may have even more pronounced peripheral vascular effects than LT, including the ability to interfere with the actions of conventional vasopressors. Additionally, ET also appears capable of interfering with renal sodium and water retention. Importantly, the two toxins exert their actions via quite different mechanisms and therefore have the potential to worsen shock and outcome in an additive fashion. Finally, both toxins have the ability to inhibit host defense and microbial clearance, possibly contributing to the very high bacterial loads noted in patients dying with anthrax. This last point is clinically relevant since emerging data has begun to implicate other bacterial components such as anthrax cell wall in the shock and organ injury observed with infection. Taken together, accumulating evidence regarding the potential contribution of LT and ET to anthrax-associated shock supports efforts to develop adjunctive therapies that target both toxins in patients with progressive shock