Prevalence, reasons, and timing of decisions to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining therapy for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Background　Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is rapidly becoming a common treatment strategy for patients with refractory cardiac arrest. Despite its benefits, ECPR raises a variety of ethical concerns when the treatment is discontinued. There is little information about the decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining therapy (WLST) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients after ECPR. Methods　We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the SAVE-J II study, a retrospective, multicenter study of ECPR in Japan. Adult patients who underwent ECPR for OHCA with medical causes were included. The prevalence, reasons, and timing of WLST decisions were recorded. Outcomes of patients with or without WLST decisions were compared. Further, factors associated with WLST decisions were examined. Results　We included 1660 patients in the analysis; 510 (30.7%) had WLST decisions. The number of WLST decisions was the highest on the first day and WSLT decisions were made a median of two days after ICU admission. Reasons for WLST were perceived unfavorable neurological prognosis (300/510 [58.8%]), perceived unfavorable cardiac/pulmonary prognosis (105/510 [20.5%]), inability to maintain extracorporeal cardiopulmonary support (71/510 [13.9%]), complications (10/510 [1.9%]), exacerbation of comorbidity before cardiac arrest (7/510 [1.3%]), and others. Patients with WLST had lower 30-day survival (WLST vs. no-WLST: 36/506 [7.1%] vs. 386/1140 [33.8%], p ConclusionFor approximately one-third of ECPR/OHCA patients, WLST was decided during admission, mainly because of perceived unfavorable neurological prognoses. Decisions and neurological assessments for ECPR/OHCA patients need further analysis

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Background and purposeThe Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] https://doi.org/10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.MethodsMembers of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.ResultsA total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.ConclusionsBased on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.other authors: Satoru Hashimoto,Daisuke Hasegawa,Junji Hatakeyama,Naoki Hara,Naoki Higashibeppu,Nana Furushima,Hirotaka Furusono,Yujiro Matsuishi,Tasuku Matsuyama,Yusuke Minematsu,Ryoichi Miyashita,Yuji Miyatake,Megumi Moriyasu,Toru Yamada,Hiroyuki Yamada,Ryo Yamamoto,Takeshi Yoshida,Yuhei Yoshida,Jumpei Yoshimura,Ryuichi Yotsumoto,Hiroshi Yonekura,Takeshi Wada,Eizo Watanabe,Makoto Aoki,Hideki Asai,Takakuni Abe,Yutaka Igarashi,Naoya Iguchi,Masami Ishikawa,Go Ishimaru,Shutaro Isokawa,Ryuta Itakura,Hisashi Imahase,Haruki Imura,Takashi Irinoda,Kenji Uehara,Noritaka Ushio,Takeshi Umegaki,Yuko Egawa,Yuki Enomoto,Kohei Ota,Yoshifumi Ohchi,Takanori Ohno,Hiroyuki Ohbe,Kazuyuki Oka,Nobunaga Okada,Yohei Okada,Hiromu Okano,Jun Okamoto,Hiroshi Okuda,Takayuki Ogura,Yu Onodera,Yuhta Oyama,Motoshi Kainuma,Eisuke Kako,Masahiro Kashiura,Hiromi Kato,Akihiro Kanaya,Tadashi Kaneko,Keita Kanehata,Ken-ichi Kano,Hiroyuki Kawano,Kazuya Kikutani,Hitoshi Kikuchi,Takahiro Kido,Sho Kimura,Hiroyuki Koami,Daisuke Kobashi,Iwao Saiki,Masahito Sakai,Ayaka Sakamoto,Tetsuya Sato,Yasuhiro Shiga,Manabu Shimoto,Shinya Shimoyama,Tomohisa Shoko,Yoh Sugawara,Atsunori Sugita,Satoshi Suzuki,Yuji Suzuki,Tomohiro Suhara,Kenji Sonota,Shuhei Takauji,Kohei Takashima,Sho Takahashi,Yoko Takahashi,Jun Takeshita,Yuuki Tanaka,Akihito Tampo,Taichiro Tsunoyama,Kenichi Tetsuhara,Kentaro Tokunaga,Yoshihiro Tomioka,Kentaro Tomita,Naoki Tominaga,Mitsunobu Toyosaki,Yukitoshi Toyoda,Hiromichi Naito,Isao Nagata,Tadashi Nagato,Yoshimi Nakamura,Yuki Nakamori,Isao Nahara,Hiromu Naraba,Chihiro Narita,Norihiro Nishioka,Tomoya Nishimura,Kei Nishiyama,Tomohisa Nomura,Taiki Haga,Yoshihiro Hagiwara,Katsuhiko Hashimoto,Takeshi Hatachi,Toshiaki Hamasaki,Takuya Hayashi,Minoru Hayashi,Atsuki Hayamizu,Go Haraguchi,Yohei Hirano,Ryo Fujii,Motoki Fujita,Naoyuki Fujimura,Hiraku Funakoshi,Masahito Horiguchi,Jun Maki,Naohisa Masunaga,Yosuke Matsumura,Takuya Mayumi,Keisuke Minami,Yuya Miyazaki,Kazuyuki Miyamoto,Teppei Murata,Machi Yanai,Takao Yano,Kohei Yamada,Naoki Yamada,Tomonori Yamamoto,Shodai Yoshihiro,Hiroshi Tanaka,Osamu NishidaGuideline

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.other authors: Yasuhiro Norisue, Satoru Hashimoto, Daisuke Hasegawa, Junji Hatakeyama, Naoki Hara, Naoki Higashibeppu, Nana Furushima, Hirotaka Furusono, Yujiro Matsuishi, Tasuku Matsuyama, Yusuke Minematsu, Ryoichi Miyashita, Yuji Miyatake, Megumi Moriyasu, Toru Yamada, Hiroyuki Yamada, Ryo Yamamoto, Takeshi Yoshida, Yuhei Yoshida, Jumpei Yoshimura, Ryuichi Yotsumoto, Hiroshi Yonekura, Takeshi Wada, Eizo Watanabe, Makoto Aoki, Hideki Asai, Takakuni Abe, Yutaka Igarashi, Naoya Iguchi, Masami Ishikawa, Go Ishimaru, Shutaro Isokawa, Ryuta Itakura, Hisashi Imahase, Haruki Imura, Takashi Irinoda, Kenji Uehara, Noritaka Ushio, Takeshi Umegaki, Yuko Egawa, Yuki Enomoto, Kohei Ota, Yoshifumi Ohchi, Takanori Ohno, Hiroyuki Ohbe, Kazuyuki Oka, Nobunaga Okada, Yohei Okada, Hiromu Okano, Jun Okamoto, Hiroshi Okuda, Takayuki Ogura, Yu Onodera, Yuhta Oyama, Motoshi Kainuma, Eisuke Kako, Masahiro Kashiura, Hiromi Kato, Akihiro Kanaya, Tadashi Kaneko, Keita Kanehata, Ken-ichi Kano, Hiroyuki Kawano, Kazuya Kikutani, Hitoshi Kikuchi, Takahiro Kido, Sho Kimura, Hiroyuki Koami, Daisuke Kobashi, Iwao Saiki, Masahito Sakai, Ayaka Sakamoto, Tetsuya Sato, Yasuhiro Shiga, Manabu Shimoto, Shinya Shimoyama, Tomohisa Shoko, Yoh Sugawara, Atsunori Sugita, Satoshi Suzuki, Yuji Suzuki, Tomohiro Suhara, Kenji Sonota, Shuhei Takauji, Kohei Takashima, Sho Takahashi, Yoko Takahashi, Jun Takeshita, Yuuki Tanaka, Akihito Tampo, Taichiro Tsunoyama, Kenichi Tetsuhara, Kentaro Tokunaga, Yoshihiro Tomioka, Kentaro Tomita, Naoki Tominaga, Mitsunobu Toyosaki, Yukitoshi Toyoda, Hiromichi Naito, Isao Nagata, Tadashi Nagato, Yoshimi Nakamura, Yuki Nakamori, Isao Nahara, Hiromu Naraba, Chihiro Narita, Norihiro Nishioka, Tomoya Nishimura, Kei Nishiyama, Tomohisa Nomura, Taiki Haga, Yoshihiro Hagiwara, Katsuhiko Hashimoto, Takeshi Hatachi, Toshiaki Hamasaki, Takuya Hayashi, Minoru Hayashi, Atsuki Hayamizu, Go Haraguchi, Yohei Hirano, Ryo Fujii, Motoki Fujita, Naoyuki Fujimura, Hiraku Funakoshi, Masahito Horiguchi, Jun Maki, Naohisa Masunaga, Yosuke Matsumura, Takuya Mayumi, Keisuke Minami, Yuya Miyazaki, Kazuyuki Miyamoto, Teppei Murata, Machi Yanai, Takao Yano, Kohei Yamada, Naoki Yamada, Tomonori Yamamoto, Shodai Yoshihiro, Hiroshi Tanaka & Osamu Nishid

Clinical parameter‐guided initial resuscitation in adult patients with septic shock: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Abstract Aim To identify the most useful tissue perfusion parameter for initial resuscitation in sepsis/septic shock adults using a network meta‐analysis. Methods We searched major databases until December 2022 for randomized trials comparing four tissue perfusion parameters or against usual care. The primary outcome was short‐term mortality up to 90 days. The Confidence in Network Meta‐Analysis web application was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results Seventeen trials were identified. Lactate‐guided therapy (risk ratios, 0.59; 95% confidence intervals [0.45–0.76]; high certainty) and capillary refill time‐guided therapy (risk ratios, 0.53; 95% confidence intervals [0.33–0.86]; high certainty) were significantly associated with lower short‐term mortality compared with usual care, whereas central venous oxygen saturation‐guided therapy (risk ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence intervals [1.16–1.94]; moderate certainty) increased the risk of short‐term mortality compared with lactate‐guided therapy. Conclusions Lactate or capillary refill time‐guided initial resuscitation for sepsis/septic shock patients may decrease short‐term mortality. More research is essential to personalize and optimize treatment strategies for septic shock resuscitation

Additional file 1 of Comparison of certainty of evidence between the net benefit approach and the traditional GRADE method using the data of Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020

Additional file 1: Figure S1. Steps to determining the certainty of the net effect estimate. Figure S2. Patterns of change in certainty of evidence (CoE) between the traditional method and the net benefit approach by clinical question. Table S1. The details of the included Clinical Questions

Additional file 2 of Comparison of certainty of evidence between the net benefit approach and the traditional GRADE method using the data of Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020

Additional file 2.  Utility tool for the net benefit approach

External validation of the rCAST for patients after in-hospital cardiac arrest: a multicenter retrospective observational study

Abstract No established predictive or risk classification tool exists for the neurological outcomes of post-cardiac arrest syndrome (PCAS) in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). This study aimed to investigate whether the revised post-cardiac arrest syndrome for therapeutic hypothermia score (rCAST), which was developed to estimate the prognosis of PCAS patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), was applicable to patients with IHCA. A retrospective, multicenter observational study of 140 consecutive adult IHCA patients admitted to three intensive care units. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the rCAST for poor neurological outcome and mortality at 30 days were 0.88 (0.82–0.93) and 0.83 (0.76–0.89), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the risk classification according to rCAST for poor neurological outcomes were 0.90 (0.83–0.96) and 0.67 (0.55–0.79) for the low, 0.63 (0.54–0.74) and 0.67 (0.55–0.79) for the moderate, and 0.27 (0.17–0.37) and 1.00 (1.00–1.00) for the high-severity grades. All 22 patients classified with a high-severity grade showed poor neurological outcomes. The rCAST showed excellent predictive accuracy for neurological prognosis in patients with PCAS after IHCA. The rCAST may be useful as a risk classification tool for PCAS after IHCA