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

Post-intensive care unit care. A qualitative analysis of patient priorities and implications for redesign

Rationale: Although survival during critical illness is improving, little evidence exists to guide post-intensive care unit (ICU) care. Understanding patients' needs and priorities is fundamental to improving care quality. Objectives: To describe the evolution of patients' priorities for recovery across the spectrum of post-ICU care. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of 39 semistructured interviews conducted from 2005 to 2006 in participants' homes 19 days to 11 years after hospital discharge after critical illness. Adult critical illness survivors (N = 39) aged 20 years or older from multiple ICUs across the United Kingdom were purposively selected to maximize diversity with respect to time since diagnosis, disease severity, sex, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic group/status, region. age, ICU admitting diagnoses, and length of stay. We used the method of qualitative description to characterize patients' priorities for recovery and their evolution within and between individual patients across three post-ICU periods: ICU transition to wards, early period (approximately the first 2 mo) after discharge to home, and late period (&gt;2 mo) after discharge to home. Results: The analysis revealed 12 core patient priorities during recovery: feeling safe, being comfortable, engaging in mobility, participating in self-care, asserting personhood, connecting with people, ensuring family well-being, going home, restoring psychological health, restoring physical health, resuming previous roles and routines, and seeking new life experiences. In general, priorities evolved from those pertaining to basic survival during the stay on wards to being broader and more aspirational by the late postdischarge period. Conclusions: Understanding patients' priorities for post-ICU care is critical for developing stakeholder-driven clinical guidelines. Engaging other stakeholders (e.g., family members, healthcare providers, and institutionalized and frail older adults) to inform the development of clinical guidelines for post-ICU care, together with the barriers and facilitators faced in achieving patient- and family-centered care, is an important next step.</p

Critical care rationing: international comparisons

Every country has finite resources that are expended to provide citizens with social "goods," including education, protection, infrastructure, and health care. Rationing-of any resource-refers to distribution of an allotted amount and may involve withholding some goods that would benefit some citizens. Health-care rationing is controversial because good health complements so many human endeavors. We explored (perceptions regarding) critical care rationing in seven industrialized countries. Academic physicians from England, Spain, Italy, France, Argentina, Canada, and the United States wrote essays that addressed specific questions including: (1) What historical, cultural, and medical institutional features inform my country's approach to rationing of health care? (2) What is known about formal rationing, especially in critical care, in my country? (3) How does rationing occur in my ICU? Responses suggest that critical care is rationed, by varying mechanisms, in all seven countries. We speculate that while no single "best" method of rationing is likely to be acceptable or optimal for all countries, professional societies could serve international health by developing evidence-based guidelines for just and effective rationing of critical car

I Don’t Want to Be the One Saying ‘We Should Just Let Him Die’: Intrapersonal Tensions Experienced by Surrogate Decision Makers in the ICU

BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies have addressed external factors associated with difficulty in surrogate decision making, intrapersonal sources of tension are an important element of decision making that have received little attention. OBJECTIVE: To characterize key intrapersonal tensions experienced by surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit (ICU), and explore associated coping strategies. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty surrogates from five ICUs at two hospitals in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who were actively involved in making life-sustaining treatment decisions for a critically ill loved one. APPROACH: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogates, focused on intrapersonal tensions, role challenges, and coping strategies. We analyzed transcripts using constant comparative methods. KEY RESULTS: Surrogates experience significant emotional conflict between the desire to act in accordance with their loved one’s values and 1) not wanting to feel responsible for a loved one’s death, 2) a desire to pursue any chance of recovery, and 3) the need to preserve family well-being. Associated coping strategies included 1) recalling previous discussions with a loved one, 2) sharing decisions with family members, 3) delaying or deferring decision making, 4) spiritual/religious practices, and 5) story-telling. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates’ struggle to reconcile personal and family emotional needs with their loved ones’ wishes, and utilize common coping strategies to combat intrapersonal tensions. These data suggest reasons surrogates may struggle to follow a strict substituted judgment standard. They also suggest ways clinicians may improve decision making, including attending to surrogates’ emotions, facilitating family decision making, and eliciting potential emotional conflicts and spiritual needs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2129-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users