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

Detecting unilateral phrenic paralysis by acoustic respiratory analysis

The consequences of phrenic nerve paralysis vary from a considerable reduction in respiratory function to an apparently normal state. Acoustic analysis of lung sound intensity (LSI) could be an indirect non-invasive measurement of respiratory muscle function, comparing activity on the two sides of the thoracic cage. Lung sounds and airflow were recorded in ten males with unilateral phrenic paralysis and ten healthy subjects (5 men/5 women), during progressive increasing airflow maneuvers. Subjects were in sitting position and two acoustic sensors were placed on their back, on the left and right sides. LSI was determined from 1.2 to 2.4 L/s between 70 and 2000 Hz. LSI was significantly greater on the normal (19.3±4.0 dB) than the affected (5.7±3.5 dB) side in all patients (p = 0.0002), differences ranging from 9.9 to 21.3 dB (13.5±3.5 dB). In the healthy subjects, the LSI was similar on both left (15.1±6.3 dB) and right (17.4±5.7 dB) sides (p = 0.2730), differences ranging from 0.4 to 4.6 dB (2.3±1.6 dB). There was a positive linear relationship between the LSI and the airflow, with clear differences between the slope of patients (about 5 dB/L/s) and healthy subjects (about 10 dB/L/s). Furthermore, the LSI from the affected side of patients was close to the background noise level, at low airflows. As the airflow increases, the LSI from the affected side did also increase, but never reached the levels seen in healthy subjects. Moreover, the difference in LSI between healthy and paralyzed sides was higher in patients with lower FEV1 (%). The acoustic analysis of LSI is a relevant non-invasive technique to assess respiratory function. This method could reinforce the reliability of the diagnosis of unilateral phrenic paralysis, as well as the monitoring of these patients.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version