4.6 Article

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 165-228

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8

Keywords

Sepsis; Severe sepsis; Septic shock; Sepsis syndrome; Infection; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria; GRADE; Guidelines; Evidence-based medicine; Surviving Sepsis Campaign; Sepsis bundles

Funding

  1. American Association of Critical-Care Nurses
  2. American College of Chest Physicians
  3. American College of Emergency Physicians
  4. American Thoracic Society
  5. Asia Pacific Association of Critical Care Medicine
  6. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society
  7. Brazilian Society of Critical Care
  8. Canadian Critical Care Society
  9. Chinese Society of Critical Care Medicine
  10. Chinese Society of Critical Care Medicine-China Medical Association
  11. Emirates Intensive Care Society
  12. European Respiratory Society
  13. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
  14. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine
  15. European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care
  16. Infectious Diseases Society of America
  17. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine
  18. International Pan Arabian Critical Care Medicine Society
  19. Japanese Association for Acute Medicine
  20. Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine
  21. Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators
  22. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
  23. Society of Critical Care Medicine
  24. Society of Hospital Medicine
  25. Surgical Infection Society
  26. World Federation of Critical Care Nurses
  27. World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies
  28. World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine
  29. Gordon and Betty Irene Moore Foundation
  30. Spectral Diagnostics Inc
  31. Ferring
  32. Eisai (Ocean State Clinical Coordinating Center)
  33. Novartis (Clinical Coordinating Center)
  34. Eisai
  35. Astra Zeneca
  36. Aggenix
  37. Inimex
  38. Atoxbio
  39. Wyeth
  40. Sirtris
  41. Cellular Bioengineering Inc.
  42. Sirius Genomics Inc
  43. Artisan Pharma
  44. Eisai, Corp
  45. Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S
  46. Hutchinson Technology Incorporated
  47. Novartis Corp
  48. Eisai Corporation
  49. Takeda
  50. Artisan Pharma/Asahi Kasei Pharma America Corp
  51. Eli Lilly
  52. Eli Lilly (PROWESS Shock site)
  53. Eisai (study site)
  54. National Institutes of Health (ARDS Network)
  55. Accelr8 (VAP diagnostics)
  56. CCCTG (Oscillate Study)
  57. Hospira (Dexmedetomidine in Alcohol Withdrawal RCT)
  58. National Institutes of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme-United Kingdom
  59. NIHR government
  60. ICNARC
  61. Eisai, Inc
  62. National Institutes of Health
  63. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  64. CIHR
  65. Advanced Lifeline System
  66. Siemens
  67. Bayer
  68. Byk Gulden
  69. AstraZeneca
  70. Faron Pharmaceuticals
  71. Cerus Corporation
  72. DHD
  73. Oxford University Press
  74. Hospira
  75. Cerner
  76. Pfizer
  77. KCI
  78. American Association for Respiratory Care
  79. BioMed Central
  80. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
  81. NHMRC project grant (ARISE RECT of EGDT)
  82. NHMRC project grant
  83. Fresinius
  84. RCT of steroid versus placebo for septic shock
  85. NHMRC project grant (BLISS study of bacteria detection by PRC in septic shock) Intensive Care Foundation-ANZ (BLING pilot RCT of betalactam administration by infusion)
  86. Hospira (SPICE programme of sedation delirium research
  87. NHMRC Centres for Research Excellent Grant
  88. Astellas
  89. Curacyte
  90. GlaxoSmithKline
  91. Merck

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To provide an update to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, last published in 2008. 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. 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. 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 a parts per thousand yen65 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 a parts per thousand currency sign100 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) < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose a parts per thousand currency sign180 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 absoluteaEuro (TM) adrenal insufficiency (2C). 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available