Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dellinger RP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7095153 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012.
Dellinger R P RP Levy Mitchell M MM Rhodes Andrew A Annane Djillali D Gerlach Herwig H Opal Steven M SM Sevransky Jonathan E JE Sprung Charles L CL Douglas Ivor S IS Jaeschke Roman R Osborn Tiffany M TM Nunnally Mark E ME Townsend Sean R SR Reinhart Konrad K Kleinpell Ruth M RM Angus Derek C DC Deutschman Clifford S CS Machado Flavia R FR Rubenfeld Gordon D GD Webb Steven S Beale Richard J RJ Vincent Jean-Louis JL Moreno Rui R
Intensive care medicine 20130130 2
<h4>Objective</h4>To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.<h4>Design</h4>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. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8486643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.DesignA panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.MethodsThe panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.ResultsThe panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified.ConclusionsA large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.
| S-EPMC7095013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.MethodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?ConclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC7095388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Clinical Practice Committee of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine endorses the clinical practice guideline Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. The guideline serves as a useful bedside decision aid for clinicians managing adults with suspected and confirmed septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.
| S-EPMC9310818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC or "the Campaign") developed guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. A performance improvement initiative targeted changing clinical behavior (process improvement) via bundles based on key SSC guideline recommendations on process improvement and patient outcomes.Design and settingA multifaceted intervention to facilitate compliance with selected guideline recommendations in the ICU, ED, and wards of individual hospitals and regional hospital networks was implemented voluntarily in the US, Europe, and South America. Elements of the guidelines were "bundled" into two sets of targets to be completed within 6 h and within 24 h. An analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2008.Main resultsData from 15,022 subjects at 165 sites were analyzed to determine the compliance with bundle targets and association with hospital mortality. Compliance with the entire resuscitation bundle increased linearly from 10.9% in the first site quarter to 31.3% by the end of 2 years (P<0.0001). Compliance with the entire management bundle started at 18.4% in the first quarter and increased to 36.1% by the end of 2 years (P = 0.008). Compliance with all bundle elements increased significantly, except for inspiratory plateau pressure, which was high at baseline. Unadjusted hospital mortality decreased from 37 to 30.8% over 2 years (P = 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality improved the longer a site was in the Campaign, resulting in an adjusted absolute drop of 0.8% per quarter and 5.4% over 2 years (95% CI, 2.5-8.4%).ConclusionsThe Campaign was associated with sustained, continuous quality improvement in sepsis care. Although not necessarily cause and effect, a reduction in reported hospital mortality rates was associated with participation. The implications of this study may serve as an impetus for similar improvement efforts.
| S-EPMC2826633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Morbidity and mortality from sepsis remains unacceptably high. Large variability in clinical practice, plus the increasing awareness that certain processes of care associated with improved critical care outcomes, has led to the development of clinical practice guidelines in a variety of areas related to infection and sepsis. The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock were first published in 2004, revised in 2008, and recently revised again and published in 2013. The first part of this manuscript is a summary of the 2013 guidelines with some editorial comment. The second part of the manuscript characterizes hospital based sepsis performance improvement programs and highlights the sepsis bundles from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key component of such a program.
| S-EPMC3916373 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.MethodsWe formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy.ConclusionThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.
| S-EPMC7176264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.MethodsWe formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.ConclusionThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
| S-EPMC7101866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNighttime hospital admission is often associated with increased mortality risk in various diseases. This study investigated compliance rates with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) 3-h bundle for daytime and nighttime emergency department (ED) admissions and the clinical impact of compliance on mortality in patients with septic shock.MethodsWe conducted an observational study using data from a prospective, multicenter registry for septic shock provided by the Korean Shock Society from 11 institutions from November 2015 to December 2017. The outcome was the compliance rate with the SSC 3-h bundle according to the time of arrival in the ED.ResultsA total of 2049 patients were enrolled. Compared with daytime admission, nighttime admission was associated with higher compliance with the administration of antibiotics within 3 h (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR), 1.326; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.088-1.617, p = 0.005) and with the complete SSC bundle (adjOR, 1.368; 95% CI, 1.115-1.678; p = 0.003), likely to result from the increased volume of all patients and sepsis patients admitted during daytime hours. The hazard ratios of the completion of SSC bundle for 28-day mortality and in-hospital mortality were 0.750 (95% CI 0.590-0.952, p = 0.018) and 0.714 (95% CI 0.564-0.904, p = 0.005), respectively.ConclusionSeptic shock patients admitted to the ED during the daytime exhibited lower sepsis bundle compliance than those admitted at night. Both the higher number of admitted patients and the higher patients to medical staff ratio during daytime may be factors that are responsible for lowering the compliance.
| S-EPMC8832860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is suggested to be associated with higher mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock, yet the methods of diagnosis described in the literature are often inconsistent. The recently published 2016 American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) guidelines offer the opportunity to apply a simple pragmatic diagnostic algorithm for the detection of diastolic dysfunction; however, it has not been tested in this cohort. AIMS:We sought to assess the applicability in septic patients of recently published 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines on diastolic dysfunction compared with the 2009 ASE guidelines. Our hypothesis was that there would be poor agreement in classifying patients. METHODS:Prospective observational study includes patients identified as having severe sepsis and septic shock. Patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography on day 1 and day 3 of their ICU admission. Patients with normal and abnormal (ejection fraction < 52%) systolic function had their diastolic function stratified according to both the 2009 ASE and 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines. RESULTS:On day 1 echocardiography, of the 62 patients analysed, 37 (60%) had diastolic dysfunction according to the 2016 ASE/EACVI guideline with a further 23% having indeterminate diastolic function, compared to the 2009 ASE guidelines where only 13 (21%) had confirmed diastolic dysfunction with 46 (74%) having indeterminate diastolic dysfunction. On day 3, of the 55 patients studied, 22 patients (40%) were defined as having diastolic dysfunction, with 6 (11%) having indeterminate diastolic dysfunction according to the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines, compared to the 2009 guidelines where 11 (20%) were confirmed to have diastolic dysfunction and 41 (75%) had indeterminate diastolic function. Systolic dysfunction was identified in 18 of 62 patients (29%) on day 1 and 18 of 55 (33%) on day 3. These patients were classified as having abnormal diastolic function in 94 and 89% with the 2016 guidelines on day 1 and day 3, respectively, compared with 50 and 28% using the 2009 guidelines. The 2016 guidelines had less patients with indeterminate diastolic function on days 1 and 3 (11 and 6%) compared to the 2009 guidelines (50 and 72%). Normal systolic function was identified in 44 patients on day 1 and 37 on day 3. In this group, abnormal diastolic function was present in 45 and 54% on days 1 and 3 according to the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines, compared with 9 and 16% using the 2009 guidelines, respectively. In those with normal systolic function, the 2016 guidelines had less indeterminate patients with 30 and 16% on days 1 and 3, respectively, compared to 84 and 76% in the 2009 guidelines. CONCLUSION:The 2016 ASE/EACVI diastolic function guidelines identify a significantly higher incidence of dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock compared to the previous 2009 guidelines. Although the new guidelines seem to be an improvement, issues remain with the application of guidelines using traditional measures of diastolic dysfunction in this cohort.
| S-EPMC5736511 | biostudies-literature