Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock in adults 2021 - endorsement by the Scandinavian society of anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rehn M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310818 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8486643 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7095153 | 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: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:The Clinical Practice Committee of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine endorses the Living WHO guideline on therapeutics and COVID-19. This trustworthy continuously updated guideline serves as a highly useful decision aid for Nordic anaesthesiologists caring for patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9111142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Clinical Practice Committee of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine endorses the clinical practice guideline Regional anaesthesia in patients on antithrombotic drugs - a joint ESAIC/ESRA guideline. This clinical practice guideline serves as a useful decision aid for Nordic anaesthesiologists providing regional anaesthesia to adult patients on antithrombotic drugs.
| S-EPMC9546463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to describe anesthesiologists' knowledge of and compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines in the perioperative management of patients with sepsis in China. We designed a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey. We sent out online questionnaires during 2019 to evaluate whether anesthesiologists in China were familiar with and applied SSC guidelines in perioperative management. We also compared anesthesiologists' knowledge of and compliance with the guidelines among different levels of hospital. In this study, we obtained 971 responses from anesthesiology departments across China. The survey responses showed that 39.0% of anesthesiologists rated their knowledge of the SSC guidelines as being "very familiar" or at least "somewhat familiar." In total, 68.9% of respondents chose "Initial fluid resuscitation followed by frequent hemodynamic reassessment" as their therapy strategy for patients with septic shock; 62.0% of anesthesiologists chose lactate as a marker of initial resuscitation in clinical practice, and 39.1% thought bundle therapy needed to be started within 1 hour of sepsis diagnosis. A total of 37.1% and 27.1% of respondents chose hydroxyethyl starches and gelatins, respectively, as the preferred fluids for septic shock. As the first choice of vasopressors in patients with sepsis, 727 (74.9%) anesthesiologists chose the correct answer (norepinephrine). Anesthesiologists from tertiary hospitals (class A) had greater familiarity and compliance with the SSC guidelines than those from other hospitals (P < 0.001). In summary, anesthesiologists in China have some knowledge of the SSC guidelines and tend to practice in keeping with these guidelines. However, for some items, anesthesiologists are not up to date with the latest version of the SSC guidelines. The popularity of these guidelines is not homogenous among different levels of hospital. Anesthesiologists must strengthen their knowledge of the SSC guidelines and update their practice in a regular and timely manner, especially in other tertiary and primary hospitals.
| S-EPMC8481065 | 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