Surviving severe sepsis – early recognition and treatment

Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 2003

At the European Intensive Care Conference in Barcelona in October 2002 there was a plea to increase global awareness about severe sepsis. At the conference the 'Barcelona Declaration' was launched as the debut initiative of the newly formed "surviving sepsis" campaign. The campaign brings together, for the first time, three professional organisations in the field of sepsis: the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the International Sepsis Forum. The Barcelona Declaration urges governments and healthcare providers to recognise the growing burden of sepsis and commit to providing adequate resources to combat it (http://www.survivingsepsis.org). As everyone working in Intensive Care is aware sepsis remains a major challenge and a major cause of mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that 1400 people die worldwide each day from sepsis. The following paper outlines the epidemiology and current knowledge about the pathophysiology of the sepsis syndrome and the challenge for its management.

2019

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign develops and promotes evidence-based guidelines and performance-improvement practices aimed at reducing deaths from sepsis worldwide. The most recent guidelines, published in 2013, provide detailed management strategies for acute care, fl uid resuscitation, and vasopressor use. In addition, the campaign has developed simple, short protocols for what to do within 3 and 6 hours of recognition of sepsis. These protocols are associated with reduced mortality rates. KEY POINTS Ideally, intravenous antibiotic therapy should start within the fi rst hour after sepsis is recognized; performance improvement protocols set a target of within 3 hours. A specifi c source of infection that requires source control measures should be sought, diagnosed or excluded, and if located, treated as rapidly as possible. Crystalloids should be used for initial fl uid resuscitation. Adding an albumin-based solution is suggested for patients who require substantial amounts of crystalloids. Vasopressors are indicated for those who remain hypotensive despite fl uid resuscitation. Norepinephrine should be used initially, and if the target mean arterial pressure cannot be achieved, then epinephrine or low-dose vasopressin is added. Corticosteroids should be considered only for patients who remain unstable despite adequate fl uid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.

Intensive Care Medicine, 2008

Objective To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004. Design Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. Methods We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation [1] indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations [2] indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. Results Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7–10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7–9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). Conclusion There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

shock (27). The specific components of performance improvement did not appear to be as important as the presence of a program that included sepsis screening and metrics. Sepsis screening tools are designed to promote early identification of sepsis and consist of manual methods or automated use of the electronic health record (EHR). There is wide variation in diagnostic accuracy of these tools with most having poor predictive values, although the use of some was associated with improvements in care processes (28-31). A variety of clinical variables and tools are used for sepsis screening, such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, vital signs, signs of infection, quick Sequential Organ Failure Score (qSOFA) or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) (26, 32). Machine learning may improve performance of screening tools, and in a meta-analysis of 42,623 patients from seven studies for predicting hospital acquired sepsis the pooled area under the receiving operating curve (SAUROC) (0.89; 95% CI, 0.86−0.92); sensitivity (81%; 95% CI, 80−81), and specificity (72%; 95% CI, 72−72) was higher for machine learning than the SAUROC for traditional screening tools such as SIRS (0.70), MEWS (0.50), and SOFA (0.78) (32). Screening tools may target patients in various locations, such as in-patient wards, emergency departments, or ICUs (28-30, 32). A pooled analysis of three RCTs did not demonstrate a mortality benefit of active screening (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51−1.58) (33-35). However, while there is wide variation in sensitivity and specificity of sepsis screening tools, they are an important component of identifying sepsis early for timely intervention. Standard operating procedures are a set of practices that specify a preferred response to specific clinical circumstances (36). Sepsis standard operating procedures, initially specified as Early Goal Directed Therapy have evolved to "usual care" which includes a standard approach with components of the sepsis bundle, early identification, lactate, cultures, antibiotics, and fluids (37). A large study examined the association between implementation of state-mandated sepsis protocols, compliance, and mortality. A retrospective cohort study of 1,012,410 sepsis admissions to 509 hospitals in the United States in a retrospective cohort examined mortality before (27 months) and after (30 months) implementation of New York state sepsis regulations, with a concurrent control population from four other states (38). In this comparative interrupted time series, mortality was lower in hospitals with higher compliance with achieving the sepsis bundles successfully. Lower resource countries may experience a different effect. A meta-analysis of two RCTs in Sub-Saharan Africa found higher mortality (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00−1.58) with standard operating procedures compared with usual care, while it was decreased in one observational study (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]; 95% CI, 0.55−0.98) (39).

Objectives: To provide a series of recommendations based on the best available evidence to guide clinicians providing nursing care to patients with severe sepsis. Design: Modified Delphi method involving international experts and key individuals in subgroup work and electronic-based discussion among the entire group to achieve consensus. Methods: We used the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines as a framework to inform the structure and content of these guidelines. We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to rate the quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations, with grade 1 indicating clear benefit in the septic population and grade 2 indicating less confidence in the benefits in the septic population. In areas without complete agreement between all authors, a process of electronic discussion of all evidence was undertaken until consensus was reached. This process was conducted independently of any funding. Results: Sixty-three recommendations relating to the nursing care of severe sepsis patients are made. Prevention recommendations relate to education, accountability, surveillance of nosocomial infections, hand hygiene, and prevention of respiratory, central line-related, surgical site, and urinary tract infections, whereas infection management recommendations related to both control of the infection source and transmission-based precautions. Recommendations related to initial resuscitation include improved recognition of the deteriorating patient, diagnosis of severe sepsis, seeking further assistance, and initiating early resuscitation measures. Important elements of hemodynamic support relate to improving both tissue oxygenation and macrocirculation. Recommendations related to supportive nursing care incorporate aspects of nutrition, mouth and eye care, and pressure ulcer prevention and management. Pediatric recommendations relate to the use of antibiotics, steroids, vasopressors and inotropes, fluid resuscitation, sedation and analgesia, and the role of therapeutic end points. Conclusion: Consensus was reached regarding many aspects of nursing care of the severe sepsis patient. Despite this, there is an urgent need for further evidence to better inform this area of critical care.

Critical Care Medicine, 2001

To determine the incidence, cost, and outcome of severe sepsis in the United States. Observational cohort study. All nonfederal hospitals (n = 847) in seven U.S. states. All patients (n = 192,980) meeting criteria for severe sepsis based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. None. We linked all 1995 state hospital discharge records (n = 6,621,559) from seven large states with population and hospital data from the U.S. Census, the Centers for Disease Control, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the American Hospital Association. We defined severe sepsis as documented infection and acute organ dysfunction using criteria based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. We validated these criteria against prospective clinical and physiologic criteria in a subset of five hospitals. We generated national age- and gender-adjusted estimates of incidence, cost, and outcome. We identified 192,980 cases, yielding national estimates of 751,000 cases (3.0 cases per 1,000 population and 2.26 cases per 100 hospital discharges), of whom 383,000 (51.1%) received intensive care and an additional 130,000 (17.3%) were ventilated in an intermediate care unit or cared for in a coronary care unit. Incidence increased >100-fold with age (0.2/1,000 in children to 26.2/1,000 in those >85 yrs old). Mortality was 28.6%, or 215,000 deaths nationally, and also increased with age, from 10% in children to 38.4% in those >85 yrs old. Women had lower age-specific incidence and mortality, but the difference in mortality was explained by differences in underlying disease and the site of infection. The average costs per case were $22,100, with annual total costs of $16.7 billion nationally. Costs were higher in infants, nonsurvivors, intensive care unit patients, surgical patients, and patients with more organ failure. The incidence was projected to increase by 1.5% per annum. Severe sepsis is a common, expensive, and frequently fatal condition, with as many deaths annually as those from acute myocardial infarction. It is especially common in the elderly and is likely to increase substantially as the U.S. population ages.

Intensive Care Medicine, 2021

BMC Medicine, 2015

Sepsis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality if not promptly recognized and treated. Since the development of early goal-directed therapy, mortality rates have decreased, but sepsis remains a major cause of death in patients arriving at the emergency department or staying in hospital. In this forum article, we asked clinicians and researchers with expertise in sepsis care to discuss the importance of rapid detection and treatment of the condition, as well as special considerations in different patient groups.

Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine, 2012

Severe sepsis is a heterogeneous condition affecting multiple organ systems, and is commonly encountered in the hospital setting due to both community and nosocomial infections. The incidence of severe sepsis has increased over the past decades, and mortality remains alarmingly high. Management of the septic patient involves rapid evaluation and prompt initiation of both supportive and specific therapies. Such patients commonly require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for invasive monitoring and haemodynamic support. Resuscitation, early initiation of broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy and source control remain the cornerstones of therapy. Controversy persists about the roles and benefits of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), corticosteroids and the advantage of albumin over saline as resuscitation fluid. This review summarizes the contemporary evidence regarding diagnostic and treatment strategies of severe sepsis, with emphasis on patients in critical care settings.

Critical care (London, England), 2004

Three new articles in Critical Care add to an expanding body of information on the epidemiology of severe sepsis. Although there have been a range of approaches to estimate the incidence of severe sepsis, most studies report severe sepsis in about 10 +/- 4% of ICU patients with a population incidence of 1 +/- 0.5 cases per 1000. Importantly, the availability of ICU services may well determine the number of treated cases of severe sepsis, and it seems clear that these studies are reporting the treated incidence, not the incidence, of severe sepsis. In the future, we must focus on whether all severe sepsis should be treated, and, consequently, what level of ICU services is optimal.

B23. OUTCOMES, HEALTH SERVICES AND PATIENT-CENTERED RESEARCH IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT, 2012

To decrease mortality from severe sepsis the Surviving Sepsis Campaign put forth multiple recommendations, some of which have been incorporated into a six-hour resuscitation bundle and a 24-hour management bundle 1,2. However, compliance with these guidelines remains poor in many countries 2-5. Many of these recommendations were based upon the results of randomised controlled trials of various clinical protocols. These include protocols for early goal-directed therapy for haemodynamic derangement 6 , glucose control 7 , lung-protective ventilation 8 , weaning from ventilatory support 9 and sedation management 10,11. To increase adherence to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, there have been efforts by intensive care units (ICU) to implement protocols derived from the randomised controlled trial setting 12. To date, however, the impact of clinical protocols on real world practice and outcomes remains unclear. Multiple barriers to adherence to evidence-based protocols exist, including clinician knowledge, attitudes and behaviour 13. Various approaches have been employed to mount these barriers, including

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.

Critical care (London, England), 2002

Considerable progress has been made in the past few years in the development of therapeutic interventions that can reduce mortality in sepsis. However, encouraging physicians to put the results of new studies into practice is not always simple. A roundtable was thus convened to provide guidance for clinicians on the integration and implementation of new interventions into the intensive care unit (ICU). Five topics were selected that have been shown in randomized, controlled trials to reduce mortality: limiting the tidal volume in acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome, early goal-directed therapy, use of drotrecogin alfa (activated), use of moderate doses of steroids, and tight control of blood sugar. One of the principal investigators for each study was invited to participate in the roundtable. The discussions and questions that followed the presentation of data by each panel member enabled a consensus recommendation to be derived regarding when each intervention ...

Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 2020

Sepsis is life-threatening and might potentially progress from dysregulation to severe organ dysfunction. It is recognised by the World Health Organisation as a global health priority. The mortality rate for sepsis has decreased in many countries, and this is credited to the earlier recognition and treatment of this complex syndrome. In 2002, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign was launched, and there have been several revisions to the sepsis recommendations therefrom. The latest sepsis guidelines focus on viral as well as bacterial infections, and advise that initiating resuscitation and management should take place within one hour from when sepsis is initially suspected. Numerous studies and guidelines pertaining to sepsis management have been published over the past 2 decades. The use of novel therapies and alternative adjunctive therapies has tremendous potential in sepsis management. Debates amongst intensivists exist with the creation of updated sepsis guidelines and advances in tre...