The action for survival in sepsis: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2021 yr.

S. D. Shapoval

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26779/2522-1396.2021.7-8.74

2021-11-28

Klinicheskaia khirurgiia

Abstract:The action for survival in sepsis: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2021 yr.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Andrew Rhodes,Laura E. Evans,Waleed Alhazzani,Mitchell M. Levy,Massimo Antonelli,Ricard Ferrer,Anand Kumar,Jonathan E. Sevransky,Charles L. Sprung,Mark E. Nunnally,Bram Rochwerg,Gordon D. Rubenfeld,Derek C. Angus,Djillali Annane,Richard J. Beale,Geoffrey J. Bellinghan,Gordon R. Bernard,Jean-Daniel Chiche,Craig Coopersmith,Daniel P. De Backer,Craig J. French,Seitaro Fujishima,Herwig Gerlach,Jorge Luis Hidalgo,Steven M. Hollenberg,Alan E. Jones,Dilip R. Karnad,Ruth M. Kleinpell,Younsuk Koh,Thiago Costa Lisboa,Flavia R. Machado,John J. Marini,John C. Marshall,John E. Mazuski,Lauralyn A. McIntyre,Anthony S. McLean,Sangeeta Mehta,Rui P. Moreno,John Myburgh,Paolo Navalesi,Osamu Nishida,Tiffany M. Osborn,Anders Perner,Colleen M. Plunkett,Marco Ranieri,Christa A. Schorr,Maureen A. Seckel,Christopher W. Seymour,Lisa Shieh,Khalid A. Shukri,Steven Q. Simpson,Mervyn Singer,B. Taylor Thompson,Sean R. Townsend,Thomas Van der Poll,Jean-Louis Vincent,W. Joost Wiersinga,Janice L. Zimmerman,R. Phillip Dellinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6

IF: 38.9

2017-01-18

Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract:ObjectiveTo provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”.DesignA 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsSubstantial 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.

critical care medicine
[Update of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines 2021-What is new?]

Josef Briegel,Patrick Möhnle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-022-01087-x

Abstract:The revised and redefined "International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021" of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign were published on 4 October 2021. As in the previous version from 2016, the focus of these international guidelines is on the diagnosis and acute treatment measures in sepsis. The topics long-term outcome and treatment targets for rehabilitation are extensively discussed and accompanied by specific recommendations. These recommendations and the underlying studies reflect the increasing awareness about the long-term consequences of severe diseases requiring intensive medical care. This article summarizes the updates in a clearly comprehensible form.
[SSC International Guideline 2016 - Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock]

Tim Rahmel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-114639

Abstract:The new guideline of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign was revised in 2016 and presented in 2017. Furthermore, "Sepsis-3" in 2016 completely changed the definition of Sepsis from inflammation plus infection to a "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response". To cope with the great challenge to unite the new evidence of sepsis treatment with the new definition of sepsis, the guidelines have been completely reconstructed and comprehensively deal with new evidence. The guidelines discuss sepsis-specific treatment and provide recommendations on general measures of intensive care for sepsis. The article summarizes the most important recommendations and additionally discusses some crucial amendments. This is intended to encourage the reader to incorporate the new guideline into clinical practice, thus improving the prognosis of patients suffering from sepsis or septic shock.
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

Marius Rehn,Michelle S Chew,Klaus T Olkkola,Martin Ingi Sigurðsson,Arvi Yli-Hankala,Morten Hylander Møller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14045

Abstract: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.
CE: Managing Sepsis and Septic Shock: Current Guidelines and Definitions

Mary Beth Flynn Makic,Elizabeth Bridges

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000530223.33211.f5

Abstract:: Sepsis is a leading cause of critical illness and hospital mortality. Early recognition and intervention are essential for the survival of patients with this syndrome. In 2002, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) launched the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) to reduce overall patient morbidity and mortality from sepsis and septic shock by driving practice initiatives based on current best evidence. The SSC guidelines have been updated every four years, with the most recent update completed in 2016. The new guidelines have increased the focus on early identification of infection, risks for sepsis and septic shock, rapid antibiotic administration, and aggressive fluid resuscitation to restore tissue perfusion.In 2014, the SCCM and the ESICM convened a task force of specialists to reexamine the definitions of terms used to identify patients along the sepsis continuum. In 2016, this task force published the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). The new definitions and recommendations included tools, based on an updated understanding of the pathobiology of sepsis, that can be used to predict adverse outcomes in patients with infection.This article discusses the new SSC treatment guidelines, changes in the sepsis bundle interventions, and the Sepsis-3 definitions and tools, all of which enable nurses to improve patient outcomes through timely collaborative action.
The recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock: a guide for non-intensivists

Alexander Keeley,Paul Hine,Emmanuel Nsutebu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134519

2017-07-29

Postgraduate Medical Journal

Abstract:Sepsis is common, often fatal and requires rapid interventions to improve outcomes. While the optimal management of sepsis in the intensive care setting is the focus of extensive research interest, the mainstay of the recognition and initial management of sepsis will occur outside the intensive care setting. Therefore, it is key that institutions and clinicians remain well informed of the current updates in sepsis management and continue to use them to deliver appropriate and timely interventions to enhance patient survival. This review discusses the latest updates in sepsis care including the new consensus definition of sepsis, the outcome of the proCESS, ProMISe and ARISE trials of early goal directed therapy (EGDT), and the most recent guidelines from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.

medicine, general & internal
[Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021, interpretation and expectation].

Yifen Zhang,Wei Huang,Ruiqiang Zheng,Ziqi Rong,Xiaoyun Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20211009-01442

2021-10-01

Abstract:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021 guidelines) was recently released. The guidelines summarized the evidences from literatures up to July 2019, and composed by 6 parts as "screening and early treatment", "infection", "hemodynamic management", "ventilation", "additional therapies" and "long-term outcomes and goals of care" with a total of 93 items and 99 recommendations. Compared with the 2016 guidelines (96 recommendations), although the total number of recommendations in the 2021 guidelines is similar, the number of "strong recommendations (recommend)" in 2021 guidelines has dropped significantly, as the number of "weak recommendations (suggest)" has increased significantly, and the level of the quality of evidence on which the recommendations are based has been significantly lowered. Furthermore, 2021 guidelines have also markedly deleted or simplified the recommendations regarding infection prevention, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treatment, nutritional support and so on. While, the most obvious improvement appears in the segment of "long-term outcomes and goals of care", in which the patients and their families could get help in term of determining their physical rehabilitation and discharge follow-up plans and formulating exact goals of care. 2021 guidelines did not adopt new and emerging therapies or treatments, such as metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), diaphragm protective ventilation, timing of initiating renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury, early mobility, endotoxin adsorption, tranexamic acid, E-medicine and telemedicine, big data and artificial intelligence and other new therapies. Collectively, it may suggest the 2021 guidelines tend to be conservative and simplified rather than fairly optimized and logicalized, which may arouse controversy in the future and affect clinician compliance.

Medicine
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

R Phillip Dellinger,Mitchell M Levy,Jean M Carlet,Julian Bion,Margaret M Parker,Roman Jaeschke,Konrad Reinhart,Derek C Angus,Christian Brun-Buisson,Richard Beale,Thierry Calandra,Jean-Francois Dhainaut,Herwig Gerlach,Maurene Harvey,John J Marini,John Marshall,Marco Ranieri,Graham Ramsay,Jonathan Sevransky,B Taylor Thompson,Sean Townsend,Jeffrey S Vender,Janice L Zimmerman,Jean-Louis Vincent,International Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee,American Association of Critical-Care Nurses,American College of Chest Physicians,American College of Emergency Physicians,Canadian Critical Care Society,European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases,European Society of Intensive Care Medicine,European Respiratory Society,International Sepsis Forum,Japanese Association for Acute Medicine,Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine,Society of Critical Care Medicine,Society of Hospital Medicine,Surgical Infection Society,World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000298158.12101.41

Abstract: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 Grades of Recommendation, 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. 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 before 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 > or = 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 postoperative 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 < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). 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); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). Conclusions: 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.
Summary of the 2016 International Surviving Sepsis Campaign: A Clinician's Guide

Kendra M Barrier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnc.2018.04.001

Abstract:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016 provides updated recommendations, rationales, and evidence tables for best care of patients with sepsis. "Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Septic shock (sepsis-3) is a subset of sepsis with circulatory and cellular/metabolic dysfunction associated with a higher risk of mortality than with sepsis alone." Sepsis and septic shock are major health care problems, affecting millions of people around the world each year. Early identification and management of sepsis and septic shock in the initial hours after sepsis develops, improves outcomes.
What is new and different in the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines

Hallie C Prescott,Marlies Ostermann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-023-01028-5

Abstract:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock provide recommendations on the care of hospitalized adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis. This review discusses what is new or different in the 2021 SSC adult sepsis guidelines compared to 2016. The guidelines include new weak recommendations for use of balanced fluid over saline 0.9%, use of intravenous corticosteroids for septic shock when there is ongoing vasopressor requirement, and peripheral initiation of intravenous vasopressors over delaying initiation in order to obtain central venous access. As before, there is a strong recommendation to initiate antimicrobials within 1 h of sepsis and septic shock, but there are now additional recommendations when the diagnosis is uncertain. The recommendation for initial fluid resuscitation in septic shock of 30 mL/kg crystalloid has been downgraded from strong to weak. Finally, there are 12 new recommendations addressing long-term outcomes from sepsis, including strong recommendations to screen for economic and social support and to make referrals for follow-up where available; use shared decision-making in post-intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge planning; reconcile medications at both ICU and hospital discharge; provide information about sepsis and its sequelae in written and verbal hospital discharge summary; and to provide assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge.
Surviving Sepsis after Burn Campaign.

David G. Greenhalgh,David M. Hill,David M. Burmeister,Eduardo I. Gus,Heather Cleland,Alex Padiglione,Dane Holden,Fredrik Huss,Michelle S. Chew,John C. Kubasiak,Aidan Burrell,William Manzanares,Maria Chacon Gomez,Yuya Yoshimura,Folke Sjoberg,Wei-Guo Xie,Paula Egipto,Athina Lavrentieva,Arpana Jain,Ariel Miranda-Altamirano,Ed Raby,Ignacio Aramendi,Soman Sen,Kevin K. Chung,Renata Jennifer Quintana Alvarez,Chunmao Han,Asako Matsushima,Moustafa Elmasry,Yan Liu,Carlos Segovia Donoso,Alberto Bolgiani,Laura S. Johnson,Luiz Philipe Molina Vana,Rosario Valdez Duval de Romero,Nikki Allorto,Gerald Abesamis,Virginia Nunez Luna,Alfredo Gragnani,Carolina Bonilla Gonzalez,Hugo Basilico,Fiona Wood,James Jeng,Andrew Li,Mervyn Singer,Gaoxing Luo,Tina Palmieri,Steven Kahn,Victor Joe,Robert Cartotto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2023.05.003

IF: 2.609

2023-01-01

Burns

Abstract:Introduction: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign was developed to improve outcomes for all patients with sepsis. Despite sepsis being the primary cause of death after thermal injury, burns have always been excluded from the Surviving Sepsis efforts. To improve sepsis outcomes in burn patients, an international group of burn experts developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign (SSABC) as a testable guideline to improve burn sepsis outcomes. Methods: The International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) reached out to regional or na-tional burn organizations to recommend members to participate in the program. Two members of the ISBI developed specific "patient/population, intervention, comparison and out-come" (PICO) questions that paralleled the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign [1]. SSABC parti-cipants were asked to search the current literature and rate its quality for each topic. At the Congress of the ISBI, in Guadalajara, Mexico, August 28, 2022, a majority of the participants met to create "statements" based on the literature. The "summary statements" were then sent to all members for comment with the hope of developing an 80% consensus. After four reviews, a consensus statement for each topic was created or "no consensus" was reported. Results: The committee developed sixty statements within fourteen topics that provide guidance for the early treatment of sepsis in burn patients. These statements should be used to improve the care of sepsis in burn patients. The statements should not be considered as "static" comments but should rather be used as guidelines for future testing of the best treatments for in burn should be on a basis. Conclusion: Members of the burn community from the around the world have developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign guidelines with the goal of improving the outcome of sepsis in burn patients. (c) 2023 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.
Update in sepsis guidelines: what is really new?

Rebecca Plevin,Rachael Callcut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2017-000088

2017-09-01

Abstract:Sepsis remains a highly lethal entity resulting in more than 200 000 deaths in the USA each year. The in-hospital mortality approaches 30% despite advances in critical care during the last several decades. The direct health care costs in the USA exceed $24 billion dollars annually and continue to escalate each year especially as the population ages. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign published their initial clinical practice guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock in 2004. Updated versions were published in 2008, 2012 and most recently in 2016 following the convening of the Third International Consensus Definitions Task Force. This task force was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine to address prior criticisms of the multiple definitions used clinically for sepsis-related illnesses. In the 2016 guidelines, sepsis is redefined by the taskforce as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. In addition to using the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to more rapidly identify patients with sepsis, the task force also proposed a novel scoring system to rapidly screen for patients outside the ICU who are at risk of developing sepsis: the 'quickSOFA' (qSOFA) score. To date, the largest reductions in mortality have been associated with early identification of sepsis, initiation of a 3-hour care bundle and rapid administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. The lack of progress in mortality reduction in sepsis treatment despite extraordinary investment of research resources underscores the variability in patients with sepsis. No single solution is likely to be universally beneficial, and sepsis continues to be an entity that should receive high priority for the development of precision health approaches for treatment.
Nursing Implications of the Updated 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines

Christa A Schorr,Maureen A Seckel,Elizabeth Papathanassoglou,Ruth Kleinpell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2022324

2022-07-01

Abstract:Sepsis is a life-threatening illness that affects millions of people worldwide. Early recognition and timely treatment are essential for decreasing mortality from sepsis. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021, the fifth iteration of the guidelines, was released in October 2021 and includes 93 recommendations for the management of sepsis. The evidence-based guidelines include recommendations and rationales for screening and early treatment, initial resuscitation, mean arterial pressure targets, admission to intensive care, management of infection, hemodynamic monitoring, ventilation, and additional therapies. A new section addresses long-term outcomes and goals of care. This article presents several recommendations, changes, and updates in the 2021 guidelines and highlights the important contributions nurses have in delivering timely and evidence-based care to patients with sepsis. Recommendations may be for or against an intervention, according to the evidence. Although many recommendations are unchanged, several new recommendations directly affect nursing care and may require specialized training (eg, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). The newest section, long-term outcomes and goals of care, is aimed at using available resources to provide care that is aligned with the patient and the patient's family through goals-of-care discussions and shared decision-making. Interventions aimed at improving recovery across the continuum of care should include attention to long-term outcomes. Nurses are essential in identifying patients with sepsis, administering and assessing response to treatment, supporting the patient and family, and limiting sequelae from sepsis. This article highlights the 2021 recommendations that influence nursing care for patients with sepsis.
Update of Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit

Kelly Roveran Genga,James A. Russell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000477419

2017-01-01

Journal of Innate Immunity

Abstract:Sepsis, the most common cause of admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), has had an increased incidence and prevalence over the last years with a simultaneous decrease in its short-term mortality. Sepsis survivors are more frequently discharged from hospital and often experience long-term outcomes such as late mortality, immune dysfunction, secondary infections, impaired quality of life, and unplanned readmissions. Early recognition and management of sepsis have challenged emergency care and critical care physicians and nurses. New sepsis definitions were produced and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) 2016 was updated recently. Although hospital readmissions after sepsis are common, associated risk factors and how to manage patients who survive an episode of sepsis still need clarification. The immune dysfunction caused by sepsis/septic shock is complex, persistent, affects inflammatory and anti-inflammatory systems, and might be associated with long-term outcomes of sepsis. Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) that analyzed new (and old) interventions in sepsis/septic shock are discussed in this review in parallel with the SSC 2016 recommendations and other guidelines when relevant. RCTs addressing incidence, treatment, and prevention of important sepsis-associated organ dysfunction such as the acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and brain dysfunction are highlighted. Finally, we briefly discuss the need for novel targets, predictive biomarkers, and new designs of RCTs in sepsis.

immunology
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Sepsis and Septic Shock

Craig M Coopersmith,Daniel De Backer,Clifford S Deutschman,Ricard Ferrer,Ishaq Lat,Flavia R Machado,Greg S Martin,Ignacio Martin-Loeches,Mark E Nunnally,Massimo Antonelli,Laura E Evans,Judith Hellman,Sameer Jog,Jozef Kesecioglu,Mitchell M Levy,Andrew Rhodes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225

Abstract:Objective: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock. Design: A 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. Methods: Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/CCM/D636) 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. Results: The 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? Conclusions: While 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.
Early Management of Sepsis with Emphasis on Early Goal Directed Therapy: AME Evidence Series 002

Zhongheng Zhang,Yucai Hong,Nathan J. Smischney,Han-Pin Kuo,Panagiotis Tsirigotis,Jordi Rello,Win Sen Kuan,Christian Jung,Chiara Robba,Fabio Silvio Taccone,Marc Leone,Herbert Spapen,David Grimaldi,Sven Van Poucke,Steven Q. Simpson,Patrick M. Honore,Stefan Hofer,Pietro Caironi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.02.10

2021-01-01

Elements

Abstract:Severe sepsis and septic shock are major causes of morbidity and mortality in patients entering the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU). Despite substantial efforts to improve patient outcome, treatment of sepsis remains challenging to clinicians. In this context, early goal directed therapy (EGDT) represents an important concept emphasizing both early recognition of sepsis and prompt initiation of a structured treatment algorithm. As part of the AME evidence series on sepsis, we conducted a systematic review of all randomized controlled EGDT trials. Focus was laid on the setting (emergency department versus ICU) where EGDT was carried out. Early recognition of sepsis, through clinical or automated systems for early alert, together with well-timed initiation of the recommended therapy bundles may improve patients’ outcome. However, the original “EGDT” protocol by Rivers and coworkers has been largely modified in subsequent trials. Currently, many investigators opt for an “expanded” EGDT (as suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign). Evidence is also presented on the effectiveness of automated systems for early sepsis alert. Early recognition of sepsis and well-timed initiation of the SSC bundle may improve patient outcome.
International critical care nursing considerations and quality indicators for the 2017 surviving sepsis campaign guidelines

Ruth Kleinpell,Stijn Blot,Carole Boulanger,Paul Fulbrook,Bronagh Blackwood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05780-1

IF: 38.9

2019-09-18

Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract:Dear Editor,Internationally, sepsis remains a complex condition with high mortality rates for critically ill patients. With the associated high resource use in developed and developing countries, early recognition and treatment have become a global priority area of focus for critical care [1].

critical care medicine
SEPSIS DEFINITION: WHAT'S NEW IN THE TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Ivana Srzić,Višnja Nesek Adam,Darinka Tunjić Pejak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2022.61.s1.11

Abstract:Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by an unregulated response of a host. Septic shock is its most severe form. It is manifested by a drop in blood pressure, which decreases tissue perfusion pressure, causing hypoxia that is characteristic of shock. Sepsis is still one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Its incidence has increased since the first consensus definitions were established in 1991. Raising sepsis awareness, its significance and the need for better treatment, has led to an improvement in in defining sepsis and the development of guidelines for its treatment. The first guidelines were published in 2004, the second 2008, the third 2013, the fourth 2016, and the last revised guidelines appeared in 2021. This paper will describe the previous and new definitions of sepsis and septic shock, the previous guidelines for the recognition and treatment, and the latest recommendations for treatment. Timely diagnosis is crucial for the outcomes for patients with sepsis and septic shock. The fact is that the sepsis care bundles have been modified to increasingly shorter time determinants, which emphasizes the importance of emergency physicians, who frequently first recognize and begin emergency treatment of septic patients.
Management of sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department

Francesco Gavelli,Luigi Mario Castello,Gian Carlo Avanzi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-021-02735-7

2021-04-22

Internal and Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Early management of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for patients’ prognosis. As the Emergency Department (ED) is the place where the first medical contact for septic patients is likely to occur, emergency physicians play an essential role in the early phases of patient management, which consists of accurate initial diagnosis, resuscitation, and early antibiotic treatment. Since the issuing of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in 2016, several studies have been published on different aspects of sepsis management, adding a substantial amount of new information on the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis and septic shock. In light of this emerging evidence, the present narrative review provides a comprehensive account of the recent advances in septic patient management in the ED.

medicine, general & internal

The action for survival in sepsis: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2021 yr.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

[Update of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines 2021-What is new?]

[SSC International Guideline 2016 - Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock]

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

CE: Managing Sepsis and Septic Shock: Current Guidelines and Definitions

The recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock: a guide for non-intensivists

[Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021, interpretation and expectation].

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

Summary of the 2016 International Surviving Sepsis Campaign: A Clinician's Guide

What is new and different in the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines

Surviving Sepsis after Burn Campaign.

Update in sepsis guidelines: what is really new?

Nursing Implications of the Updated 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines

Update of Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Sepsis and Septic Shock

Early Management of Sepsis with Emphasis on Early Goal Directed Therapy: AME Evidence Series 002

International critical care nursing considerations and quality indicators for the 2017 surviving sepsis campaign guidelines

SEPSIS DEFINITION: WHAT'S NEW IN THE TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Management of sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department